Quicklinks
to Letters
Volume 11, No. 40, April 6, 2006
Admin surety
Thanks for your kindness
Wedded to the service
Jacket flak spurs action
What a mess
Retaining ideas for future action
HOW
TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED
Admin surety
I HAVE heard that CSI will be removing shopfronts from units in Puckapunyal and replacing them with a single Customer Service Centre for the area and a Customer Service Officer in each unit.
My understanding is that their job will focus on marketing and educating the customer on CSIG’s products and services. I thought clerks were removed and replaced with CSIG personnel to allow more time for soldiers to do soldier things.
Currently at the School of Armour, we have a total of 168 staff and 200-plus trainees. To conduct the admin for these personnel we have two clerks and three very hard-working CSIG personnel. If these three CSIG members are removed and replaced with one member, the workload for this unit must increase.
A few simple questions; Do we get extra time added to all our courses to allow trainees to travel to and from a central shopfront to sort out admin (or is this something else to be done during endless lunch times)? If the shopfront personnel will visit units to sort out issues, then how does this become more economical if they spend half their time travelling around? Who will be conducting the day-to-day admin of the unit, for example filing, registering and distribution? We are fighters not clerks, so if we do something, in good faith, using the knowledge we have, and it goes wrong, will we be done for fraud? Or when a soldier misses an entitlement because there is no-one to tell him about it, who will care?
An answer that addresses the problems and explains the way forward, rather than the regurgitation of a policy statement would be appreciated.
Sgt Robert Butchart
School of Armour
Puckapunyal
Steven Georgiou, CSIG Regional Manager, Southern Victoria, responds:
YOUR specific issues regarding CSCs at Puckapunyal are answered as follows: There will be one centrally located CSC at Puckapunyal with three satellite CSCs in Tobruk, Bridges and Hopkins Barracks; CSC staff will be allocated to the central and satellite sites and the arrangements will allow for flexibility to meet surge requirements and non-routine events; CSIG will continue to deliver agreed services to supported units – the major difference is that the CSC is the front end of the operations; and information regarding individual entitlements and processing of military administration will be carried out jointly by CSC staff and MPAC. MPAC staff regularly visit Puckapunyal to provide advice on pay, removals and other individual entitlements or to assist with personnel administration. Please call MPAC on (03) 9282 7500 for further assistance.
We realise this changes how services are currently offered in the regions, however we believe that providing consistency in both process and outcome is important to everyone. CSIG is committed to improving the way we do business and to providing the best possible service..
TOP
Thanks for your kindness
- MY wife and I would like to thank all those members of the Defence Force who have helped us over the past few years while our son Fletcher has battled with leukaemia.
Unfortunately, Fletcher lost his battle in February, but know that the times he spent at different unit activities will be cherished forever.
I would like to use this opportunity to not only thank those members and units that have helped us, but urge members of the Defence Force to seriously think about becoming blood/bone marrow donors, to help others in this situation.
The blood or bone marrow that you donate today, may give life to someone tomorrow.
Sgt Wade McFarlane
2/14LHR (QMI)
Gallipoli Barracks.
TOP
Wedded to the service
IT SEEMS we are more concerned with recruiting soldiers than retaining ones we have already trained. I make this statement from personal experience, and I feel I have no option but to discharge after 13 years.
I have been married to a serving member since 2002 and we have only lived together for 22 months. I am currently on my second posting, back-to-back, as MWD(S). When I questioned this, I was told by my career adviser to take the posting or discharge.
I decided to ignore this advice and proceeded to speak to DCO. I was given advice to take LWOP IAW Pacman Vol 2 Ch 5 para 5.8.5 in the hope of aligning my posting cycle with my spouse. This application was denied for service reasons.
As a result, I proceeded on posting to ARTC. Once in location, I stated my situation to my hierarchy and was advised to seek DCO support again.
This time, I was advised to “call their bluff and discharge”. Once again, not wanting to discharge, I proceeded to submit a re-posting request.
I know it shouldn’t be too difficult to post a married couple together, considering we both have quite common jobs within the Army. Its disappointing that the only option for us to be collocated is to discharge.
I have enjoyed my time so far and was looking forward to continuing to serve in the Army for many years.
