You have a good memory baffman, and yes you are correct I was against it. To be precise I was against the perceived need for it as I felt (and still do) that the responsibility for a Serviceman/woman's welfare is the direct responsibility of their Commanding Officer and the CoC beyond.
I seem to recall being told that naive belief is now out of date as Commanding Officers no longer have the powers that they had in my day and that you end up dealing with faceless bureaucrats and impersonal systems that require similar organisations dealing with them on your behalf. I paraphrase and probably have it not quite right, but the fundamental point, that the Powers of the Subordinate Commander are much diminished, seems to me not an explanation but a condemnation of the present system of Military Administration. HM Forces are not a plc (yet!) but disciplined Armed Services whose members are subject to Military Law, who must obey all lawful commands, and who forgo the right strike. The reward for all this is the so called Military Covenant, and like most politico sound bites is seen to be in reality a hollow sham, witness this very thread.
The secret of military effectiveness is loyalty, upwards and downwards. Unless and until that be reinstated by the CoC then there will be no "contract", BAFF notwithstanding. When the first Air Marshal resigns in protest on behalf of his Service, his subordinates, or his conscience, then we may see that change. "What good would that do?", I hear you ask. You'd be surprised. You really would.
Well I did say naive, didn't I?
PS So what is BAFF doing on behalf of these soldiers anyway?