Letters to the Editor

Medal mix-up
Photo raises cackles
Adverse reaction
Discharge a mistake
Dental bill a sore point
Premium rise a health shock
25 per cent hike

WRITE TO US

Medal mix-up

I REFER to the article in the April 7 edition of Army, news, on page 4, entitled “Star performance”.

The author (and the proofreader) need to go away and spend some time researching before they write. It took approx 0.39 seconds for Google to produce a link from the US Department of Defense on the Bronze Star.

Note that unless the award is issued with a V device for valour, it is nothing to do with “heroism”. While Maj Gunder has no doubt done an exceptional job in order to receive this award, it is for meritorious service, not heroism. This award is more like a CSC or CSM, or a commendation.

Misinformation like this cheapens the acts of those who have been awarded the Bronze Star with V for valour, or any other gallantry award.

This is the sort of failure to comprehend basic military information that I would expect in a local suburban paper, not the soldiers’ newspaper. It shows a lazy and slovenly approach which is not soldierly. Starting with a patently untrue statement might be good for a novel or a comic book, but simply damages the credibility and reputation of a publication which purports to convey fact.

Maj D.G. Jenkins
SO2 Joint CIS Operations
HQ JOC

TOP

Photo raises cackles

Uniform style: AHQ jacket model

Dr Evil in his natty outfit.

THANK you for providing a mix of serious article and caption competition (“New jacket trialled”, Army, April 21).

Is it true that the new style of jacket to be considered for wear with polys was modelled by Dr Evil and development has cost taxpayers “one meeellion dollars”?

Capt Tony Scott
HQ 16 Bde (Avn)
Gallipoli Barracks

TOP

Adverse reaction

I WAS reading the April 21 edition, only to be found a short time later rolling around on the office floor in hysterics.

The cause of my mirth was the article in Listening Post about the new “adverse weather” jacket for polyester uniform under consideration. Is it just me or is this article of clothing distinctly Dr Evil-looking in appearance?

Or perhaps the Army is now taking fashion tips from Col Klink?

And how do women with hips propose fitting into such a tapered garment without the “marshmallow effect” already so common when wearing the current issue cold weather jacket?

I am aware that the Army is not the house of high fashion, but surely common sense should prevail when choosing a garment that may possibly seen by the public at large.

The concept of an adverse weather jacket is certainly a sensibly welcome idea, however it would be nice to see the Army follow a good idea through with planning and foresight rather than “it’ll do for now” concept that has prevailed so far within the uniform selection process.

Pte Cinova Brown
1 HSB
Gallipoli Barracks

Lt-Col Nick Stanton, Secretary ACPEC, replies:

Come on guys, throw us a freakin’ bone here! We are AHQ and we are supposed to look good ... need the info.
In all seriousness, the jacket so casually modelled by the unnamed officer from Army Headquarters was one of three concept demonstrators.

It is a travesty that someone decided to slip Army a copy of the “Dr Evil” jacket photo and besmirch a fine officer.

These samples were shown to CA to seek his guidance regarding further development and did not constitute acceptance into service, so we can all rest easy.

As Pte Brown correctly points out, there are a number of issues yet to be considered regarding form, fit and function of the jacket.

Having obtained CA’s endorsement for continued development of an adverse weather jacket, the Army Clothing and Personal Equipment Committee (ACPEC) now has the job of addressing these issues including appropriate consultation.

Incidentally, you will be pleased to know that the Dr Evil jacket did not make the cut and will be shelved until the day the Australian Army is re-equipped with a giant “laser”.

TOP

Discharge a mistake

AT the beginning of the year I placed in my application for discharge.

Later I realised I had made a mistake and applied for the application to be withdrawn so I could continue on with my service.

I was then given an offer by SCMA to go to Kapooka in June for 18 months or at the end of the year for two years and return on promotion.

I spoke to my career manager and was told that the Army needs instructors at Kapooka and that is where I’m destined to go if I pull my discharge.

The problem is that I don’t want to serve at Kapooka as an instructor. I want to keep serving in the ADF, but it now feels like I’m being “blackmailed” into serving at Kapooka.