Should my application for re-posting to my spouse’s location be denied, does anybody have any advice for my next available option, other than discharge?
Cpl Malcolm Costello
ARTC
Blamey Barracks
Col Dianne Gallasch, CO SCMA, responds:
THE reference for this subject is DI (A) PERS 47-11, Part 1, para 47-50.
Army no longer requires service couples to choose which partner has priority for career development as members are managed on their individual potential. While every endeavour is made to post serving spouses together, this is not always possible because of competing service requirements, vacancies and a soldier’s career development needs.
In order to increase the likelihood of being posted together, members may choose to accept postings that do not meet their career development requirements providing that they acknowledge the detriment to their career aspirations.
It is also important to note that service couples will not be given higher priority for postings over other soldiers.
Unfortunately, in Cpl Costello’s circumstances, there were competing service requirements: a career development need and, more importantly, a lack of ECN 146 corporal vacancies within the Albury-Wodonga area. His career manager discussed this situation with Cpl Costello and his chain of command. As a result, he was posted as near as possible to his spouse’s chosen location.
As the member states in his letter, he did apply for 12 months Leave Without Pay in November 2005, however, the application was not approved because of the pressing service need to fill instructor appointments at ARTC to allow the on-going training of soldiers for Army.
While SCMA will continue to liaise with service couples to post them to the same locality, this, unfortunately, is not always possible..
TOP
Jacket flak spurs action
- I WRITE in response to “Our kit’s world class” (Army, February 23). While I agree that the standard of the equipment being issued or scheduled to come into service is getting much better, I was amazed by senior commanders’ comments on the fleece combat jacket.
This piece of equipment is almost laughable when you look at its practicality in the field environment. Regardless of the concerns expressed re detectability under night vision equipment, it is discarded by most because of its bulk, weight, attraction to all types of vegetation and its colour. Why are we issued clothing and equipment made with disruptive-pattern material and then have a jacket in a single block colour?
Brigadier Welch’s comment that it was not designed as an outer garment in a combat environment is surprising. If we are expected to place a wet-weather jacket on top, other implications of heat and moisture management arise. Maybe in a combat environment we should wear a black version as pictured on your front page.
This problem is hardly a war stopper, but please don’t treat us, the user, as completely irrelevant, remembering that political spin doesn’t solve the problem.
As with RODUMs, maybe the lack of paperwork submitted shows a lack of confidence in the system.
Maj Iain Hendry-Adams
2/17RNSWR
Suakin Depot
Col David Creagh, Director Logistics–Army, responds:
THE writer has raised some legitimate points. The current version of the combat jacket was always an interim solution and was acquired quite quickly as a direct consequence of RODUM reporting and feedback soldiers provided through the chain of command.
Its primary purpose was to provide better thermal protection than the item it replaced – the Howard Green jumper. In this regard the jacket has performed very well.
Development of the combat jacket version two is underway and will incorporate many of the suggestions soldiers have provided (most through the RODUM system).
This will include, but is not limited to, a DPCU outer cover, near IR qualities, reduced bulk and further improvements to the jacket’s thermal qualities.
Soldiers will be given an opportunity to view a concept demonstrator before the conduct of a user trial.
I cannot emphasise enough that user feedback is the primary mechanism for informing the development of equipment including the next combat jacket.
Detailed analysis of the RODUM system has confirmed that the RODUM is an effective reporting mechanism. The analysis highlighted that the system could be further improved (for example, increasing our level of awareness of the system and how we use the information) and measures are currently under way to implement those recommendations.
TOP
What a mess
ARE our messes destined to become memories?
Many reserve officers, WOs and SNCOs do not belong to messes. There are a number of reasons for this, including ARA messes being closed after reservists finish parading at night or on weekends, members parading away from their unit or mess, the nature and demands of civilian employment and family circumstances.
Mess fees are a contentious point for many reservists given that each mess committee sets its own level of fees. Some messes take a commonsense approach and levy reserve members a flat fee of $30 a year. Some charge $5 a month while others charge anything up to $110 a year. Some reservists only pay fees during periods of annual camp or when on course.
High fees may be acceptable to ARA members, as part of the fee can be claimed on tax. Reservists, however, can not offset fees on tax.
