Letters to the Editor

Poster woe

Striving to do better

when the shoe doesn't fit - hit the RODUM

Wedded to moving bliss

Security oversight

HOW TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED

Poster woe

I WOULD like to express my concern over an issue that has troubled me for a little while. The catalyst for my concern is the relatively innocuous rank identification poster that we often see adorning unit orderly rooms and CSI shopfronts.

My concern has is with a misconception that these posters promote – that equivalence exists between warrant-officer appointments in Army and some non-commissioned ranks in the other services.

These posters used to display the distinct differences between the three services, and soldiers, sailors and airmen used to be able to readily refer to them and clearly identify ranks unique to each of the three services – a valuable tool for those newly posted to a tri-service unit and public servants alike.

Unfortunately since then, with no apparent justification or discussion, these posters were amended to reflect that WO2 (peculiar to Army) is in fact equivalent to that of chief petty officer in Navy and flight sergeant in Air Force. How this could be true, I struggle to see.

When you remove the emotive arguments of job function, remuneration and time in service, you are left only with interpretation. DFDA Section 3 defines a warrant officer as a soldier, sailor or airman holding the rank of warrant officer. The Army Protocol Manual supports this by describing that warrant officers are appointed by warrant and are not non-commissioned officers.

DFDA Section 3 goes on to describe non-commissioned officers as soldiers holding a rank not higher than that of staff sergeant, sailors holding a rank not higher than chief petty officer and airmen holding a rank not higher than flight sergeant.

Clearly, in this interpretation, warrant officers, are not non-commissioned officers. So why are we telling our officers, sailors, soldiers and airmen (indirectly, as may be the case) that WO2, chief petty officer and flight sergeant are equivalent when clearly they are not?

WO2 Andrew Emery
LWC-NQ
Lavarack Barracks

WO1 Jeffrey Hansen, RSM Ceremonial – Army, responds:
THE badges of rank and special insignia posters you refer to are promulgated to assist those who cannot readily identify corresponding ranks within the ADF. Those posters are drawn from Defence Force Regulations 1952 - Reg 8, which is legislation, and clearly shows that chief petty officer, WO2 and flight sergeant are corresponding ranks.
Your reference to the Defence Force Discipline Act Section 3 and its definitions is relevant only to the responsibilities of those ranks within the act.

TOP

Striving to do better

• I AM concerned that an inappropriate headline – Audit aims to rout bad training culture – on page two, Army April 20, gives a misleading impression about the training culture in Army.
  With responsibility for delivering training to more than 30,000 people on more than 1000 different courses each year, Training Command-Army works very hard to ensure an appropriate learning environment for all trainees.
  The aim is to continuously improve processes and procedures in order to provide the best possible training, consistent with safeguarding the welfare of trainees.
  While Training Command-Army has a hard-earned reputation for excellence in training, we strive to do even better, and welcome the opportunity provided by the Military Justice Implementation Team to further develop our training culture for the future.
  
  Maj-Gen Richard Wilson
  Comd TC-A
  Victoria Barracks, Sydney.
  

TOP

When the shoe doesn’t fit– hit the RODUM

HAVING spent some time in the ADF wearing a number of different types of in-service boots, I find myself in a situation where I am unable to be issued the in-service boot.

A short time after these boots were brought into service I found I was having trouble because of an ill fit, and my feet hurt. The boots were either too small because they were fitted for width or too broad because they were fitted for length.

The Q-store, at the time, was able to fix the problem, with the assistance of the RMO and a podiatrist – the unit allowed me to buy a boot which looked similar and gave a good fit.

As the boot was not in-service, there was an attempt to have me downgraded, but, as this was introduced equipment and I had not had previous trouble, that was averted.

The boots I bought off the shelf lasted about 18 months. They were comfortable, tough and reasonably priced. But as new writings stopped Q purchases for boots, I had to go back to the podiatrist and have a mould of my feet taken and sent to Redback to have boots made.

It has been six months and I have received one pair of boots through the Q store that didn’t fit and had to be sent back.

I believe anyone having trouble with this boot should put in a RODUM. The Defence Minister is right in saying that there is a 99.9 per cent strike rate on these boots, as nobody says anything about them. If we buy 60,000 pairs and have only had 60 RODUMs, nothing will be done.

These boots don’t last very long, they fall apart and, from what people have described, are painful to wear. It takes far too long to break them in and the life span is around six months if you’re lucky.

If we are about making sure we have the right kit, we need to have a look at this. I never had trouble with the old black or brown boots.

