AIP mispayment

[4everAD]

So attended a briefing at Secret N.Yorks base on Friday to find out that there is a potential problem with the way AIPs were approved/paid since 2003. If I understand it correctly It only affects some of those who used Q-PI-D to gain an AIP (Those who used 2 AIPs in one rank or Sgt and above using IMLC/AMLC to gain AIP). Basically HR didn't correctly check/didn't understand the JSP to see if you were entitled to the AIP (Something to do with having NVQ assesors Q AND the relevant level qualification) and signed off the Gen App anyway.

Some may owe thousands and a test case/appeal failed, MOD appear to be taking the line that as you initiated the request for an AIP and it wasn't automatically given to you it is YOUR fault HR didn't do their job properly.
Apparently this is now triggering a wider check of AIPs in all trade groups. Personally I can't understand how anyone can be held responsible for applying for something in good faith (Some were advised in training to put these AIPs in) this application was then authorised and signed off by HR after checking your Qualification against the JSP. (Not just one HR flight this is a RAF wide problem)

Personnel at briefing were then advised monies could be taken from their terminal benefits (Some of those affected are out in 3 months time) NICE!

Have briefings been held at other camps?

 

[Vee2]

That is a bloody disgrace.

 

[raflad67]

No briefings at my place but I can confirm we have been checking and have a few potential problems with SAC's who have used an NVQ but with no assessor qualification and some who have used the IMLC certificate. So iaw what has been instructed the AIP will be wiped off their record and a significant debt will then be required to be paid off.

I must say that all the problems we have encountered were as a result of a one Unit HR signing them off. If in doubt they should have been checking with the Trade Sponsor.

Gutted for those who it affects and you are right a wider check will and should happen. And they have already noted people have been given 2 x Q-PI-D which is also incorrect.

A complete nightmare.

 

[4everAD]

raflad, IMLC quals being used wasn't actually mentioned specifically and people I know who've used them weren't on the list of potential problems, what is the definitive answer on the IMLC qualification being used for an AIP?

 

[raflad67]

A recent query to the TS gave the respose that just using the certificate you get from doing IMLC or similar service course is not sufficient. You have to do additional work (and it cost you some money) in order for it to possibly qualify.

Was told if they haven't added to it then it is not deemed acceptable.

I never used mine as we were told the above info whilst at ACS and it was confirmed by our TS.

 

[techie_tubby]

I'm a little confused. What are the issues with using the NVQ as evidence for an AIP? Is it to do with the way the NVQ has been signed off?

 

[4everAD]

Well once they start checking on that one (IMLC) there's going to be a few people caught out again. Have to say though in my opinion this is a HR failing not an individual's one. Can see some civvy solicitors rubbing their hands at this as ultimately if the RAF don't back down you have the Gen App with a signature of a HR staff which said you were entitled! If it was me I'd look to sue the HR bod for their mistake, but they could quite rightly say this is a systemic failing as no-one in HR knew what they were doing!

 

[raflad67]

Basically, they have produced a list of those with Q-PI-D but there is a wider problem here. It was generated from a query somewhere from someone who had claimed Q-PI-D so they have concentrated on this category.

As a consequence, when we were checking and found some who had used the IMLC gained certificate for an AIP we queried it and that's what we were told.

I can imagine there are loads of people from many trades who have used these ACS-gained certificates and I must say that I have heard from the Goat and elsewhere that there was (still is) confusion regarding these certificates.

 

[raflad67]

I'm a little confused. What are the issues with using the NVQ as evidence for an AIP? Is it to do with the way the NVQ has been signed off?

Some require additional quals in order to qualify for an AIP.

For example an NVQ Level 3 also requires a D32/D33 or A1 in order for it to qulaify. If it is merely the NVQ then it doesn't. I can't remember which Q-PI this is in.

 

[raflad67]

Well once they start checking on that one (IMLC) there's going to be a few people caught out again. Have to say though in my opinion this is a HR failing not an individual's one. Can see some civvy solicitors rubbing their hands at this as ultimately if the RAF don't back down you have the Gen App with a signature of a HR staff which said you were entitled! If it was me I'd look to sue the HR bod for their mistake, but they could quite rightly say this is a systemic failing as no-one in HR knew what they were doing!

