Convictions and RAF application [Archive]

Two's in

2nd Oct 2010, 01:57

First rule of the Military - Better to check than assume.

Criminal convictions

If you have ever been convicted of an offence you may still be able to apply to join the RAF. All applicants for service in the RAF must declare any previous unspent convictions.

For some roles, you will need to declare both 'spent' and 'unspent' convictions. These include Royal Air Force Police, dental, legal, medical and nursing.

If you have a conviction and you are not sure whether it is spent or unspent, it is strongly recommended that you contact your Citizens Advice Bureau for help or seek independent legal advice. Please be aware that AFCO staff are not qualified to answer queries of this nature.

You will need to give details of any 'unspent' convictions before you submit an application and check your eligibility to join under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Eligibility checks - RAF Careers (http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/canijoin/eligibilitychecks.cfm)

Al R

2nd Oct 2010, 06:56

I suppose that applying (and reapplying if ness), builds up the profile of someone showing determination and commitment. Perhaps, supporting the App with a covering letter accepting a youthful error but subsequently having learnt from it..?

scarecrow450

2nd Oct 2010, 08:33

He sounds like a perfect future officer. Getting pissed and refusing to do things sounds perfect to be a leader of men ! :p

barnstormer1968

2nd Oct 2010, 10:26

mattyh

I am sure that some folks would be able to join after making one mistake...
But then you never made just one!

You CHOSE to drink drive, and then once caught, you CHOSE not to provide a specimen of breath or sample. You will have been asked at the roadside for a specimen of breath, and will have needed to refuse (second mistake)
At the police station you will have been asked again...And refused (third mistake).
You will have had the choice of giving either breath or blood samples and will have again refused (fourth mistake...or in reality, choice)).

Refusing to give a sample portrays someone who is not only dishonest, but who does not also have the moral strength to face up to their actions, and tries to hide behind 'not admitting' what they have done!

If you had consented to giving a sample/specimen they you may have been under the limit (I am sure you know if you were or not though).

Maybe the above will provide the evidence as to whether you are queens commission material, and would be a good leader and inspiration to those around you when times get tough!

I have seen hundreds of servicemen drunk, and this did not bother me if they were not 'at work' so to speak, but those who refuse to accept responsibility for what they have done leaves them beneath my contempt.....The forces can be a really good laugh, but it also gets very serious too, and those serving to be able to count on everyone else around them.

Cyber Bob

2nd Oct 2010, 10:54

mattyh

Barnstomer's post is spot on whether it be the forces you are intent on joining or elsewhere for the matter.

Everyone makes mistakes and I'm sure that there are millions of skeleton's in closets around the world. Now you can do one of two things (and without sounding like I'm preaching!)

1. You can feel sorry for yourself and hide with your tail between your legs or
2. Stand tall and admit you made a mistake

Yes, Barnstomer is right with regards to choices that were made and the potential consequences of such however if it were me, I'd

stand tall, admit I was foolish & made some wrong choices BUT am brave enough to own up and more importantly learn from this experience.

You will receive knockback's as future employers' may well judge you on this (It's a fact) however what some future employer will see one day is someone who, despite making a judgement of error is doing whatever they can to prove that they've learnt and moved on.

Don't quit on this, bite the bullett fella, stand tall and move on. :ok:

All the best
CB

mattyh1986

2nd Oct 2010, 10:58

Not asking for opinion's on whether I make a good candidate or not, simply asking if the conviction is a no go simply in terms of making an application.

Two's In, I also found that statement after making a post. Started the ball rolling on an application today.

Thanks for the encouragement Cyber Bob. :ok:

Last time I applied I was still serving my driving ban so was not eligible, but since they have changed the age limit I now have another window of opportunity.

Thanks for advice/encouragement.

racedo

2nd Oct 2010, 11:05

Getting caught but providing sample when legally requested to do so may look bad but the refusal to accept a legal request and maintain than stance is even worse.

Question for an Interviewer would be "Well if applicant X refuses the legal request on something as basic as a road side stop then how can I be certain he would carry out an order as requested by a senior officer".