Why post soldiers into an instructional posting if they don’t want to be there? Yes, I know the needs of the Army are greater than individual needs, but how about some commonsense?

If the Army can’t get enough people willing to go to a particular posting, maybe there’s a reason for that.

I could put in for retention, but is that going to heard before June 30 (my posting date)? Am I expected to pack up my house and move with my partner down south and wait in case my retention is approved?

Then what? Pack up and move back north? More likely I will be left down there and fed the usual bull.

Looks like there’s no other option than for me to continue my discharge and for the ADF to lose another NCO.

Cpl Robert Macdonald
Robertson Barracks

Col D.M. Gallasch, CO SCMA, replies:

The soldier’s career adviser has personally discussed this situation at length with both him and his chain of command.

Details of discussions with career advisers are a private matter and an issue that we treat with a great deal of respect and discretion.

The bottom line is that SCMA will always seek to get the best outcomes for the soldier as well as the Army. At times some of our people don’t agree on the outcome and that is disappointing.

SCMA does not make career decisions by “blackmail” rather than posting to meet service and career development needs.

Cpl Macdonald’s Corps Employment Category Standing Orders include the comment “may be considered for re-posting to gain further experience in a Training Command unit” and as such the posting is both a service and career development need.

Furthermore, when making the election to transfer, the AC 853 clearly states that a member can “revoke his application at any time but such approval will be subject to service requirements” and “that if the request to revoke this application be approved the member must accept any consequential posting or employment turbulence”.

SCMA will continue to work at looking after out people to achieve the best outcomes we can for them and for the Army in which we all serve.

TOP

Dental bill a sore point

UPON returning from Rifle Company Butterworth as a reserve, I’m still $800 short after paying for my own dental to be done before we deployed.

Surely if the Army selected me and wanted me to go then it’s the Army’s responsibility to pay for my dental.

Some people had their dental paid for and others didn’t. Others paid to have their wisdom teeth out and some went to HMAS Cerebrus to have theirs taken out by service dentists.

After chasing people at my unit and at brigade level, I still have no official answer. Can I be reimbursed?

Cpl Adam Boyd
5/6 RVR
BHQ, Hawthorn

Lt-Col Sven Bohnstedt, SO1 Dental LHQ, replies:

Defence’s policy as defined by DI(G) PERS 16-1 and DI(A) PERS 57-1, is that reserves are responsible for their own routine dental care.

To be eligible for a deployment, Defence requires that reserves should attend a civilian dentist at their own expense and obtain a Certificate of Dental Fitness. Defence accepts the civilian dentist’s certificate that the member meets reasonable civilian dental standard.

Any additional Defence requirements above normal civilian standards which require an additional examination and any subsequent treatment to meet Defence dental standards for a particular deployment, would be at Commonwealth expense.

Where members have not regularly attended a civilian dentist and have outstanding work to bring their dental fitness up to normal civilian standards, they would be required to pay for this themselves. As there is considerable variation between members, there will be variation in the amount which members will be required to pay to meet this requirement.

To save time and money, reserves who attend their next civilian dental appointment should hand the dentist the Certificate of Dental Fitness (Annex J of DI(A) 57-1) and this Certificate will be valid for 12 months.

On the question of wisdom teeth, there is some confusion amongst members, on this requirements.

Most members are in the 18-26 age group where the growth of wisdom teeth occurs. In a proportion of cases, the wisdom tooth becomes impacted, leading to major decay or gum infection problems. Surgery to remove problem teeth can be difficult and time consuming, so a dentist may recommend removal before a problem becomes acute. Not all young people require removal of their wisdom teeth and, for reserves, your civilian dentist will advise you on appropriate treatment as part of your normal dental care.

Operational deployment requirements may require treatment to be brought forward to remove partially grown or impacted wisdom teeth to avoid the need for evacuation from an operational area later.

Further information on wisdom teeth may be found in Army No. 1110 of November 18, 2004, on the newspaper’s webpage.

