NON CHANGE OF UY/SUY SERVICE NUMBERS ON ENTRY TO BRNC

#21
the_grim_reaper said:
by accepting a commission and joining the officer corp you are merely being assigned, you already have a service number (employee number) therefore a new one is not required.
Not technically true. You are discharged and re-engaged when you take a commission from the lower deck.
 
#22
This looks just like a recycle of all the comments of the introduction of service numbers for officers when pay was first computerised a long long time ago. Back in the dark ages RN officers had no numbers we were people with real names but the creeping advance of computers did away with this and we joined the rest of the military and got given numbers. I remember a lot of muttering in wardrooms about it but the system made it so and it was so. Now they have changed the way they do things again and the numbering system has changed, that is the way of things, the numbers are there for their benefit not yours and that is it.
 
#23
RNRAWBOD said:
the_grim_reaper said:
by accepting a commission and joining the officer corp you are merely being assigned, you already have a service number (employee number) therefore a new one is not required.
Not technically true. You are discharged and re-engaged when you take a commission from the lower deck.
I didn't think this was the case, does this then mean that you are transferred onto the new AFPS??
 
#24
I am SUY and gutted that the numbers are staying the same for all the reasons stated is this thread. However there is a deeper issue to be discussed with the advent of genderless JPA numbers. Drafty (or assigners as they are now known) are having a nightmare when assigning personnel to ships. It is difficult enough to try and fill a ship with correctly trained sailors as it is. For instance, do you know that there are ships leaving the harbour wall with gapped billets, simply because there may be more trained females than males and not enough beds for all the girlies? The fact that JPA doesn't give a hoot if your male or female is only making this problem worse.

Just one of the many problems associated with this ill-conceived idea.
 
#25
SUYAIB said:
I didn't think this was the case, does this then mean that you are transferred onto the new AFPS??
I'm pretty sure you will stay on AFPS75 if you're already on it - I'd check with the UPO or AFPAA to make sure though.
 
#26
FunDiver said:
I attended and SUY acquaint at BRNC Dartmouth yesterday and was informed that due to JPA, that as of Jan 02 2007, on entry to BRNC the UY/SUY service numbers will not change from a 'D' number to a 'C0' number. :sad:

I was worried by this due to a couple of reasons; :???:

1. Confusion by other parties when giving details over the phone (bookings etc), :roll:
2. Possible discrimination when appointments are sought, :evil:
3. Endless explanations starting with " I don't care what service number I have, I AM AN OFFICER!" :shock:

Could anyone explain why,
1, on JPA the service number cannot be changed and
2, is someone doing something about this?

I wish that they would bring back Buzz Busters so that this can be sent out for wider viewing.... :evil:

Sensible suggestions please :roll:
Does this thread mean that you feel you are better than all the rest of us who do not go the SUY way. Is it a class thing. I am an Officer therefore better than you. I suspect it is not.
As for changing it on JPA (if you have a few thousand quid I am sure the people at ORACLE will be pleased to take your money off you. I am sure that AFPAA don't want to spend anymore money on this. This would obviously hurt their profit margins.
 
#27
Sorry but I really can't see the issue here;

I am off to Dartmouth soonish as an SUY and to be honest I cannot see that not changing my number will make one iota of difference.

The issue of bookings and things will probably be irrelevant really, in the grand scheme it does only take 10 seconds to explain and if we are honest has anyone ever heard of a JR or SR masquarading as an officer just to get accomodation in the wardroom?

I can't help thinking that if you think that the appointer or anyone else will discriminate against you because of you number then maybe you are not making the right move ?

I am sure, like all things, within 12 months it will be accepted as the norm, after all the JRs who join up with purely numeral numbers (No D etc) do not appear to be having too many problems explaining so surely we can manage it :???:
 
#28
FunDiver said:
2. Possible discrimination when appointments are sought, :evil:
Appointing no longer exists - Everyone gets assigned.
You never get a choice - you do not seek appointments! Just express a preference.
Besides, appointing is drafting with biscuits and coffee.
 
#29
FunDiver said:
....an appointer would rather give to a UY/SUY over an Officer that joined as a grad/undergrad......
It used to be the case that there were SD jobs, but that policy was changed about eight years ago.

In practice it wasn't really as most SD jobs are still filled by SUYs but the disappointers just use a different justification.