Tankertrashnav

2nd Oct 2010, 11:09

Not asking for opinion's on ...

Oh, and you might brush up on your written English as well before applying, unless the RAF has formed a Grocery Branch since I left :E.

Cyber Bob

2nd Oct 2010, 11:10

Think Mattyh has got the message ;)

Go for it fella!

Tashengurt

2nd Oct 2010, 11:22

Barnstormer,
Agree with you totally in principle. Refusing to provide shows a lack of self responsibility that doesn't bode well for a future officer however, just to be a pedant, there's a few misconceptions in your reply.
1) He may not have been asked to provide at the roadside. Where someone is clearly unfit through drink (or drugs) they will be arrested without recourse to the roadside test.
2) He probably wouldn't have been offered breath or bloods. Blood samples are more usually used in the case of hospitalised cases or where the breath sample provided at the station is between 35 and 50 mg. The subject can then be asked to provide blood or urine, the choice being the officers (we generally go for blood so we don't need to stand over someone pretending they cant p*ss for hours)
Either way, not a career enhancing experience generally.

Jabba_TG12

2nd Oct 2010, 12:53

".. portrays someone who is not only dishonest, but who does not also have the moral strength to face up to their actions, and tries to hide behind 'not admitting' what they have done!"

Dunno about joining the RAF.... You ever thought of running for Parliament? ;):E

mattyh1986

2nd Oct 2010, 13:14

At no point did I refuse to give a sample, the matter was complicated and I have no reason to elaborate here.

Please refrain from throwing your uneducated two cents in, my question was one of eligibility, not suitability. I will be the judge of my own suitability to apply, and the board will obviously make their own educated opinion when they meet me.

Thanks again for all the help and support.

Hueymeister

2nd Oct 2010, 13:33

Matt,

A friend's son was in a similar position a couple of years ago and the RAF turned him down on the drink driving offence. He applied to the RN and is now successfully through Dartmouth and waiting to start his pilot training....keep your options open....good luck

Huey

Two's in

2nd Oct 2010, 14:34

Mattyh,

Be aware that if you list 2 salient life points on here, before you know it someone has formed a 20 page psych eval of your moral character, including:

1. Your propensity to homosexuality (joining the RAF).
2. Conflict issues with authority figures (not taking the advice of a pruner).
3. Latent Alcoholism (the DUI).

As you are no doubt aware, being involved with aviation in any capacity requires absolute integrity. Integrity simply means that when you make a mistake, you recognise it and take the appropriate corrective action, whatever the price.

I can't see any indication that you haven't fully understood that principle.

barnstormer1968

2nd Oct 2010, 15:30

"I will be the judge of my own suitability to apply"

I wonder why then, you decided to ask folks who are still serving or who have served, their opinions.....Odd really.

But then of course you had already had several opinions from folks in the know, and that has seemed to have gone over your head too:}

You don't need to go into any details for us, but you did say you received a ban, so it would not be unreasonable for anyone to assume you were guilty (as you never mentioned a miscarriage of justice).

Tashengurt. If an officer decided someone I knew was over the limit (or incapable) at the roadside, then what would they arrest them for? If they wanted the arrest to be linked to the vehicle then they would need to use a Breathalyzer, as they are NOT qualified to access limits accurately enough, and without specific amounts quoted, then purely driving after alcohol is not an arrestable offence is it (although D and D would be another matter of course)?
Either way, this does not concern me greatly as I am tee total :}. What I have found though is another problem. When I have been stopped and asked if I have been drinking, I always ask to be breathalised just to prove I haven't, which seems to really upset the officers concerned (who may have stopped me because they were bored, and don't have a breathaliser on them anyway). On the whole I kind of expect to be stopped, as I often drive in the early hours of the morning, and would prefer the police to stop folks rather than not as this means the police get to catch more baddies and drunk drivers.:ok:

mattyh1986

2nd Oct 2010, 15:45

I wonder why then, you decided to ask folks who are still serving or who have served, their opinions.....Odd really.

