The New Massage Board is now up and running Thanks to Yone from the
Ex Parachute Regiment site. Please note that this is not just open to
parachute regiment but to all that have questions to ask about the
policy or need information on up and comming events I.E. press
releases ect And for that reason only, for those that have a case with
Tom Reah or are thinking about it, but hurry the doors are closing on
joining that soon. However you may of been effected in other ways and
wish to express your views, fine by me but please remember as one
other poster commented before, your reason in which you was manning
controled or effected could differ from another and could possibly
need another solution. please dont come on as three or four diffrent
people giving three differnt scenarios then complaining and offending others who was effect. and finaly
dont try to post PORN its illigal and an ISP has allready been sent
to the Internet Watch Foundation. Have fun and keep it real
NEW LINK
http://www.2para.co.uk/
Then look up the word MANNING CONTROL, this site (THEBROWNLETTER)will
still be up an running for convenience sake. however more important
news will be on the link above.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TheBrownletter-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk
Share This Page:
New Manning Control site
Example
MANNING CONTROL SCANDAL SPREADS: GULF WAR HEROES AFFECTED - KEETCH1st December 2003
Lib Dem research released in July showed that some soldiers had been denied medical discharges because sacking them was cheaper. Now, hundreds of Gulf War vets could also be affected.
After pressure from Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary Paul Keetch MP, Geoff Hoon admitted that MoD figures for people sacked from the Army were misleading. The actual number affected by the abuse of the controversial manning control policy could be much higher than earlier believed. Those affected could include Gulf War Veterans who claim they were sacked instead of medically discharged to save on pensions.
Commenting, Mr Keetch said:
"The MoD has consistently said that manning control points only affects a few people. This is clearly not the case.
"With over 160 soldiers already planning on suing the MoD over misuse of this policy, and now Gulf War Veterans coming forward, the MoD will have to come clean.
"We need a public inquiry into this 'brown letter' scandal.
"If these Gulf War heroes were chucked on the scrap heap and denied medical pensions to save money, it would be a national disgrace."
Background
Manning Control Policy is intended to allow the removal of soldiers at 6, 9 and 12 years whose services are no longer required. Under the policy, soldiers are supposed to be warned 12 months in advance if they are to be sacked. Because of the stigma attached to being sacked, many soldiers elect to jump before they are pushed after they have been warned. In this way, official figures about the number of people sacked hide the true numbers of people who are slated to be sacked.
Over 300 soldiers and former soldiers have approached the solicitor concerned and are planning on suing the MoD for unfair dismissal. 160 have formally signed on to the case. They claim that they were bullied or tricked into leaving the Army, instead of being sacked. They could be joined by many more Gulf Veterans as well.
[To speak to the soldiers' solicitor, please call Tom Reah on 01423 564 551]
These claims should be taken seriously because soldiers who do not complete 22 years service do not qualify for an immediate pension. Those who leave at 12 years save the Treasury, on average, £200,000 each according to the MoD's own figures. [Better In Than Out - MoD, Army]
The Liberal Democrats revealed documents in July that showed a soldier had been denied a medical discharge and fired under manning control regulations instead, because it was cheaper. The letter from the Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow to the soldier's Commanding Officer acknowledged that it was MoD policy to cut the number of medical discharges and sack people instead because it was cheaper.
The letter said: "You will also be aware that he escaped his last MCP only because it was assumed he would have been medically discharged by this time, a factor confused by a change to medical board guidelines which effectively reduced the number of personnel discharged on medical grounds - opting instead for administrative discharges to reduce the budget requirements to the MoD (Army)."
This information has huge implications for many Gulf War vets who feel they were unfairly dismissed. The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association says that up to 400 of its members were administratively discharged when they were sick. If the Manning Control policy was used to push out sick Gulf War veterans instead of giving them medical discharges, the numbers of soldiers suing the MoD could soar.
