JSP? Promotion regs

[Crabbity Ann]

Trying to find any info on consequences of turning down an offer of promotion and requirements to become eligabe for acting rank paid & unpaid. On IGS now but I've been biffing around with search engines and looking through various publications for about an hour now with no luck DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[JFOM]

I'm sure in the past couple of months, they've removed the penalties to turning down promotion. If you turn it down one year, you'll go back into the pot the next.

Not sure about the acting paid etc, I hear different things. 'Have to work continuously for 22 days in the acting job' to have to do your own work as well as the own your acting for.

 

[HotspurIDO]

Detailed regulations concerning the promotion, appointment to, and relinquishment of paid and unpaid acting rank of airmen in ground trades are contained in AP 3376, Correction: Vol 1, Chapter 5. It also has a bit about refusal.

I hope that helps.

 

[Sospan]

There is also a document on the Manning site in the promotions section that is called 'Boardbrief' which contains advice to the presidents with regards to refusal of promotion.

 

[Crabbity Ann]

Thanks for all the help so far guys. Hotspur, I found the page that says there's info in AP 3376, Chapter 7 but can't find the actuall AP. (not really an avid AP reader so in this respect I'm being a bit of a biff).

Sospan, I'm off to try to find that doc now DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[HotspurIDO]

Crabbity, check your PMs.

 

[Crabbity Ann]

Hotspur, found it in the end but your PMs are full so couldn't thank you. You're a star, cheers DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[ady eflog]

I'm sure in the past couple of months, they've removed the penalties to turning down promotion. If you turn it down one year, you'll go back into the pot the next.

Just resurecting this thread as I believe it still states for Ground trades that you miss 1 year, however for Officers they have just changed the ruling so they don't, surely this gives anyone currently missing a year like myself grounds for Service complaint? how can they have one rule for officers and another for OR's?

 

[Witty_Banter]

Just resurecting this thread as I believe it still states for Ground trades that you miss 1 year, however for Officers they have just changed the ruling so they don't, surely this gives anyone currently missing a year like myself grounds for Service complaint? how can they have one rule for officers and another for OR's?

Probably not mate, ground and commissioned are very different beasts - different payscales, pension pots, contracts, tour lengths, the works. If it were someone in a different ground trade then yes, but I don't think you'd get anywhere comparing us lowly entities to Rupert Sqn.

 

[Ronsuddes]

Just resurecting this thread as I believe it still states for Ground trades that you miss 1 year, however for Officers they have just changed the ruling so they don't, surely this gives anyone currently missing a year like myself grounds for Service complaint? how can they have one rule for officers and another for OR's?

Is that not par for the course - one rule for Officers and another for ORs?

 

[LilStill]

Just resurecting this thread as I believe it still states for Ground trades that you miss 1 year, however for Officers they have just changed the ruling so they don't, surely this gives anyone currently missing a year like myself grounds for Service complaint? how can they have one rule for officers and another for OR's?

Gone for OR's wef 1 Apr 17 - I can't remember the authoritative document that got rid, but I've had it from several horses mouths.

 

[ady eflog]

Gone for OR's wef 1 Apr 17 - I can't remember the authoritative document that got rid, but I've had it from several horses mouths.

I guess its the next Amendment of AP 3376 Vol 1 Apr 17 So if I turned it down in October and our board sits end of April will I be on it?

 

[MattBombHead]

I guess its the next Amendment of AP 3376 Vol 1 Apr 17 So if I turned it down in October and our board sits end of April will I be on it?

If you're not, i'd suggest there may well be grounds for a Service Complaint DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[commsordeath]

I saw in an email today, albeit a summary of info rather than a source, that from 1st Oct 16 the barring for next year no longer applies.

I have had to turn down mine from this years Cpl-Sgt TG4 Board and have received written confirmation that I won't be presented to 2017's board, that was dated 13 Oct 16.

Can't go into too much detail as I've started the Service Complaint process.

 

[ady eflog]

Nothing like good comms from manning!

I sent my refusal back on 26th Oct 16 and was informed that i would miss the 2017 board. I did enquire at the time with the Trade Sponsor and he said something was rumoured to be in the pipeline and to watch the AP for amendment, oh well ill wait out...

 

[Humble Scribe]

The date of 1 Oct 16 will be used as that is when the new promotion year begins with the SAC- Cpl promotions. Therefore if commsordeath or ady eflog came off the board that was convened during the 15/16 prom year then the old regs will apply. Boards beginning in Oct 16 will adopt the revised policy but feel free to have a pop at Manning who have championed this change of regs and driven the amendments to understand the changing needs of service personnel.

 

[Humble Scribe]

Surely this will just make it even harder to fill less popular posts?

Yes of course it will but there is still a risk as you still have to compete on the next board there's no guarantee. With the advantages of promotion diminishing more and more people were turning it down anyway so it seemed the natural thing to do. Problem comes though as we will be offering promotion to (allegedly) less capable personnel.

 

[commsordeath]

The date of 1 Oct 16 will be used as that is when the new promotion year begins with the SAC- Cpl promotions. Therefore if commsordeath or ady eflog came off the board that was convened during the 15/16 prom year then the old regs will apply. Boards beginning in Oct 16 will adopt the revised policy but feel free to have a pop at Manning who have championed this change of regs and driven the amendments to understand the changing needs of service personnel.

I can assure you that the only reason I've had to go down the service complaint route is because Manning didn't or wouldn't listen to my changing circumstances. I'm not going down this road for s**ts and giggles, but because I haven't received the same parity or treatment as those who have also foment off the board, either a head or behind me on the board.

 

[ady eflog]

I can assure you that the only reason I've had to go down the service complaint route is because Manning didn't or wouldn't listen to my changing circumstances. I'm not going down this road for s**ts and giggles, but because I haven't received the same parity or treatment as those who have also foment off the board, either a head or behind me on the board.

To be told your the only one who is deployable out of the 15 released and you have to have the **** job is laughable too. quoting 'service need' and the bloody job is still unfilled 3 months later!!!!!!!