I was not asking for opinion, I was trying to clear up if I am eligible. Which has been clarified.

Please read initial question before posting.

I do not wish to hear your thoughts or opinions , especially in light of your extremely limited understanding of the situation.

Thanks to everyone how has positively contributed.

Aeronut

2nd Oct 2010, 16:10

Relax everyone. Let's permit the good recruiting staff to decide on the balance of all his traits.

Roger the cabin boy

2nd Oct 2010, 16:42

Chap,

Give it a go - it's not for you, or some of the other posters on this thread, to decide. Don't ask, don't get.

I got in (albeit 20 odd years ago) with a couple of black marks against my name - both to do with youthful idiocy. It hasn't stopped me rising to a rank I never would have believed when I began IOT (no, not Flt Lt). Also, on my intake was a young man who had just lost his licence for boozing a couple of weeks before IOT - he's now a very successful, senior ranking, fast jet mate.

Give it a go. Just use the experience as a learning opportunity and apply the lesson in future.

airborne_artist

2nd Oct 2010, 17:36

1. Your propensity to homosexuality (joining the RAF).
2. Conflict issues with authority figures (not taking the advice of a pruner).
3. Latent Alcoholism (the DUI).

Points 1 and 3 were both pre-requisites for service on HMY Britannia, ISTR.

Tankertrashnav

2nd Oct 2010, 17:46

I do not wish to hear your thoughts or opinions , especially in light of your extremely limited understanding of the situation.

mattyh1986 - re your last post - you're starting to repeat yourself now. You appear to be under the mistaken impression that if you start a thread on JB you have some control over what people will post - that is certainly a long way from being the case.

You always have the option of deleting the thread, of course, if you don't want to read what the nasty Pruners think about you (and on balance it's not favourable) and you could start again, but I somehow doubt if it would pan out very differently a second time.

airpolice

2nd Oct 2010, 18:11

Barnstormer, there are a few scenarios where a fail to provide is not essentially linked to an active refusal.

Subject is too pissed to respond, is a favourite.

I am still baffled by the original question. Application can't be stopped by anyone other than the applicant. Of course you can apply, just fill out the forms and post them in.

crippen

2nd Oct 2010, 19:03

Quote post 1
mistake of getting into the car after a few pints.

Did you drive??:confused:

Stu666

2nd Oct 2010, 19:16

Go easy on the bloke. How can you be expected to sensibly make life-changing decisions when you're as p*ssed as a fart? The guy made a big mistake, has paid for it, and should be given the chance to turn a new leaf if he wishes to do so.

I did some pretty cringeworthy things as a teenager, including drink-driving. Anyone who thinks that reflects on my adult personality is a bloody fool and clearly leads a sheltered life.

airpolice

2nd Oct 2010, 19:31

Stu, the point here is that you are long past being a teenager and have had time to mature.

I did some crazy **** in my teens and early twenties as well, and I've had time to mature. Not neccesarily time well spent, but I've had the time.

The OP isn't long after making his "mistake" so I find it hard to believe he's out of the woods just yet.

Apart from the disclosure rules, the points are still on his licence!

The guy is actually still paying for it, that's the punishment and deterrent part of the sentence.

pasir

2nd Oct 2010, 19:33

...

Having a conviction for a driving offence - or for failing to provide a sample is low down on the list of reasons for debarring any applicant
for recruitment into the British armed forces - but as already stated earlier it does appear to be a 'buyers market' for the RAF regarding the thousands applying with clean records.

It may deflate some of the pomposity of the 'officer and gentleman' brigade to be reminded that Lt Gen Sir David Richards on taking up his appointment is on record for being greatly concerned at the number of Officers under his command involved in 'Fiddling and Pilfering'.

Off thread a little it may give some encouragment to know that our bastions of law and order have some 1000 police 'officers' currently serving with criminal records - including offences for dishonesty - this may give the original poster further hope.

I wish him well

...

airpolice

2nd Oct 2010, 19:49

From the Met's Recruitment site.