Also, subordinate members should never be expected to pay compulsory fees above that paid by their superiors. It is ethically wrong and morally unjust that a reservist WO/SNCO should be expected to pay more than his or her OC.
Is there any ruling being considered to give guidance to messes across the board or directed towards messes that continue to set high fees and refuse to reduce the levy even after representation by reserve members?
Maj Graham Docksey
Army History Unit
Bandiana
Lt-Col Justin Ellwood, DRes-A, responds:
THANK you for your positive support with regard to the inherent values of sergeants’ and officers’ messes.
Your concerns pertaining to the number of reserve members not belonging to messes are noted, as are your examples of how individual messes do cater for part-time members.
CA Lt-Gen Peter Leahy is committed to maintaining our messes as the focal point of regimental social life. You will be pleased to know that CA Directive 02/06, dated January 27, 2006, directs that all ARA and Active Reserve officers, warrant officers and sergeants will be full members of a regimental or combined mess, whether it is tri-service or Army. Members of other components of the Army Reserve, such as the Standby Reserve, may join as ordinary members. Ordinary members may also be uniformed officers, warrant officers or sergeants serving in the local area who do not pay mess fees for an authorised reason, such as an existing membership to another mess.
The directive also states that ARes or ARA members unable to make full use of their mess because of geographical separation are to be full members, although they may be levied mess fees at a reduced rate.
The inability of a reservist to claim the primary component of the mess fee as a tax deduction is a taxation ruling beyond Army’s control. It could also be suggested that a reservist’s mess fees should not be adjusted with regard to the tax issue because the gap is still a cost related to earning an exempt income. Ultimately, however, issues related to tax are a matter for individuals and the ATO. In addition, the often already discounted ARes mess fees, because of geographical dispersion and thus reduced frequency of use, may also take this issue into consideration.
The situation of an ARes WO paying more than an ARA captain may occur as a result of an individual mess decision on fees or as a result of the tax ruling. This situation might be raised by mess members for consideration by individual messes but it is considered that the difficulties with regard to adjusting for each individual’s taxation rate may create an intolerable situation for a voluntary mess committee and privacy issues for a reservist.
As the members of each individual mess set the mess fees, it is the responsibility of the reserve member(s) to raise particular issues for consideration through the PMC.
It is noted that there may be a disconnect between ARA and ARes hours of work with regard to the scheduling of mess meetings, but when reserve issues are on the agenda, most mess committees will try to arrange a best time, to ensure fair representation of reservist views. Should reserve members be dissatisfied with a mess decision, the CO of a mess may be approached.
A new Defence Instruction is currently being drafted. Until its release, CA Directive 02/06 is to be used as the definitive guide.
Retaining ideas for future action
I DO not have a degree nor have I done a study or survey on recruitment and retention, but I have 28 years of practical experience in both ARA and ARes and I have a couple of ideas that could be kicked around.
For ARes retention, we possibly should have a long, hard look at how sub-units are bogged down in administration and micro management. Maybe we should let sub-unit commanders get on with commanding and training.
For ARA, maybe we should have a look at those junior soldiers (who apparently are leaving in droves) that have had enough of the cyclic training and are getting a bit tired of the same-old same-old. Give them a rest by posting them back to their home town for 12 months to the local reserve unit, as a change is as good as a holiday and much better than a discharge.
For those who might say the above is a very simplistic approach and not feasible, then I say, get out and ask the people concerned.
I believe if we can instigate something approaching the above ideas, then I’m sure retention will improve with a flow-on to recruiting both ARA and ARes.
Capt Peter Graham
APA-H
Anglesea Barracks
Lt-Col Susan Smith, SO1 Retention, responds:
As your letter points out, possible solutions range from macro issues such as training tempo and provision of support in the regions to issues involving individual management such as the respite option you propose.
Army already has a great deal of information provided by surveys, unit commanders and individuals like you on possible approaches for improving retention.
The creation of the new SO1 Retention position in Directorate of Personnel–Army recognises that much of this information already collected needs to be pulled together, considered and worked up as proposals for implementation.
Future editions of the Army newspaper will provide more information on initiatives under way.
|
