Transferring, Rejoining or Joining with Former Military Service

Question about transferring from the army:
I'm currently an army commando and want to transfer to RM. I was wondering if the medical would look at my entire medical history or just for my time in the army? I'm asking because I've had no medical issues during my time with the army but had a knee issue in 2009 when still in school.
Thanks in advance

 

Your entire medical history should be scrutinised, in theory. In practice it'll probably just be your service medical records. The Army permits ACL Reconstruction surgery incidentally, whereas the Royal Marines do not, for example. I know of a trained rank Royal who had ACL reconstruction following an accident whilst serving & continued to serve. He subsequently left the service of his own volition but upon later deciding he wanted to rejoin, was knocked-back due to the surgery. Bizarre but true, unfortunately.

 

Thanks for the reply Ninja, reassuring to know it probably wont be a problem but good preparation to know a transfer also might fail if my full medical history is looked over.

 

My tip, is make sure you don't burn your bridges with your current unit so that you effectively leave the door open to crack-on as an Army Commando in the event the Corps pick-up on your medical history.

Best o'luck.

 

I read on the OAMAAM site that the Corps is to shed some 300 posts at WO and officer level in order to fund some 600 JR jobs in the RN.

I guess that when this goes through it may open the door for re-joins when the current number of overborne troops drops.

Alan

 

How would that work? I can't get my head round that.

 

Not heard that one but by spooky coincidence, the Corps is over 300 overborne.

The bean counters may well have deduced that SNCOs & Officers get paid twice as much as AB1/Mne1 and decided that not only could the Corps be brought back into manning balance but the RN could make good the manning shortfall, which by strange do incidence is about 600 or more. The 'logic' escapes me entirely but the manpower numbers almost align, or at least make good the difference for the most part.

Shedding manpower from the Corps will not increase the RN manning shortfall, nor could the wage bill make any difference. The RN needs to grow to meet its operational commitments, it's not about money, it's about having enough people to do the job.

 

Just checked the manning balances, box 1, from July's stats (latest available) RN is now 940 under, RM 410 over. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...1/20160502_-_RN_RM_Quarterly_Pocket_Brief.pdf

 

Just copied this over from OAMAAM. The info comes from a WO1 with some 39 years service in, so reasonably sound!

As promised the 8 point plan letter

NAVAL SERVICE RESTRUCTURE – EIGHT POINT PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

Introduction

1. Following recent decisions at the Navy Board, it is timely to provide all officers and Warrant Officers in the Service an update on Naval Service restructuring through the implementation of the Eight Point Plan (8PP).

2. Many of you will be very familiar with all the content of this letter but for some in the Chain of Command rumour has overtaken fact. I would therefore ask that this is cascaded and briefed to your officers and Warrant Officers so that they understand the 8PP’s importance to the Service.

Purpose of the 8PP

3. For the first time since the Second World War, the Naval Service is growing in size; the 8PP has been developed by the Navy Board to restructure Naval Service manpower in response to this challenge. In particular, this plan will provide greater resilience to our frontline manning, and ensure that our future capabilities are properly resourced to fufil their maximum potential. The 8PP will increase the number ratings by approximately 2000 between now and 2024, principally to: fully man both QUEEN ELIZABETH Class Carriers such that they are operational concurrently; fully man SUCCESSOR Class Submarines and Type 26 Frigates through their transition in to Service; fully man Geographic Squad Pools; and, through an increase in quality shore employment opportunities, provide greater resilience across the rating branches through improved sea/shore ratios.

4. The plan adjusts manpower liability to where it is most needed by reducing the number of Warrant Officer and officer positions in the Service by 300 and using the liability to create 600 rating posts; it also withdraws about 300 posts from other TLBs in order to recycle liability within Navy Command, and will draw down the size of the Corps of Royal Marines by up to 8% (with some RM tasks potentially transferring to the Army and RAF). The plan also includes increases in liability funded by both MOD and efficiencies in business areas. A summary of the manpower changes under the 8PP is at the Annex.

Progress

5. Work has been underway across all elements of the 8PP to identify where the reductions in liability can be taken whilst minimising the impact on Navy Command outputs. This has included a substantial amount of Flag and General Officer engagement to generate the first package of changes; implementation is also being closely monitored by Navy Command 2*s to ensure that there are no unexpected consequences.

6. The Navy Board has now approved the first set of liability reductions within Navy Command. Approximately 130 posts have been identified so far and the changes include three 2* , four 1* and five OF5 reductions, creation of 25 FTRS opportunities, and 15 de-enrichments to CPO or below, with the remainder of the 130 evenly split between civilianisation and deletion. The Command Secretary is developing an overarching recruitment strategy to ensure the effective and coherent delivery of the civilianisation. These changes will be implemented between now and 2020 taking account of the needs of the business areas, incumbents’ assignment dates and the time needed to recruit where posts are being civilianised.

7. As part of the 8PP, a range of other reviews have been initiated by the Navy Board to identify the remaining balance of approximately 170 officer and Warrant Officer liability drawdown within the TLB necessary for the rating uplift. These will be completed by Mar 17 and could include transformational activity in some parts of the business, not least in mine. In parallel, CGRM is working with Fleet Commander and 2SL to examine how the Royal Marine elements could be delivered, and negotiations are underway with other TLBs to identify liability that could be transferred whilst retaining the Service’s influence and engagement in key areas.

8. For officers and Warrant Officers the changes made so far are anticipated to have a negligible impact on promotion opportunities. Whilst the 8PP reduces liability, SDSR enhancements in other TLBs are officer-heavy which are tending to offset the reductions in Navy Command TLB. In addition, there is a demographic bulge of relatively senior officers leaving the Service which would otherwise have have increased the promotion requirement over the next 2-4 years down through the officer structure. For Warrant Officers, the number of posts taken so far is relatively small compared to the overall numbers, but more fundamental work is underway to consider exactly where we need WO across the NS.

9. Further announcements will be made as the various projects and other elements of the 8PP mature; in the meantime, any specific queries should be directed to Cdr Steve Mardlin (NAVY ICP-TRANSITION 5 SO1) who is project managing much of the 8PP activity.



Alan

 

As @Ninja_Stoker says, the pay costs of 300 WOs and Grunters would fund the joining pay of 600 JRs, plus reduce the current overmanning for the Corps, as well as freeing up lines of promotion.

As I stated earlier, there are WO1s around with getting on for 40 years service now! Just imagine trying to blag him!

Alan

 

Yep, I get it now...

The idea doesn't look like it's linked to the current manning figures beyond the fact they want to increase the size of the RN by shifting the trained strength manning liability, shedding 300 SNCO/Officer posts and using the saving to fund the wages of 600 Ratings. ie: Meet about a third of the increased manning requirement without an increase in cost.

 

I take from this line that no commissioned ranks will be falling on their sword, yet sure there will be further double-triple hatting in the senior other ranks, not sure how else it would be possible to make a reduction at WO level in the RM without a knowledge gap. I can see how giving continues extensions of service to those at the top will stop progression but won't that happen anyway if those pids are cut off?