Character

Police officer is a position of responsibility and trust, given only to law-abiding people with proven character and integrity. As such, while consideration will be given to the circumstances, any previous criminal convictions could cast doubt on your suitability for the role.

COULD cast DOUBT....!

WTF?

Tankertrashnav

2nd Oct 2010, 19:49

Forgive me if memory is playing tricks with me, but as I recall it, when the drink driving laws were reinforced in the early 70's, with an automatic ban for a drink-driving conviction, it was made known to us that any officer who was thus convicted could say cheerio there and then to his commission and his career (including pension). I also recall that the first officer to suffer this fate was a one-star (medic or something?)

Now I may have dreamt all this, but there are plenty of guys on here who were around at that time, so have I got it right? If I have, and we are now accepting people who already have this conviction on their record, then times really have changed.

airpolice

2nd Oct 2010, 19:56

Maybe different for Ossifers, but at Valley in 1974 I was a provisional licence holder and regularly drove Rover 1 on the airfield while waiting for my driving course at St. Athan.

One of my duties was to attend at the Runway Caravan with a controller and take Corporal Brown to the Tower for his mid morning constitutional crap as he was disqualified for drink driving and was therefore not permitted to drive the Caravan or the Rover. The fact that I was not permitted either was overlooked in the expedient way of how we did things then.

Eventually Dickie got his licence back and I was able to, sort of, hold the fort in the Caravan while he took "my" Rover to the tower and back.

Tashengurt

2nd Oct 2010, 20:01

Barnstormer,
There are two offences under the road traffic act which an officer may use in relation to a drink driver. Section 5 driving with excess alcohol is the offence which relates to the use of roadside breath screening devices. An officer may request such a test following an RTC, a moving traffic offence or if they suspect the driver to have consumed alcohol. It's fair to say that drivers in the wee small hours may be stopped and asked to provide more often for the obvious reasons you've already identified. In this respect Policing is very similar to fishing.
Section 4 is driving whilst unfit. Where a person is obviously under the influence of drink or drugs an officer will arrest without a breath test. For example, where a driver falls out of the car, crawls on all fours to the officer and vomits on their shoes whilst declaring their undying love for all humanity. I'm sure you'd agree a breath test would be a little pointless in such circumstances.
As for Matty, of course there may always be exceptional circumstances why someone may fail to provide but after 22 years of the road traffic act most of these have been explored and dealt with and there is the small matter that the Magistrates clearly didn't find it a good enough reason.
Still, daft mistakes are daft mistakes. I managed to get a caution for nicking a bike as a youth and it didn't stop me joining the mob then serving with two Police forces. It wasn't the reason I failed OASC either! (That would be my absolute inability to add more than two and two.)

Wrathmonk

2nd Oct 2010, 20:03

Lt Gen Sir David Richards on taking up his appointment is on record for being greatly concerned at the number of Officers under his command involved in 'Fiddling and Pilfering'

Minor thread drift, and not sure why the RAF were excluded under this FoI request, but some of this on recent RN and Army Courts Martials makes startling reading! Click here (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/25245/response/66264/attach/html/3/FOI%2004%2001%202010%20153702%20002%20Ashby.doc.html)

Saintsman

2nd Oct 2010, 20:08

I don't know if it'll apply to the Forces, but some new legistation comes into force today. Employers face equality law nightmare as Coalition pushes ahead with Harriet Harman's Act | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316837/Employers-face-equality-law-nightmare-Coalition-pushes-ahead-Harriet-Harmans-Act.html)

Now most of it is for employees but the article does imply that it also includes job applicants. Therefore, it could mean that if one was refused a position because of a conviction, the employer could be accused of discriminating them against someone who does not.

The whole thing sounds a crock of sh*te but it was drawn up by the previous incumbents. Shame on the present lot for going ahead with it.

A big can of worm will be opening shortly I think.

ShyTorque

2nd Oct 2010, 21:10

mattyh1986,

If I were you, I would ignore the barrack-room lawyers and holier-than-thou types on here. Then delete this thread, by editing/deleting your first post. Then put in your application, hiding nothing thereupon.