MoD admits figures on Manning Control are misleading
Because of the stigma attached to being sacked from the Army under an administrative discharge, many soldiers elect to leave voluntarily before their run-out date. The MoD has always claimed that the number of people affected by the Manning Control Policy was small. This is now shown to be wrong. Anyone who was warned that they would be sacked, or anyone who was threatened with the policy could have left voluntarily would not show up as a casualty of this policy.
In a letter to Paul Keetch, Geoff Hoon acknowledged this. On September 2, 2003 he wrote: "you are right to suggest that some soldiers elect to leave rather than wait to be discharged and this may be because there is a perception that there is a stigma attached to being discharged from the Army. I agree that under such circumstances, the label "voluntary outflow" may be misleading, and I accept that we may need to examine the feasibility of applying an alternative label."
Gulf War Vets were also sacked using Manning Control policy
The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association says that up to 400 of its members suffering from Gulf War syndrome were discharged through an abuse of manning control points. Administrative discharges (manning control) carry no automatic right to a pension, unlike medical discharges. Some veterans complained of being bullied into voluntary discharge and administrative discharge after being told that if they didn't they would get no pension at all.
Records of veterans show that some of them were found medically unfit and yet were still manning controlled instead of medically discharged. This ties in with the document obtained by the Lib Dems, quoted above, that soldiers were switched from medical to administrative discharges to save on cost.
[Sean Rusling, spokesman for the National Gulf Veterans Families Association, is available to speak on behalf of Gulf Veterans who claim they were pushed out of the army using manning control policies: 01482 833812]
MoD hid true number of complaints
Many of the soldiers currently suing filed complaints with the MoD's internal complaints procedure (called 'redress'). However, the Government claims that there have only been two applications for 'Redress of Complaint to the Army Board' since 1997.
Dr Moonie, former Under-Secretary of State at the MoD said that: "Since then there have been two applications for Redress of Complaint relating to the Manning Control Point policy, which were resolved before submission to the Army Board. In these cases, manning control action was terminated and the individuals concerned continue to serve on their original engagement." [23 Jan 2003 : Column 447W]
The Liberal Democrats have seen documents showing that at least two soldiers had their applications turned down by the Board. We have also spoken to five soldiers who submitted applications for redress to the Army Board, four of whom were not granted redress and were sacked. And one of which, that of Cpl Paul Biddiss, is still going on after 3 years.
One of the soldiers was delcared medically unfit by the NHS but was still administratively discharged. The letter denying him redress from the Army Board, said: "We have read the redress of complaint submitted by X, and we have concluded that Cpl. X had no right to be granted a medical discharge and thus his discharge at the 12 year manning control point was justified. However, we accept that Cpl. X received his injury through no negligence on his part during normal military training, furthermore we note that the medical treamtment for his injutry on which we are not in a position to pass clinical judgement was administered by the Defence Medical Service, we also accept that he has been judged by the DHSS to be disabled. We therefore strongly recommend that Cpl. X insures that he receives any war disability pension to which he is entitled."
Either the Government has faulty records or else there has been a concerted effort to withold information. In either case, whether deliberately or inadvertently, Ministers appear to have misled Parliament.
[The soldiers concerned are available for comment, please contact Ben Rawlence on 0207 219 5841]
Manning Control Reviews are still in Operation despite Minister's assurance
There has been some confusion of MoD policy on manning control points. On June 5 this year, former Defence Minster, Dr. Lewis Moonie, said that, "A wide-ranging review of soldiers' career structures and terms of service is presently underway. This will include consideration of the continued utility of manning control point reviews as a structural control mechanism. In the meantime, against the background of current Army manning shortfalls, there are no plans to conduct any manning control point reviews in the next 12 months." [5 Jun 2003 : Column 508W]
Again on 22 October, the Defence Minister Ivor Caplin, in response to a question from Paul Keetch, reiterated this position:
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason no soldiers have been discharged following manning control reviews in the last 17 months; and if he will make a statement. [133353]
Mr. Caplin: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) gave on 5 June 2003, Official Report, column 507-08W. [22 Oct 2003 : Column 587W] Despite this statement, soldiers are still being selected for manning control reviews, i.e. possible sacking:
The Liberal Democrats have seen leaked documents issued by Army Personnel Centre Glasgow both before and after this statement (on April1 and June 27 this year) listing soldiers "who are to be considered for manning control under the terms of reference A", and giving commanding officers the option to sack the soldiers. It is clear therefore that manning control reviews are continuing. Reference A is the guidelines for manning control policy. Either Ministers have been misinformed or else they appear to have misled the house. Obviously some flexibility in the Armed Forces numbers is required but pending an inquiry into the abuse of manning control points, their use should be suspended.