Mind you, as a GL my last three jobs have been traditionally SD jobs. Not sure what that says...
 

pingbosun

Lantern Swinger
#32
slim said:
Best of luck with your promotion Fundiver. I am sure that with 17+ years service you will have a lot to offer the officer corp. However from experiences of my mates who became SD officers in the 70s and 80s they always seemed to get what I would refer to as gash Jobs. Some instances were MTO, Security officer etc. However these were from the air mechanic branches i.e. POAF POREL etc. Other mates who were artificers or mechanicians and became AEOs did considerably better. I did not notice any difference in their appointments to the graduate and direst entry AEOs.
In fact a guy named Dick Gooden***h who was the youngest CAA in the navy at the time took a commission and within an extremely short time was promoted to commander.
I don't think your service number wll,have any bearing on your appointments, your service histort almost certainly will.
G'day all.

I agree whole heartedly with slim, it does seem to be a snobbish and somewhat arrogant attitude to want to change your service number, because you have decided to become an officer, just because they (meaning people like me) would find out that you hadn't been a boy entrant to Dartmouth.

The best officer that I ever served under was Captain Padfield" at that time the most senior 4 ringer in the Navy, who started a s a boy seaman, then worked his way up, he had the qualities that the navy needed, and he never let snobbery stand in the way to promotion, another was Lieutenant Bell (Dinger) had the N/C for bravery, started as an o/d seaman, specialised in Underwater C and W, up to PO TAS I., then was asked to become a TAS gunner, did he worry that he had been lower decker :?: :?:

There have been hundreds of lower deckers promoted because they new what they were talking about, but never need to pick up the :Dartmouth" (bool in the mooth accent), which I am sure will be the thing that you will want to acquire. hundreds my boy, and though there may have been some who held it against them, most of them didn't worry about abject snobbery that you can find anywhere, civvie street and in the ward room.

If you don't like your service number and you think it will be held against you :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: then stay where you are. :idea: Or wear you No 1. dress uniform every time you go ashore, then there will be no one who wont recognise you for what you are :( :( :( :(

As for lower Decker's they will I'm sure be delighted to serve under someone who hasn't let the wardroom go to his head, and is a worthwhile and knowledgeable officer to work with, for the will work "with you" other wise pick up some snobbery and the will work against you", do not fear the will :roll: :roll:

Pingie. I talk from experience.

PS. Captain Padfield, Also had 52 tattoos on him as well as many gongs and awards , and I know that no-one held anything against him.
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#33
I can sort of see why people might be slightly preturbed at their service number remaining as is, but if you take a minute then ask yourself the acid question "so what", then.... Did you do all that work to get to BRNC to have your number changed? It probably never really came into question until now.

The fact is on JPA your "contract" will have been changed to reflect the change in status, commission and time to serve, that and the rank identifier will be enough for identification as an Officer.

The other posts about gender and beds slightly worry me as years ago this was all discussed and a way forward had been agreed. We're not the only people who need to determine accomodation/gender, at the time there was a camp of 5000+ UK personnel all tented in Iraq that needed management and the only way ahead was to ensure JPA managed that - there was an Oracle bolt-on for the HRMS system that did this. If it hasn't been implemented someone's dropped one.
 
#34
Just to add a bit more to what Ping has said, which is about todays Navy, when I was in it was very much the same, almost every posting I had there were SD officers arround, they were the backbone of the navy, the repository of all the accumulated wisadom and common sense and often helped keep young GLs like me in line. But the concept goes back much further, the RN back around the 17th C became very concerned to 'breed' sea officers who actually knew what they were doing, and tried to ensure that all officers were promoted on merit and that there was a route to the wardroom from the lower deck, all warrant officers came from the lower deck and many warrant officers became Lts, and even through the Napoleonic period when patronage carried a lot of weight a gentleman stil had to do his time as a midshipman which could last many years, and captains still did promote from the warrant officers. Cook was promoted from a warrant officer for example having been a sailing master.

Any one being promoted from the lower deck in the RN is following in a log line of good officers, many distinguished, and what bl**dy number you have will never change that. You will be judged in the end by who you are and how you do, not by any number.

If your number is that important to you then perhaps you are not the right person for promotion.
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#35
Karma said:
FunDiver said:
....an appointer would rather give to a UY/SUY over an Officer that joined as a grad/undergrad......
It used to be the case that there were SD jobs, but that policy was changed about eight years ago.

In practice it wasn't really as most SD jobs are still filled by SUYs but the disappointers just use a different justification.

