|
| |
|
| |
How to improve awards system
THERE is a perception within the wider Defence community that mainly officers, senior warrant officers and SNCOs receive honours and awards.
I believe the only way to dispel these perceptions would be to conduct a wider education program on the requirements and procedures for the issuing of these awards. Perhaps a major article in this paper may go some way to enlightening the soldiers.
More timely feedback on the status of a nomination will also help. Some soldiers miss out because the nomination was unsuccessful and by the time you finally chase up this information it is too late to nominate them for a different or similar award.
I am still chasing feedback on a number of nominations from AMTG2 which were submitted 12 months ago. The unit does not want to nominate the members for other awards, due to the uncertainty of the original nomination, as this could disadvantage another soldier if the original nomination is ultimately successful.
I wish to publicly thank Dawn Matthews at DJFHQ for her help and patience in relation to my inquires about the outstanding AMTG2 awards.
I have several general questions I wish to raise in relation to this subject.
First, with the number of soldiers completing multiple tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, has any thought been given to a recognition system for multiple tours; for example, a clasp for the campaign medal?
I remember reading a submission being drafted by Maj Stone from AMTG1 on this subject and was wondering if it had been completed and presented for consideration?
I know the soldiers who have completed a previous tour of an operational area feel left out when the medal presentations are conducted at the end of their current tour. A clasp or something similar would be a tangible and visible way of acknowledging a soldier’s complete deployment history.
Second, Infantry Combat Badges take a long time to appear on PMKeys and, to date, I have not seen ACBs entered at all. Has any thought been given to granting access to the contingent chief clerk or their equivalent at JTF HQ to enter these awards on PMKeys?
There are a number of soldiers who are discharging who are finding that their Record of Service print from SCMA is missing these awards and there is little anyone can do about it.
Over the past two years I spent a deal of time chasing the updating on PMKeys of a number of honours and awards for deployments that occurred three and four years ago. In fact most of the members of 5/7RAR who had deployed during the period 2002-2005 did not have most of the honours and awards for this period entered on PMKeys.
Getting these records fixed is taking too long and a faster method of entering this information should be looked at to speed up the process.
The standard response from Honours and Awards is if the unit can supply the documentation then they will input it. However, not all the documentation is kept by the unit and in some cases it is raised by the deploying higher HQ and is not forwarded on to the posted unit. This is particularly so for sub-units deployed separately from their posted unit.
Now, as the members already have the medals and awards in question this then begs another question: if the unit has to supply the documentation to update PMKeys then what authority or documentation did they use to strike and dispatch the medals in the first place? Surely this documentation is actually held by Honours and Awards or a similar agency?
WO2 Kevin Brown
7RAR
Robertson Barracks |
| |
No ring of confidence over change to Zodiac
 |
|
Sea approach: Elements from a North West Mobile Force water operations patrol use a Zodiac during a training activity in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
Photo by Gnr Shannon Joyce |
|
THE introduction of the ring prop to the Mercury outboards used on the Zodiac watercraft has dramatically reduced the performance of these motors and consequently the operational effectiveness of these craft.
Before the introduction of these props for safety reasons, the performance was in accordance of what would be required to move eight personnel (craft capacity) at an operational speed. Bearing in mind that when you are being shot at, the longer it takes to get somewhere the longer your exposure to fire.
Now the performance of these craft with the ring prop fitted is barely adequate with two personnel and no additional equipment on board.
In addition the reduced performance could potentially place users in danger in that they would be exposed to poor water/weather conditions for much longer then was previously the case.
I understand the need for personnel safety, however, I would like to make the point that when the man overboard drill is carried out as per the Land Warfare pamphlet, the danger from prop injuries is eliminated.
If the required general watermanship safety rules are also adhered to, the danger from the prop injuries is also eliminated.
If we have to assume that our Defence members can’t follow the rules or drills, then a prop guard and not a ring prop is the answer. Cost-effective prop guards are available on the market that would totally prevent injuries and harm to sea life such as dugongs, and are easy to fit.
If the correct sort of guard is purchased and fitted to the outboards with their original props reinstalled we can maintain the operational effectiveness of our gear and protect personnel without compromising either.
The current arrangement is clearly not the way to go as it reduces the effectiveness of our equipment and doesn’t improve safety to any great extent.
Sgt Patrick Kidd
2CER
Gallipoli Barracks
|
| |
Way too much information
WITH all the paper that Defence uses daily in every aspect and mostly in triplicate, I am appalled at the Army’s waste of time, money and resources to produce the Army Journal.
