RNFT FAILURE Vs NOTICE

#1
As is known, Submarine Pay ceases from the date of notice to leave, and apparently Nuclear Pay, and I'm not too sure on the submarine supplement (if your still on a boat), but in big handfuls for a Senior time served rating, this could equate to £40 + a day......now unless the gap has been plugged by not performing to the standard required (I doubt it),what stops someone saving up to £15K a year by failing the RNFT 3 times, and subsequently discharged. What would be even more pleasurable of course is the £90 you would be earning conducting each remedial RNFT session.........
 
#4
Mmmmm I have had 9 month failures, who are still seagoing, the only way they could gap this would be to reword the basis for suspending submarine pay, that is making RNFT failure an operational deficiency, however that would also mean that the RNFT failure protocol would have to be changed to trigger this with a negative MPAR / formal warning procedure.....and this exit route is already happening to my knowledge!
 
#5
In my experience you'd struggle to get out in 12 months by going down the RNFT failure route. Unless your DO and Chain of Command are red hot on warnings you will go well over a year before you get referred to INM, then they may recommend that you be given more time to pass. If you are failing on purpose, you may well be obviously fit enough to pass and so incur disciplinary attention too?
 
#6
In my experience you'd struggle to get out in 12 months by going down the RNFT failure route. Unless your DO and Chain of Command are red hot on warnings you will go well over a year before you get referred to INM, then they may recommend that you be given more time to pass. If you are failing on purpose, you may well be obviously fit enough to pass and so incur disciplinary attention too?
Spot on, you'd be very hard-pushed to get RNFT discharged inside a 12 month notice period - the system is just not that quick!
 

SWS Fag

Lantern Swinger
#7
**** em, do it! Play the system. They won't take you of the boat either way so you may aswell get the full pay your entitled to and maybe stir some shit while your at it!


Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)
 
#8
If the INM couldn't find a medical reason for you to fail your RNFT, I'd be inclined to place you on warnings for reversion rather than discharge shore. I reckon I could make you an AB in less than 12 months.
 
#9
If the INM couldn't find a medical reason for you to fail your RNFT, I'd be inclined to place you on warnings for reversion rather than discharge shore. I reckon I could make you an AB in less than 12 months.
It would be interesting to see the current percentage of those who have nil medical reason, and therefore discharged. And more importantly closely monitor the trend!!!
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#10
Rapid discharges for failing RNFTs (medical problems notwithstanding) have been going on for some time. Easily done and relatively straight forward. I might also be inclined to consider looking at the malingering angle, for attempting to render yourself unfit for service... :oops:
 
#13
This is true. I was thinking it'd be fun to double drop some Es and rave your way around Faslane listening to some banging tunes on your iPod, but as you say, no **** would bat an eyelid.

Short of snorting a few lines of Chico off the fruit machines in the NAAFI, I'm out of suggestions.
 
#14
Rapid discharges for failing RNFTs (medical problems notwithstanding) have been going on for some time. Easily done and relatively straight forward. I might also be inclined to consider looking at the malingering angle, for attempting to render yourself unfit for service... :oops:

Whilst I fully believe you. How come there are so many knackers in the mob?
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#15
Must admit I do find the concept of "punishing" a qualified submariner by reducing his pay if he submits notice is bizarre and am surprised no-one has taken the MoD to task. Under the terms and conditions of service, the individual needs to be qualified to receive the pay and is no less qualified when he legitimately submits his notice to quit.

A lot of people seem to take umbrage when someone decides to legitimately quit under their terms of employment in the first six months or after completing their return of service after completing training. The "average" matelot serves 6 years, the fact the contract is now 18 years or to age 40 certainly doesn't imply that the individual needs to complete the contract but it still puzzles me why people get the hump if someone wants to leave.