Sgt Mark Henneberry
LWC-NSW
Moorebank

Grant Medbury, Director Soldier Support SPO, responds:
THE new combat boot has been specifically designed to provide a large number of sizing options to allow for optimal fitment. This includes length and width sizes and tuning kits.
Members for whom the in-service boot does not fit are able to have made-to-measure boots manufactured. This is initiated by your Q or clothing store and requires a referral from the Unit Medical Officer to a Defence-approved podiatrist.
A boot is then manufactured based on a cast made from the member’s feet. This process normally takes less than two months and hence it is disappointing that there has been a delay of six months in this instance.
Along with the writer, DMO also encourages members to submit RODUMS, when appropriate, as a means of maintaining capability and contributing to the design and development of future generations of the combat boot.
It is also worth noting, a program of boot-fitting training for Q-store staff is scheduled for later this year with the intent of improving fitting. This is expected to further reduce the number of members requiring made-to-measure boots.

TOP

Wedded to moving bliss

IN THE lead up to my removal to current posting location, my husband, who is also in the Army, was serving overseas.

I was advised by DHA that as we had no children I was considered to be a single person and therefore not entitled to accommodation in a hotel during the pre-pack and up-lift phase and that I would have to stay in transit accommodation at the nearest military base.

It would be the same at the new locality while awaiting delivery.

I seriously thought they must be joking or at least had got it wrong, but no, they were only following policy developed by Defence. I find this incredibly insulting and disrespectful as a wife and deeply disappointing as a serving member.

I am sure that the policy was never intended to create this situation but there is no arguing that it made me feel like a second-class citizen.

My only contact with my husband at the time was via email, no problem if you are staying in a hotel, impossible from transit accommodation.

With all the recent correspondence on accommodation, retention and equity I think it is important that those signing off on this sort of policy realise the real-life implications. I hope someone in DPE can rectify this unhappy situation.

Lucky for me I have great friends who I was able to stay with. I think the words of one of their children when it was explained why I was staying with them summed it up well – “That’s a bit mean and not very nice!”

Maj Margaret Beavan
Combat Clothing and Equipment Development Unit
Victoria Barracks

Adrian Wellsping, Director Housing and Removals Policy, responds:
HELP with housing and removals is provided to ADF members on the basis of the needs of both Defence and the member. The aim of the policy is that members are not out of pocket and that the accommodation provided is both suitable and cost effective.
During the course of a removal, members sometimes need temporary accommodation. Temporary accommodation may be provided in the form of hotel or serviced apartment accommodation, and the payment of Temporary Accommodation Allowance (TAA/TAASA), or by the provision of Living-in Accommodation (LIA).
LIA is not designed for families. It is for this reason that the policy states that a member who is accompanied by dependants is eligible to occupy a hotel or serviced apartment and be paid TAA/TAASA.
If a member is in transit, Defence policy requires members of the rank of major or below to occupy LIA. Subject to the availability of LIA that is suitable for the member, LIA is considered to be appropriate and cost-effective accommodation for any member of these ranks who is unaccompanied.
The quality of LIA, including the general unavailability of data connection, is a significant issue and will take time to change. The difficulty experienced in this situation may affect any member who cannot contact their wife, brother, aunt, cousin or friend via email from transit accommodation.
I acknowledge that Maj Beaven feels that her dignity as a spouse was not respected. This is regrettable and appears to be largely based on an inadequate explanation of the policy by a DHA employee.

TOP

Security oversight

I FEEL it necessary to point out a glaring omission from your article “Cheers for boys from Baghdad” (Army, April 20).
The article stated that Secdet 8 consisted of members of 1RAR and 2/14LHR(QMI).
Accepting that these organisations provided the majority of Secdet members, it should have been noted that members of 1 MP Bn were also a part of the Secdet.
Furthermore, it is the 1 MP Bn Close Personal Protection (CPP) Team that is tasked with the protection of the ambassador and his staff. It should also be noted that throughout the history of Secdet, the one constant organisation providing support has been the 1 MP Bn CPP Team.
I certainly do not wish to detract from the sterling efforts of 1RAR and 2/14HR(QMI), as they have performed admirably, but I think the report should have reflected the true nature and makeup of Secdet 8.

WO2 Michael Cracknell
41 MP Pl
Gallipoli Barracks.

TOP

HOW TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED

Preference is given to letters of fewer than 300 words. Letters will be rejected if they are too long, abusive or can be answered by the author's unit.

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

Send letters to: The Editor, Army newspaper, R8-LG-037, Russell Offices, Canberra, ACT 2600; or email: armynews@defencenews.gov.au