The Journal comes out quarterly and encompasses 228 pages of information that I am sure only the select few will read.
These members of course are probably the upper echelon of the unit/command structure that very rarely passes on any information.
I am sure that a more condensed yearly book would be more interesting for these members.
Another option is to only produce certain amounts of the Journal, which would be handed to the command elements of units/squadrons and above.
Cpl Justin Porthouse
108 Sig Sqn
Simpson Barracks
|
| |
Compassion appreciated
I WOULD like to take this opportunity to thank all the staff at LWC Canungra, with special thanks to SI WO1 Keith Coggins and SSM WO2 Dave Marendy.
While attending the Subject 1 Sergeants course from February to April, my nine-month-old son (special needs) was taken ill and admitted to hospital.
Before I knew what was happening, I was booked on a flight back to Townsville to be with my family for that week. Once his health improved I returned to the course and began to catch up on the ops phase.
Just as I completed that I received another call informing that he had taken a bad turn, and the medical staff advised me to come home at the earliest possible chance. With all summatives completed the SI and SSM had me booked on a flight to Townsville, this time one way.
Unfortunately our son passed away on Easter Sunday due to respiratory failure.
Due of the efficiency and compassion of the staff at LWC Canungra I was able to be with my son during his last two weeks – if I had stayed on course I would have seen him for two days.
Once again from me and my whole family, thank you for all that you have done for us.
Cpl Scott Sporn
JTW
Tully, Queensland |
| |
Medical complaint
 |
|
Pulling their weight: These OBG(W)2 soldiers are fit for the job, but a letter writer raises questions about the Medical Employment Classification system.
Photo by Sgt John Carroll |
|
TO some it may sound like a whinge, well maybe it is, but I still feel it’s a whinge that everybody is thinking and not saying: what is the med class for deployment and what is the policy for individual units to identify members suitable for selection for deployment rather than actually being capable of deployment?
I have seen many members being unable to attempt or pass their BFAs due to their lack of physical fitness and not even maintain their AIRN compliancy because they are not capable of remembering dates or appointments, but come time to be deployed, Merlin waves his magic wand and gives them a can of harden up and they become super soldiers.
Then there is the one- to two-week exercise that they are unable to attend because they can’t find any babysitters to look after the family who lives in another state for the two weeks, or the telephone call to convey that all hell has broken loose at home and they need to come home immediately because little Johnny has too many cornflakes in his bowl.
But once again the magic wand of Merlin is waved and they can be deployed from three to six months in another country and all is perfect on the home front.
Or the phantom medical conditions that prevent them from doing bush trips or basic duties all of a sudden disappear.
Then the best of all is the “if you don’t send me overseas I will discharge” threat so the system buckles and sends the member, who is at times at least two ranks above the rank that is required for the position that is to be filled, and once they return home they decide they will continue with their discharge anyway.
Some may find this close to home, others may relate a particular incident to my ramblings and some may think that I am full of it, but I know the reply will answer all my issues raised. Maybe!
Cpl Rick Turner
AAvnTC
Oakey, Queensland
Capt David Nelson, SO2 Health Policy, responds:
I NOTE the concerns that Cpl Turner has raised about the Medical Employment Classification (MEC) system and how this relates to the suitability of an individual to proceed on deployment.
The introduction of the MEC system is relatively new and as such there is still some confusion as to the relevance of an individual’s MEC.
A member’s MEC is not only intended to indicate their medical suitability for a particular trade or corps, but also provides valuable knowledge of their deployability and employability restrictions with respect to day-to-day activities, exercises and, most importantly, operational deployments.
Those members that have been classified as non-deployable MEC may be considered for deployment in exceptional circumstances only.
A waiver may be granted when a member has been assessed as fit to perform the duties required of them in a deployed environment without risk to themselves or their colleagues. In every instance the seeking of a medical waiver for an individual is a command responsibility. Commanders must consider all available information when deciding who the best person for a deployment is. Factors that are considered include: MEC, physical fitness, AIRN compliancy and the member’s personal circumstances.
I am aware that selection of individuals for operational deployments is potentially an emotive issue and, at times, a difficult decision for the chain of command. Commanders should rely on the risk assessment process to assist them with these decisions.
Given the sensitivity of the process, the reasons behind a particular decision by the chain of command may not be obvious to other members of the unit. This does not make the decision any less appropriate. |
|