All that aside, many people regret with hindsight if they deliberately 'burn their bridges' when leaving - rest assured a disciplinary discharge bites one's arse in many ways.
 

tiddlyoggy

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#16
Most of my thoughts have already been said, but my two penn'orth: 1. RNFT discharges take considerably longer than a year in my experience. 2. Malingering is VERY hard to prove (again speaking from experience with one of my own division on my last ship). 3. RNFT failures don't get landed as ships can't take the gaps. 4. It is a VERY dangerous game to play, all these people who say, "Get a civvy lawyer" are lower deck lawyers full of bravado and are talking bollocks, the Fleet Legal team are not halfwits.
 
#17
Must admit I do find the concept of "punishing" a qualified submariner or diver or pilot and so on by reducing his pay if he submits notice is bizarre and am surprised no-one has taken the MoD to task. Under the terms and conditions of service, the individual needs to be qualified to receive the pay and is no less qualified when he legitimately submits his notice to quit.

A lot of people seem to take umbrage when someone decides to legitimately quit under their terms of employment in the first six months or after completing their return of service after completing training. The "average" matelot serves 6 years, the fact the contract is now 18 years or to age 40 certainly doesn't imply that the individual needs to complete the contract but it still puzzles me why people get the hump if someone wants to leave.

All that aside, many people regret with hindsight if they deliberately 'burn their bridges' when leaving - rest assured a disciplinary discharge bites one's arse in many ways.
Specialist Pay is now called Recruitment & Retention Pay, it is not designed to act as a payment for specialist skills and expertise, more to aid in retaining those specialist skills and expertise within the Service (and has been such for a long time, even when it was called SP). I know that some old and bold will recite the old SSP stuff, but it isn't SSP anymore - let's move on.

The R&R pay is designe to attract, and retain people into roles where the skills that they are given by the RN are attractive to civilian employers as well (e.g. nuclear specialists) and where the working conditions are seen as not being particularly attractive.

The rationale is that if you are on any form of R&R pay (standfast specialist pay spines), and subsequently submit notice, then the 'retention' part is no longer working, so there is no need to pay you the money in order to keep you in the position, therefore the pay is lost.

Seems fair to me, although I realise that it doesn't seem fair to those in receipt of the pay, but people know the rules and should plan accordingly.

No one is being 'punished' for submitting notice.
I am one of the above type people. Had no issue as such. Done twenty five wanted a new career. I "planned accordingly".

I get the new R&R theory. Again I get it's a cynical, cost cutting policy. What I don't understand is how they still expect you to carry on your job without the added pay incentive.

This may have been mentioned before but what is the policy (BR 3 or AFA etc) in regards to someone not supervising a dive with live explosives, flying a helo with live weapons, refusing to go to sea as a nuclear watch keeper etc. What if the person relinquishes their qual?? You certainly can in my old branch. Admittedly if you did this before you went to source branch and lost all your pay, but if they are already doing that?

It might not help you get out quicker, but if your source branch doesn't exist what use are you?
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#18
It doesn't affect me personally, however moving the goalposts does strike me as unfair, doubtless others see it differently but changing the name of something doesn't make it any more palatable in my view. It's appreciated many of those it doesn't affect will see nothing wrong in this, granted, I'd be surprised if the majority agreed with my view.

In a similar manner the "retention bonus" supposedly awarded to those who don't submit their notice in the first five & eight years was another example of smoke and mirrors - those joining before the introduction of that scheme were paid a higher daily rate than those who joined after its introduction. Obviously those joining knew no different, but the money paid was effectively deducted from their wages for 5 years and then paid back, but only if they didn't submit notice. Calling it a "retention bonus" is actually not very descriptive as it was a zero cost retention incentive.
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#19
This isn't a new thing, it has just been given a new name - SSP may not have been designed as this (not sure as I wasn't around at that time) but Specialist Pay has been designed to recruit and retain people for many years. People should take more interest in the terms and conditions of service before they sign up to something.
Specialist Pay has next to no effect on recruiting in my opinion as AFCOs don't actively advertise or promote it, beyond the "Golden Hello" offered submariners and Engineering Officers. The conditions regarding Specialist rates of pay and the circumstances under which they are earned (or taken away) are not part of recruiting literature (see below) nor are they mentioned in the S3049 attestation form which is your legal work contract. I'd argue that very few recruits are aware of their TCOS when they join simply because it is not part of the initial contract of employment because no-one joins on specialist pay. Perhaps it should be made much clearer from the outset:

Careers Leaflet said:
ADDITIONAL FORMS OF PAY
Some types of work attract additional pay on top of the annual basic pay.