I cannot comment on who should bear the cost in Cpl Boyd’s case as I have no access to his dental history. Members must be aware that prior to the new policy, reserves had to meet all the dental treatment costs associated with a deployment. This new policy is fairer in that any unique military dental requirement is borne by Defence. Cpl Boyd’s unit should contact the National AIRN Dental Coordinator at Victoria Barracks, Sydney for a review of his case.

TOP

Premium rise a health shock

I HAVE just received an increment to my fortnightly salary of $10.70. I have also now received a letter from Defence Health stating that my premium is going up $9.68.

How can Defence Health justify this increase for someone that has been a member since 1976? How can Defence Health say that they are increasing my premiums for my benefit?

I have been told that I can reduce my premiums but I will have to pay a one-off excess to a hospital. My premium reduces a total of $12.48 as a best case. Why do I or my family have to compromise?

To top it all off the Government has increased the interest rates as well. Why are we all thought of as thieves if we ask for a pay rise? We are, after all, defending the country, doing peacekeeping duties overseas and moping up after every disaster that befalls the nation.

People in Canberra say that money alone will not keep people in the Defence Force. I say it might not, but it would sure help.

WO2 Allan Krell
Simpson Barracks

TOP

25 per cent hike

I OPENED a letter from Defence Health to find out they are increasing my premium by 25 per cent.

This is a little bit more than the 8 per cent increase the Federal Government approved.

The reason Defence Health gave for the premium increase is that the health care costs have increased – OK, nothing you can do about that. The other reason they gave is that the frequency of claims continues to increase. Why is that? Is it because Defence Health has opened the doors to everyone who has even the slightest connection with Defence, such as contractors and officers of cadets?

When I first joined Defence Health 11 years ago the reason that premiums were so much lower than all the other private health insurers was that people in Defence lead healthier lifestyles.

Members of the ADF need to pass medicals every year and BFAs every six months. They set the example for their families, which presumably means fewer claims by the Defence Health membership. Is this still the case?

Capt S. McNamara
RTC-SQ
Gallipoli Barracks

TOP

David Lynch, CEO Defence Health, replies:

Capt McNamara’s concern is that serving members may be subsidising non-serving members. In fact, our objective is that no group benefit at the expense of another.

The reason for the significant increase in Capt McNamara’s premium was not to fund increased benefit payments to other members but to avoid his specific product/membership combination generating a loss and therefore being subsidised by other members.

Capt McNamara was attracted to Defence Health 11 years ago by our low premiums. This should still be the case.
Our most popular product is Top Hospital & Top Extras. The premium payable by a full-time serving member with family cover is 22 per cent lower than that payable by a non-serving member. This is a direct consequence of one person being covered by the Commonwealth.

There has been no fundamental change in the claims and premium relationships between serving and non-serving members in the 11 years during which Capt McNamara has been a member.

The 8 per cent increase to which he refers was, in fact, the weighted average increase for all health funds and compares with Defence Health’s average increase of 13.6 per cent. This needs to be put into perspective. Since 2000, we have increased our premiums, on a cumulative basis, 3.6 percentage points less than the average of all other funds.

Defence Health opened its doors to people in the wider Defence community for two reasons. First, they are integral to Defence and add to its capability. Second, they enable Defence Health to enjoy scale economies which benefit all members. Our objective is that one group not benefit at the expense of another, but that both groups benefit.

We try very hard to offer value-for-money and to recognise the special circumstances of serving personnel.

WRITE TO US

Soldiers wishing to air their views through letters to the editor have access to the newspaper without using the chain of command.

Letters will be edited for spelling and grammatical errors and newspaper style, and may be edited for space.

Preference is given to typed letters of fewer than 300 words. Letters will be rejected where they are too long, abusive, cover a subject that has been exhausted or can be answered by the author's unit.

They will be published only when they include the author's name, unit (where applicable), location and contact number.

Send letters to: The Editor, Army newspaper, R8-LG-037, Russell Offices, Canberra, ACT 2600; fax (02) 6265 6690 or email: armynews@defencenews.gov. au (note this is not an internal email address and therefore requires Sec: Unclassified in the subject line when sending from a DRN terminal)

The opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not represent the views of the editor or the Army.