Mind you, as a GL my last three jobs have been traditionally SD jobs. Not sure what that says...
Hmm, again similarities. An Army Officer recently told me I'd never be promoted "as long as...." because I was lan LE (their SDs), knew too much detail, achieved all my targets and more, got on with my troops too well, but just didn't exude the air of a proper Sandhurst type.

That quite made my day, as I'm a GL through and through. Says a lot about them though
 
#36
wave_dodger said:
Karma said:
FunDiver said:
....an appointer would rather give to a UY/SUY over an Officer that joined as a grad/undergrad......
It used to be the case that there were SD jobs, but that policy was changed about eight years ago.

In practice it wasn't really as most SD jobs are still filled by SUYs but the disappointers just use a different justification.

Mind you, as a GL my last three jobs have been traditionally SD jobs. Not sure what that says...
Hmm, again similarities. An Army Officer recently told me I'd never be promoted "as long as...." because I was lan LE (their SDs), knew too much detail, achieved all my targets and more, got on with my troops too well, but just didn't exude the air of a proper Sandhurst type.

That quite made my day, as I'm a GL through and through. Says a lot about them though
An old chum of mine was a Gordon and we used to have long arguments about officership, but the contrast between a sumariner and a pukka infantry officer in lifestyle back in the 70s was quite extreme, I suspect with the current tempo of real action that the brown jobs have their view on life will have changed.
 
#37
slim said:
During my time in the service I found that about 90% of officers were good, however there were about 10% who were what Jack would describe as arrogant pigs
Slim, no doubt the same could be said about Petty Officers.........

As with so many other changes, it does sound as though JPA wasn't sufficently thought through. Perhaps the logical answer is that the initial letter of all numbers be removed for everyone so everyone can be numerically equal rather than alphabetically superior.....
 
#38
F169 said:
slim said:
During my time in the service I found that about 90% of officers were good, however there were about 10% who were what Jack would describe as arrogant pigs
Slim, no doubt the same could be said about Petty Officers.........

As with so many other changes, it does sound as though JPA wasn't sufficently thought through. Perhaps the logical answer is that the initial letter of all numbers be removed for everyone so everyone can be numerically equal rather than alphabetically superior.....
Agree with you 100% when I was in we had a number of senior rates who really should never have made the grade, however I came across very few arrogant ones. On the lower deck it was normally ignorance rather than arrogance. So 90% good 10% ignorant would probably be right.
An official number is just that and if I had decided when younger (I left it far too late to get educationally qualified) I would have preferred to retain my number to show that I had done it the hard way. Could then have written a book "My Commission the Hard Way" apologies to Chris Bonnington.
 
#39
slim said:
F169 said:
slim said:
During my time in the service I found that about 90% of officers were good, however there were about 10% who were what Jack would describe as arrogant pigs
Slim, no doubt the same could be said about Petty Officers.........

As with so many other changes, it does sound as though JPA wasn't sufficently thought through. Perhaps the logical answer is that the initial letter of all numbers be removed for everyone so everyone can be numerically equal rather than alphabetically superior.....
Agree with you 100% when I was in we had a number of senior rates who really should never have made the grade, however I came across very few arrogant ones. On the lower deck it was normally ignorance rather than arrogance. So 90% good 10% ignorant would probably be right.
An official number is just that and if I had decided when younger (I left it far too late to get educationally qualified) I would have preferred to retain my number to show that I had done it the hard way. Could then have written a book "My Commission the Hard Way" apologies to Chris Bonnington.
I think the reality is that in every walk of life there are people who are better at self advancement than they are at the job they are paid to do. Some of them get found out big time but many just get promoted again. In some ways I think our growing obsession with targets, tick boxes etc is not helping and in fact in many ways makes it easier for the self advancer.

As for the numbers game, it is really quite smple 'computer says' and thats it. I am old enough and ugly enough to remeber when officers first got numbers back around 1970 something. We moaned then and it did nothing. I suppose the only thing then was at least the RN had managed to buy a computer that dealt with decimal numbers rather than the bl**dy octal numbers the command system computers lived off.
 
#40
Maxi_77 said:
every posting I had there were SD officers arround, they were the backbone of the navy, the repository of all the accumulated wisadom and common sense and often helped keep young GLs like me in line. But the concept goes back much further, the RN back around the 17th C became very concerned to 'breed' sea officers who actually knew what they were doing,
Bugger.....If I had known I would have to be the repository of all accumulated wisdom and common sense I would have paid attention for th last 19 years !!! :D
 

Latest Threads

Top