Good luck ;)

Tankertrashnav

2nd Oct 2010, 21:56

Maybe different for Ossifers, but at Valley in 1974 I was a provisional licence holder and regularly drove Rover 1 on the airfield while waiting for my driving course at St. Athan.

Yes Air Police, I think the threats I was talking about above did only apply to officers, at least that's how I recall it. I presume that if I might risk opening a completely different can of worms, higher standards were expected of officers than non -commissioned ranks (don't blame me, that's just how things were).

Which sort of brings us back to the original point. With the RAF shrinking rapidly and queues for commissions stretching round the block, is there any point in accepting anything other than the very highest standards? And if that makes me sound holier than thou, Shy Torque, I guess I'll just have to live with it.

minigundiplomat

2nd Oct 2010, 23:23

Matty,

I have made no judgements on your ability to hold a commission, but I still maintain, there are a million candidates out there with no convictions.

MGD

Tankertrashnav

3rd Oct 2010, 08:18

Actually Really Annoyed I think you have a great future in recruiting, as in fact I was a rock-ape before I was a navigator. I regret to say, however, that years in the back of a Victor have left me with a back which is unable to bend sufficiently for me to drag my knuckles on the floor. And I really must watch out for those conjunctions at the beginnings of sentences (oops). As for my name, it is one of those with several variations in spelling, so fortunately I usually have a fair chance of getting it right.

Any vacancies in the Regiment at the moment?

Tankertrashnav

3rd Oct 2010, 11:17

I know, I know, don't rub it in. When I was OC Regiment Flight at Kai Tak I used to dream of being a clerk at Innsworth, and later on when we were weekending in Las Vegas after taking a Jaguar to Nellis I envied those guys walking the perimeter at Scampton with an alsatian. Ah well - things that might have been :(

Two's in

3rd Oct 2010, 15:04

Forgive me if memory is playing tricks with me,...Now I may have dreamt all this, but there are plenty of guys on here who were around at that time, so have I got it right? If I have, and we are now accepting people who already have this conviction on their record, then times really have changed.

TTN, no, your memory is intact. Any drink driving shenanigans in those days would result in you being led into the ante-room where the mess Webley was quietly resting on a side table, wating for you to do the right thing - metaphorically of course - but it might as well have been the real thing given the consequences of the subsequent "resignations".

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ULZGdH0T0BG6wM:http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/webley_38_revolver/webley_38-2.jpg

camelspyyder

3rd Oct 2010, 16:45

Whereas these days it is perfectly ok to both retain your commission and avoid jail even after your 3rd offence.

Truly I know of at least one currently commisioned RAF officer who is a serial convicted drunk driver and should be jailed for it.

CS

racedo

3rd Oct 2010, 21:36

I envied those guys walking the perimeter at Scampton with an alsatian.So what did the guys in Wales walk with for their dates ?

Yeah I know, coat, hat

racedo

3rd Oct 2010, 21:42

COULD cast DOUBT....!

WTF?

HR speak, tell someone they can't be because of a conviction and ambulance chasers would be on it quicker than a dog in heat with a nice £50k for wounded feelings for some absa scroat with menu of convictions.

If you remove definite exclusion then possibly someone could get through the system but many ways to prevent someone become a copper during application, training, probation etc.

Sadly lawss are written by idiots, voted on by idiots and rest is up to imagination.

Pontius Navigator

4th Oct 2010, 17:14

TTN,

The officer concerned was SASO,1 Gp and from his obituary in 2005 it stated: After retiring from the RAF in 1967,

He had attended a dining-in night at Scampton and had declined a driver to which he was entitled. On returning to Bawtry he ran off the road and called the police.

Realising that Drink Driving would bring disrepute in the Service he did the honorable thing and resigned immediately and had cleared his desk by Monday. Of course as the judiciary got to grips with the new law so things became less draconian and initially DD was not seen as anti-social as it is now.