Army alarm at surge in number of officers resigning

I'm not sure if this pongo news item in today's Herald is of interest?

Herald: 8.1.08

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1948547.0.Army_alarm_at_surge_in_number_of_officers_resigning.php

Mods: if totally irrelevant feel free to erase.

 

Whilst there's no doubt that people of all three Services are leaving, perhaps due to stretch, over work, its also because a shrinking service gives less opportunity so people are less inclined to stay in.

A lot of the recent exposure to CO's resigning is largely due to the fact that there's no other great challenge for them so off they go to commercial life to try that!

Once you've driven a ship (commanded a Regt) as an SO1 it's increasingly hard to be promoted so you can see why people leave. Same principle applies at all levels - SO2's, sick of doing the same jobs no immediate promotion prospects, under 40 = exit quickly with pension!

Not sure but I suspect this will ripple all the way down to SR.

 

Thingy - I noticed your article during my daily check of the Herald for reports of Iranian Boghammers in the Hamoaze :thumright:

Seriously, same is happening in the USA with Lootenants, Captains and a lot of SNCO's. It's called voting with your feet.

RM

 

I don`t suppose that it is anything to do with our Prime Minister shouting the odds about the trouble in Kenya and how it must stop, whilst saying absolutely zilch about our troops fighting an illegal war. How two faced can you get?

 

Not sure but I suspect this will ripple all the way down to SR

At my current unit, there were six PVR requests last month, 2 officers, 3 senior rates (one of which is me) and only 1 junior rate.

People have had enough, there are now a lot of senior rates on 2OE who are going early.

 

The article claims it is a surge but fails to quantify the rate of escaltion of officers leaving. On the other hand if the rate is really escalating it is bad news because when the officer corps breaks ranks like that it is potentially the sign for the flood gates to open. It is also not clear what the length of service of thos leaving is, under 10 years can probably be coped with if the loss rate can be cut, but if it is the 15-20 year men as well then the hole might become too big to patch.

 

There should be concern over quality as well as quantity. It seems to me that those most likely to seek new careers are those most able to make the move - those most able in a general sense. In addition, if the trend is true and the reason is indeed overstretch, then the services will be more rather than less likely to lose those to whom the overstretch most applies - that is to say those with the most military experience rather than those who have managed to get themselves sidelined into something more comfortable.

I don't suppose we shall ever see profiles by rank and age of Officer PVRs but I have a feeling that such profiles might shine an interesting light on the situation. There is a huge difference between losing those who either have failed to gain promotion or who have assessed their own personal chances as minimal, and those who might actually be the ones the Services most need to retain in order to ensure the professional health of the Armed Forces far into the future.

The most intellectually highly-charged officers may well assess that the maximum star rank available to them in future is much less than it is now, let alone was in the past, depending on their specialisation. Meanwhile opportunities in outside business for influence, advancement and money continue to grow.

I've left out of this what their wives may be saying.

 

Spot on - this is the interesting side effect. As with the last major redundancy programme, those who could see the problems ahead voted with their feet early. They also tended to be the savvy and most capable individuals, which left a lot of dross still serving because they knew the corporate world is much harsher and whilst people bang on about the grass being greener, the truth is there is a bottom line to support and if you don't perform you don't get paid. Unlike the military where we still support a lot of makeweights.

 

Are those officers who are glorified paperweights? :biggrin:

 

Quality is on its way.
William Wales when he has completed the required number of Bumps and Circuits to become a MRAF will join the navy.
If that doesn't lift morale in our Wardrooms ; what will.
He'll be put in charge of the odd liberty boat with No1 sitting in the stern sheets and a WO stoker ( or whatever you call them now) in charge of the engine. The Chief Buffer will be the forward Boat Hook.

That will prepare him to assume his AF role. The gold lace is on order now with Bernards standing by to sew it on.