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/press/0312016.htm
Lib Dem research released in July showed that some soldiers had been denied medical discharges because sacking them was cheaper. Now, hundreds of Gulf War vets could also be affected.
After pressure from Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary Paul Keetch MP, Geoff Hoon admitted that MoD figures for people sacked from the Army were misleading. The actual number affected by the abuse of the controversial manning control policy could be much higher than earlier believed. Those affected could include Gulf War Veterans who claim they were sacked instead of medically discharged to save on pensions.
Commenting, Mr Keetch said:
"The MoD has consistently said that manning control points only affects a few people. This is clearly not the case.
"With over 160 soldiers already planning on suing the MoD over misuse of this policy, and now Gulf War Veterans coming forward, the MoD will have to come clean.
"We need a public inquiry into this 'brown letter' scandal.
"If these Gulf War heroes were chucked on the scrap heap and denied medical pensions to save money, it would be a national disgrace."
Background
Manning Control Policy is intended to allow the removal of soldiers at 6, 9 and 12 years whose services are no longer required. Under the policy, soldiers are supposed to be warned 12 months in advance if they are to be sacked. Because of the stigma attached to being sacked, many soldiers elect to jump before they are pushed after they have been warned. In this way, official figures about the number of people sacked hide the true numbers of people who are slated to be sacked.
Over 300 soldiers and former soldiers have approached the solicitor concerned and are planning on suing the MoD for unfair dismissal. 160 have formally signed on to the case. They claim that they were bullied or tricked into leaving the Army, instead of being sacked. They could be joined by many more Gulf Veterans as well.
[To speak to the soldiers' solicitor, please call Tom Reah on 01423 564 551]
These claims should be taken seriously because soldiers who do not complete 22 years service do not qualify for an immediate pension. Those who leave at 12 years save the Treasury, on average, £200,000 each according to the MoD's own figures. [Better In Than Out - MoD, Army]
The Liberal Democrats revealed documents in July that showed a soldier had been denied a medical discharge and fired under manning control regulations instead, because it was cheaper. The letter from the Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow to the soldier's Commanding Officer acknowledged that it was MoD policy to cut the number of medical discharges and sack people instead because it was cheaper.
The letter said: "You will also be aware that he escaped his last MCP only because it was assumed he would have been medically discharged by this time, a factor confused by a change to medical board guidelines which effectively reduced the number of personnel discharged on medical grounds - opting instead for administrative discharges to reduce the budget requirements to the MoD (Army)."
This information has huge implications for many Gulf War vets who feel they were unfairly dismissed. The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association says that up to 400 of its members were administratively discharged when they were sick. If the Manning Control policy was used to push out sick Gulf War veterans instead of giving them medical discharges, the numbers of soldiers suing the MoD could soar.
MoD admits figures on Manning Control are misleading
Because of the stigma attached to being sacked from the Army under an administrative discharge, many soldiers elect to leave voluntarily before their run-out date. The MoD has always claimed that the number of people affected by the Manning Control Policy was small. This is now shown to be wrong. Anyone who was warned that they would be sacked, or anyone who was threatened with the policy could have left voluntarily would not show up as a casualty of this policy.
In a letter to Paul Keetch, Geoff Hoon acknowledged this. On September 2, 2003 he wrote: "you are right to suggest that some soldiers elect to leave rather than wait to be discharged and this may be because there is a perception that there is a stigma attached to being discharged from the Army. I agree that under such circumstances, the label "voluntary outflow" may be misleading, and I accept that we may need to examine the feasibility of applying an alternative label."
