Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This years Grat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Oh I know. I was just saying... Didn't mean to imply anything about rank.

    Comment


    • #47
      t
      s not a requirement for AT. So its a brigade local arrangement. All it would take is for someone who didn't do his ARP before annual training to be refused full time training and then take a re-dress, it would all fall down th
      e

      Company commander makes it a privisio that persons will have completed their ARPs, this makes it a SOP, failure to comply would allow the CO to stop attending camp as they had not reached the laid down criteria,

      its done on other courses why not on FTT. .
      What do you witha guy who turns up on camp to use a weapon as part of his FTT but has yet to assed to be competent with the weapon and has been ample oppertunity to qualify but doesn't..should he go on camp?

      Mu opinion is no. His weapons skills have note be evaluated for the year and he may be required to carry a weapon and there is no time to have him evaluated.

      We've gone through the bullshit regarding fitness tests..why if a guy is not competent with a weapon should he be allowed to go on camp.

      Should his proficiency not improve through remedial training should he be allowed to continue in a unit ?
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
        Company commander makes it a privisio that persons will have completed their ARPs, this makes it a SOP
        AKA - "Laid down in Unit Standing Orders"

        What do you witha guy who turns up on camp to use a weapon as part of his FTT but has yet to assed to be competent with the weapon and has been ample oppertunity to qualify but doesn't..should he go on camp?

        Mu opinion is no. His weapons skills have note be evaluated for the year and he may be required to carry a weapon and there is no time to have him evaluated.

        We've gone through the bullshit regarding fitness tests..why if a guy is not competent with a weapon should he be allowed to go on camp
        I' m with you on that one, Murph

        It's only two field days in the year - to fire half of a given unit at a time, then
        the other half fires on the next day

        That's the way our crew operate

        Doesn't always work quite to plan for any number of reasons, and a third day
        sometimes has to be run off, but as others have said, ample opportunities
        for unit members to get qualified in the training year

        Should his proficiency not improve through remedial training should he be allowed to continue in a unit ?
        That's for another discussion - maybe worth a thread to itself....
        "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

        Comment


        • #49
          You are of course correct kermit. I should have said grade in private rank.

          Comment


          • #50
            Correct me if im wrong but a private who was sworn in after November 1st last year, irregardless of their attendance would not be entitled to grat? I ask because several members of our unit received the 180eu despite being sworn in in Febuary or March? But other members didnt? No one could give a straight answer!!!
            Train Hard Fight Easy!!!!

            Comment


            • #51
              Correct, grat should not be paid to those with less than 1 years service. (That's the official stipulation, one which I entirely disagree with)
              "Attack your attic with a Steyr....as seen on the Late Late Show..."

              Comment


              • #52
                oweeeoh. I smell trouble.
                "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Welcome to the board Celtic-Warrior!

                  The same thing has happened to me. I didn't get the grat where others who were equally not eligible for it, did get it. Fair play to those who did get it though, their boots must have been more shiny than mine throughout the year or something

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Celtic-Warrior View Post
                    Correct me if im wrong but a private who was sworn in after November 1st last year, irregardless of their attendance would not be entitled to grat? I ask because several members of our unit received the 180eu despite being sworn in in Febuary or March? But other members didnt? No one could give a straight answer!!!
                    A person attested in nov 2009 would be a recruit, and would not have attended any mod 2 trg. Therefore not entitled to any form of payment.

                    A person attested feb 2009 might have completed mod 1 trg (they shouldn't have unless there were several field days). They may have also completed rec trg in summer 2009. They would not be eligible for grat untill feb 2010. Think it would be €180

                    A person attested nov 2008 would become eligible for grat after nov 2009.
                    "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      To get grat for the training year (November-October) for any year you have to have min 12 months service on 31 October of that year.

                      IE to get the grat for the year Nov 09 - Oct 09, you have to have been sworn in on or prior to 31 October 2009. It doesn't matter what rank/grade they are!

                      If it has been paid in error, the Coy Commander (he signs it, not cadre or anyone else) is financial responsible for it!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Even if they were put on the list in error their enlistment date has to be entered so Renmore should have picked that up. Looks like Galway are not paying due care and attention (again)

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X