|
Have
your say
|
Preference
will be given to letters under 300 words.
Correspondents must include their name and address.
Send letters to: The Editor, Air Force News, R8-LG-043,
Russell Offices, Canberra, ACT, 2600; or raafnews@defencenews.gov.au
(note that this is not part of the internal defence
network) |
|
I
WOULD like to respond to the letter by Leading Aircraftman Robert
Smith (Air Force News, March 13).
As
the Officer in Charge of the Airmen Performance Appraisal Cell
(APAC) in DPA, I fully endorse the comments made by LAC Smith
and would like to thank him for the positive message in his letter.
Individuals from the most junior to most senior airmen need to
take responsibility for their careers by being an active participant
in the reporting process.
The
new system allows two way communication to set goals, identify
performance improvement strategies and feedback on performance
results throughout the year via the Preliminary Review of Performance
(PRP). The reporting year culminates with a well structured end-of-year
report (PAR) which is most important when it comes to consideration
for promotion.
LAC
Smith is quite right in his statement that individuals must ensure
their interests and expectations are being met in the content
of the PAR – there is no better way to do this than to insist
on specific examples of achievements to be included by assessors
in the PAR narrative.
If
you are unhappy with the report in any way, raise your concerns
then and there via discussion with your assessor in the first
instance or representation action. Any complaints should be based
on, and supported by, factual events or examples contained in
your diary, PRP’s and/or Supplementary Reports.
Do
not sign off on the report and then try to invalidate it at a
later date because you feel it adversely affected your promotion
prospects. If you sign the document and don’t represent,
you are telling the Promotion Board that, at the time you signed
it, the report was a true indication of your performance.
At
the end of the day, there are two people responsible for ensuring
your reports are an accurate and fully substantiated reflection
of your performance – you and your assessor.
And
remember, hold on to copies of all reports raised on you throughout
the year as they may become very important at the end of the reporting
period.
My
staff and I are more than willing to answer any questions supervisors,
airmen and airwomen might have about their reporting system. Our
contact details, along with more information, are contained on
the DPA web site (http://intranet.defence.gov.au/raafweb/sites/
DPAAF/). As an aside, I wish LAC Smith good luck in his endeavours
outside the Air Force.
FLTLT Tharren Kingston-Lee
OIC Airmen Performance Appraisal Cell
Directorate of Personnel - Airmen.
Coverage
was too exclusive
I
WAS dismayed at the media coverage of the farewell ceremony held
for personnel deploying on Op Bastille. On the day the news cameras
were solely interested in couples and families and, so it seems,
were the visiting dignitaries.
That
night I watched most major news bulletins with interest, hoping
to catch glimpses of members of my squadron on the television.
What a surprise when the footage showed almost exclusively couples
with children, despite the fact that a significant portion of
service personnel in attendance were by themselves.
I
understand the commercial news media wanting to give the standard
human interest story, and add the family angle to give things
more drama.
However,
I was deeply saddened when, flicking through the pages of “The
official newspaper of the Royal Australian Air Force”, I
was confronted by yet more emphasis on couples with families.
I would have hoped that your publication at least would understand
how much pride all of us have in being part of this group, not
just married members.
We
are all extremely proud to be members of No. 36 Squadron and the
Air Force. We are also very proud to have been chosen for the
initial push of Op Bastille.
I
am currently engaged to be married. The only reason my fiancee
was not present for the farewell is that I told her not to take
the time off work and make the two-hour drive.
I
spent most of the event with a young friend of mine from the squadron
whose family and girlfriend could not be present – not through
lack of interest, but simply due to the fact operational security
had demanded the event be staged on minimal notice.
Having
been in his position before, I understand just how lonely and
detached my colleague must have felt that day – I could see
it in his demeanour; surrounded by his fellow airmen, equally
as willing to face the uncertainty of what lays ahead of us, but
on the outer because he did not have a partner by his side.
I
feel just one photograph of a group of members who were without
partners or family that day would have gone a long way. After
all, isn’t camaraderie and mateship so much a part of military
service?
I
know for sure that should it come to it, the single members will
die just as well for their country as those with their own family.
Does
not the sacrifice that these people are making here deserve to
be acknowledged, too?
And
before anyone says it is easier for a single person because they
have no ties to worry about, I say that it is easier for those
who have the reassurance of knowing someone is thinking of them
and is there to come home to. Someone who will be waiting for
them at the terminal when we finally return, instead of having
to push your way through the media who have no interest in the
sacrifices you have made for their safety.
CPL Glenn (full name withheld for operational security reasons)
36SQN.
More
medals?
THE recent awarding of the Australian Service Medal (ASM) to members
who served at Butterworth during a specified period is a step
in the right direction.
It
also seems to set a precedent, as I believe it is the first time
the ASM has been awarded for service while on an A-Grade posting
rather than on an operational deployment.
Does
the Air Force/ADF intend to expand this concept and issue the
ASM to members who have served on long-term postings in other
countries in the region such as Cambodia, the Philippines, PNG
and the Solomons?
WOFF Lewis Winders
DMO Philadelphia, USA
OFFICIAL
RESPONSE:
Although
the Australian Service Medal is awarded for non-warlike service,
this is context specific to the medal’s regulations and interpreted
to mean “not-warlike” for the purposes of the award.
Its award is only made where a much higher degree of demand or
hazardous conditions exist than normal day-to-day activities and
there is a reliance on operational outcomes.
The award of the ASM 1945-75 and current ASM Clasp “SE Asia”
result from the 1999/2000 Review of Service Entitlement Anomalies
in Respect of South-East Asian Service 1955-1975 and a follow-on
review of Butterworth service conducted by the Department in 2001.
The reviews found that an anomaly existed in that seagoing service
with the Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve (FESR) was recognised
by an award of the ASM 1945-75, whereas land service was not.
The latter review also found that service as part of the Australian
New Zealand and United Kingdom force and the Five Power Defence
Agreement were “flow-ons” from the FESR and established
under the same principles, ie. to provide security to the South-East
Asia region.
This occurred until 1989 when arrangements changed to training
under the Defence Cooperation Program (DCP) as a result of the
region becoming more stable. Hence, there was an identified operational
role for the Australian Armed Forces in South-East Asia between
1955 and 1989.
Consequently, there is no intention of expanding recognition by
use of the ASM to encompass normal peacetime postings or DCP service
in places such as Cambodia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea
or the Solomon Islands.
Pat
Clarke
Assistant Director Policy
Directorate of Honours and Awards
Webb
of deceit
I
WAS a little curious at the anecdotal evidence in the article
on the ASRU museum (“Harnessing the history of service rugby”,
Air Force News, March 27).
William Webb Ellis’ run is widely regarded as mythology.
It did not even come to light until 1876 – four years after
his death – and there seems to be no written account by an
eyewitness at the time.
It would also seem unlikely that few, if any, attendees of Rugby
at the time of the infamous run would have been in the colony
between late 1823 and mid-1829.
It seems most likely that rugby union was brought to these shores
in about 1864.
Perhaps ADF soccer players have a greater claim to July 25, 1829.
Paul Cross
PACC
Russell Offices.