Gulf War Vets were also sacked using Manning Control policy
The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association says that up to 400 of its members suffering from Gulf War syndrome were discharged through an abuse of manning control points. Administrative discharges (manning control) carry no automatic right to a pension, unlike medical discharges. Some veterans complained of being bullied into voluntary discharge and administrative discharge after being told that if they didn't they would get no pension at all.
Records of veterans show that some of them were found medically unfit and yet were still manning controlled instead of medically discharged. This ties in with the document obtained by the Lib Dems, quoted above, that soldiers were switched from medical to administrative discharges to save on cost.
[Sean Rusling, spokesman for the National Gulf Veterans Families Association, is available to speak on behalf of Gulf Veterans who claim they were pushed out of the army using manning control policies: 01482 833812]
MoD hid true number of complaints
Many of the soldiers currently suing filed complaints with the MoD's internal complaints procedure (called 'redress'). However, the Government claims that there have only been two applications for 'Redress of Complaint to the Army Board' since 1997.
Dr Moonie, former Under-Secretary of State at the MoD said that: "Since then there have been two applications for Redress of Complaint relating to the Manning Control Point policy, which were resolved before submission to the Army Board. In these cases, manning control action was terminated and the individuals concerned continue to serve on their original engagement." [23 Jan 2003 : Column 447W]
The Liberal Democrats have seen documents showing that at least two soldiers had their applications turned down by the Board. We have also spoken to five soldiers who submitted applications for redress to the Army Board, four of whom were not granted redress and were sacked. And one of which, that of Cpl Paul Biddiss, is still going on after 3 years.
One of the soldiers was delcared medically unfit by the NHS but was still administratively discharged. The letter denying him redress from the Army Board, said: "We have read the redress of complaint submitted by X, and we have concluded that Cpl. X had no right to be granted a medical discharge and thus his discharge at the 12 year manning control point was justified. However, we accept that Cpl. X received his injury through no negligence on his part during normal military training, furthermore we note that the medical treamtment for his injutry on which we are not in a position to pass clinical judgement was administered by the Defence Medical Service, we also accept that he has been judged by the DHSS to be disabled. We therefore strongly recommend that Cpl. X insures that he receives any war disability pension to which he is entitled."
Either the Government has faulty records or else there has been a concerted effort to withold information. In either case, whether deliberately or inadvertently, Ministers appear to have misled Parliament.
[The soldiers concerned are available for comment, please contact Ben Rawlence on 0207 219 5841]
Manning Control Reviews are still in Operation despite Minister's assurance
There has been some confusion of MoD policy on manning control points. On June 5 this year, former Defence Minster, Dr. Lewis Moonie, said that, "A wide-ranging review of soldiers' career structures and terms of service is presently underway. This will include consideration of the continued utility of manning control point reviews as a structural control mechanism. In the meantime, against the background of current Army manning shortfalls, there are no plans to conduct any manning control point reviews in the next 12 months." [5 Jun 2003 : Column 508W]
Again on 22 October, the Defence Minister Ivor Caplin, in response to a question from Paul Keetch, reiterated this position:
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason no soldiers have been discharged following manning control reviews in the last 17 months; and if he will make a statement. [133353]
Mr. Caplin: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) gave on 5 June 2003, Official Report, column 507-08W. [22 Oct 2003 : Column 587W] Despite this statement, soldiers are still being selected for manning control reviews, i.e. possible sacking:
The Liberal Democrats have seen leaked documents issued by Army Personnel Centre Glasgow both before and after this statement (on April1 and June 27 this year) listing soldiers "who are to be considered for manning control under the terms of reference A", and giving commanding officers the option to sack the soldiers. It is clear therefore that manning control reviews are continuing. Reference A is the guidelines for manning control policy. Either Ministers have been misinformed or else they appear to have misled the house. Obviously some flexibility in the Armed Forces numbers is required but pending an inquiry into the abuse of manning control points, their use should be suspended.
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/press/0312016.htm
