This story will be hitting the headlines again very soon. Monday to be exact, at first it was thought only the Army was subject to this policy abuse.. we were wrong. If you or you know people that was, please keep your eyes peeled for monday both papers and evening news programs will be highlighting some damming evidence that will hit Hoon and co were it hurts
for more information please visit this site
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...pe+90002+index
or
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...+brownenvelope
thank you
Manning control is a policy used by the army to dismiss soldiers who are considered to be 'not fit for a full army career' to make space for other recruits. All soldiers can be reviewed after 6, 9, and 12 years in the Army and dismissed if considered surplus to requirements. 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. A leading legal professional stated that Manning Control is deceitful, disgraceful and an insult to our service personnel protecting this country.
2. Why is there so much fuss about Manning Control Points?
This policy has been rigorously abused by various units Commanding Officers to get rid of their “Dead Wood” .In lament terms , people they don’t think should serve a full career for whatever reason. These have included “So called troublemakers”, soldiers with long term injuries and health problems. Also included were Gulf war veterans including those who had contracted Gulf War Syndrome and other illnesses. There was also evidence to show soldiers were kicked out because of various family problems, that was out there control such as terminal illnesses etc.
The Liberal Democrats revealed documents in July 2003 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)."
Over 600 soldiers are preparing a class action suit against the MoD because they allege they were hoodwinked or bullied into leaving the army or signing onto short term contracts with less employment protection through abuse of the manning control system. Being threatened with manning control and then pressured to voluntarily leave is commonly known as 'brown lettering'. Aggrieved soldiers have set up a website on
www.expra.co.uk under Manning Control Link which is dedicated to those who believe they have been unfairly dismissed from the Army in this way.
3. How much money can the MOD save by releasing a soldier at His/Her MCP point?
Those who leave at, for say at their 12 years MCP Point save the Treasury, on average, £200,000 each according to the MoD's own figures. [Better In Than Out - MoD, Army].
The MoD gives the soldier a resettlement grant of around £8000 and a pension when they reach sixty years of age of around £2000 a year .If the soldier served another 10 years service they could receive a lump sum on discharge of around £30.000 or more depending on rank. Also the soldier would receive straight away, a monthly pension of £400 a month or more, also depending on rank.
4 Can the soldier complain about the Manning Control Point?
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 declared 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 treatment for his injury 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 withhold information. In either case, whether deliberately or inadvertently, Ministers appear to have misled Parliament.