 

higthepic - can we get over this please? It's not an illegal war - this has been proven in court (remember Flt Lt Kendall-Smith - the RAF officer who refused to go to Iraq because he said the war was illegal - was thrown out of court and ended up in Colchester).

Whether or not you agree with the reasons for going to war, we're there now, and we'll remain there until it's sorted. Let's just get on with it. End of.

 

The press frequently jumps on the "leaving in droves" bandwagon without giving due attention to statistics. A spot figure for one particular year is of no use - to prove the case, you need to present the figures for departures year-on-year, as a percentage of the overall trained strength. An army losing 50 officers out of 5000 is losing the same proportion as an army losing 75 officers from a workforce of 7500. If the year-on-year can be shown to be increasing (from 5% to 10%, say), then, yes, there is a snag. Otherwise it's just a journo showing that he found the numbers row of his keyboard.

 

They get their figures from MOD FOIA statistics. Use the FOIA route yourself. The figures for the Sun journalist will be no different from yours. The Armed Forces are falling apart. Those serving with talent will leave early and Her Majesty will be left with an army, airforce and navy of "no-hopers"

 

My point is not that I care about the situation (I do, BTW), but that if the journo is going to write an article saying that they are leaving in droves, then he should prove that they are. It might be that an attrition rate of 10% is the norm. Without context, there is no information, only data.

 

I have access to the DASA stats but am not back in office until late tomorrow, I'll see if I am rustle up some numbers.

On the sole basis of anecdotal evidence I would say there is a definite rise, I am not sure I could say its greater than normal though. What I do know is that more and more of my peers are overtly talking about leaving and actively looking, that is a significant change in an organisation where even the appearance of considering your options used to be enough to slash your promotion chances.

 

This has of course been going on for ages. Of my peer group (left BRNC March '55) several left early and went on to very senior positions outside. And I know which ones were bright and which weren't, and which went the distance to an honourable retirement as 2 1/2s.

 

Try looking here: DASA or more specifically for the most recent figures (November) look HERE, for Army Officer specific figures try looking HERE although I notice there are a lot of blanks(JPA's fault apparently) and the last set of figures were updated in October.

I had one of the most bizarre days of my service career today, I had some business to do at another military base, after my meeting I went for a wander. Decided I would nip in and see a few old mates who I hadn't seen for a while, I went to visit 4 people and was shocked to discover that every one had submitted notice in the last few months, these are good people 2 seniors and 2 L/H's and then on my way back to work I bumped into a Lt Cdr who I hadn't seen for ages...... guess what, oh and did I mention that my notice has been in for 6 months! People are voting with their feet...fact.

 

But if they weren't bright how did they get to BRNC in the first place?
High ranking sailor daddy and from a good school? If you knew the un-bright ones: how come the system didn't ?

 

I joined the navy to see the world but what did I see, I saw -- Pompee and Culdrose then Pompee again and due to go to Yeolviton to finish my fifth five.

 

The invasion of Iraq is considered by many British citizens and much of the world to be illegal as indeed under International Law it is. Kendall-Smith was prosecuted under British Law, abetted by a government that is aware that waging a war of aggression is a war-crime.

It's a little bit like Adolf invading Poland; he considered it to be legal - others didn't and it took a few years to get the culprits to Nuremburg :thumright:

QUOTE:

During a BBC radio interview on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan created a controversy by reiterating his long-held position that the Iraq War was illegal because it breached the United Nations Charter. [1] On Thursday, the imperial leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" retaliated by vehemently arguing that their Iraq War was, to the contrary, legal. [2]
[align=center]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/align]

The British Attorney-General gave his original opinion that the invasion of Iraq would be illegal and it is more than probable that a great many British officers now share the same opinion.

I wonder in 1940 how many Germans shared your view that 'Whether or not you agree with the reasons for going to war, we're there now, and we'll remain there until it's sorted. Let's just get on with it ' ..... as the bombs dropped on Prague and Warzaw and Rotterdam.

RM