The figures here are for guidance only.

Submariner pay:

Submariners receive a £5000 ‘golden hello’ on completion of training, and a daily supplement to their basic pay of between £12.12 and £26.66 plus an extra £5.24 a day at sea. They also receive a nuclear propulsion supplement of between £2.42 and £20.60 per day.

Flying pay:

Awarded to Pilots and Observers on completion of professional training. Ranges from £13.93 on qualifying up to a maximum of £37.58 a day.

Other:

Additional forms of pay are awarded to Divers, Hydrographers, Nurses and for a few other very specialist activities.

Longer separation allowance:

Once you have completed basic training, you will be eligible for a bonus of £6.69 a day, rising to £28.24 a day when serving away from your family or base unit.

Retention bonuses:

Several bonuses are available to various branches and specialisations for service over a certain period.
http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/67416af549994c30a1b607c1245bbc96-0x0.pdf

To re-iterate, s3049 is the contract which on which you "sign-up", it makes no mention of the recruiting and retention pay, or the fact it is revoked if you submit notice to quit. Maybe all ratings should be given a copy of JSP 752 to have a browse through before they swear an oath and attest at HMS Raleigh.
 
#20
Must admit I do find the concept of "punishing" a qualified submariner by reducing his pay if he submits notice is bizarre and am surprised no-one has taken the MoD to task. Under the terms and conditions of service, the individual needs to be qualified to receive the pay and is no less qualified when he legitimately submits his notice to quit.

A lot of people seem to take umbrage when someone decides to legitimately quit under their terms of employment in the first six months or after completing their return of service after completing training. The "average" matelot serves 6 years, the fact the contract is now 18 years or to age 40 certainly doesn't imply that the individual needs to complete the contract but it still puzzles me why people get the hump if someone wants to leave.

All that aside, many people regret with hindsight if they deliberately 'burn their bridges' when leaving - rest assured a disciplinary discharge bites one's arse in many ways.
Specialist Pay is now called Recruitment & Retention Pay, it is not designed to act as a payment for specialist skills and expertise, more to aid in retaining those specialist skills and expertise within the Service (and has been such for a long time, even when it was called SP). I know that some old and bold will recite the old SSP stuff, but it isn't SSP anymore - let's move on.

The R&R pay is designe to attract, and retain people into roles where the skills that they are given by the RN are attractive to civilian employers as well (e.g. nuclear specialists) and where the working conditions are seen as not being particularly attractive.

The rationale is that if you are on any form of R&R pay (standfast specialist pay spines), and subsequently submit notice, then the 'retention' part is no longer working, so there is no need to pay you the money in order to keep you in the position, therefore the pay is lost.

Seems fair to me, although I realise that it doesn't seem fair to those in receipt of the pay, but people know the rules and should plan accordingly.

No one is being 'punished' for submitting notice.

EDIT TO ADD: those who feel that they want to 'take the MOD to task' should first read JSP754, Chapter 6, 06.0103 :wink:
Did you lose your SP at submission of notice?






This isn't a new thing, it has just been given a new name - SSP may not have been designed as this (not sure as I wasn't around at that time) but Specialist Pay has been designed to recruit and retain people for many years. People should take more interest in the terms and conditions of service before they sign up to something.



Yes!

It wasn't in my T&C's when I signed up. You never used to lose it.It only came in around 2003 (ish). When I signed up and took interest it didn't exist, you KEPT your pay despite leaving.

I am over losing my diving pay. My question and point being where does the mob stand with not carrying out the duties involved as I mentioned above??
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Murray The Fleet 10
Sea_Dodger The Fleet 56
M The Fleet 17

Similar threads

Latest Threads