Yep loads I reckon.

HR have made the cock-up. An individual applies to use an AIP and it goes through their C of C to PSF who then confirm it (or otherwise). From the ones I have seen the Unit (and all mine we from a certain one!) approved them without any advice from the TS.

If in any doubt we always refer it to the TS.

I guess they will say that ultimately the JSP is there for everyone to read and also it states that good faith is no defence.

Shocking state of affairs all the same.

 

[bubblebutt]

Basically, they have produced a list of those with Q-PI-D but there is a wider problem here. It was generated from a query somewhere from someone who had claimed Q-PI-D so they have concentrated on this category.

As a consequence, when we were checking and found some who had used the IMLC gained certificate for an AIP we queried it and that's what we were told.

I can imagine there are loads of people from many trades who have used these ACS-gained certificates and I must say that I have heard from the Goat and elsewhere that there was (still is) confusion regarding these certificates.

This all sounds like a right cluster! However if people check the JSP for pay (I think it's the 764) then they will find out what quals they can use for AIP as per the JSP. Some of the quals are very 'broad' in their description, but the JSP says you can use them. When people ask for these AIP's there's a process to follow, if HR didn't do it properly how can that be the individuals fault!? People don't train as HR staff, then go on to their own trade training, so surely they are reliant on HR staff to be accurate, if they aren't then they are to blame, not the individual. I'm sure someone will take this the legal way as this could affect people massively. Conversely anyone with a HR background could surely explain why this isn't the individuals fault. As one Goater put 'they've got the OC PSF's signature saying they can claim', if HR PSF doesn't know what they are doing with HR documentation, how the hell are the rest of the RAF meant to!?

 

[raflad67]

I have just looked at the JSP 754 and can confirm that to use a Q-PI-C or D using an NVQ, it states:
Management or trade-relatedS/NVQ Level 3 with, in addition, D32/D33 or A1 (provided they have notpreviously been used for AIP)

SoI think that is quite clear to everyone

It also states that Unit HR Staff areresponsible for giving initial advice to individuals on the award of AIP and that you should state various things on your gen app one of which is to certify that the qualification was not gained whollythrough attendance at a Service training course except those specificallyauthorised in the relevant trade section.

 

[BillyBunter]

Personally somebody in PSF signs of that AIP and does the relevant checks. I got refused one for my BTEC although I know hundreds got a free jump with it, depends on who agreed it. Sounds like a TG17 issue and no doubt will be swept under carpet

 

[Late & Tired]

Thankfully that's why those HR bods don't yet feature in the higher pay band, - especially for this level of accountability and responsibility... oh, hang on a minute...
Here we go again, all aboard the pay band bus...

 

[BillyBunter]

Yeah all one pay band we all accept the same responsability. I think not . In PSF if you loose a pen and somebody slips on it and falls , do you go to jail !!!

I rest my case

 

[unruly1986]

The adminers have a get out clause for everything - do away with the lot of them and we will do our own admin!

 

[Max]

I was denied mine using my BTEC as the rules changed before I could, I was always under the impression that you had to register and do some extra to use JMLC/TMT etc.

Still if someone had used an AIP then been promoted without spending a year on the top level would it then affect the pay they received as the jump in pay may have been more than it should have been?

 

[4everAD]

I was denied mine using my BTEC as the rules changed before I could, I was always under the impression that you had to register and do some extra to use JMLC/TMT etc.

Still if someone had used an AIP then been promoted without spending a year on the top level would it then affect the pay they received as the jump in pay may have been more than it should have been?

This is the problem and why some owe so much, if you'd spent 2 years at the top pay level then you'd have cancelled out the AIP in effect, however those high flyers who only spent 3-4 years in a rank and used a AIP will carry on the jump into their new rank and so on.

 

[metimmee]

What about those who have left and are drawing their pensions based on their increment on leaving...I wonder if they will chase them!

 

[Shortie]

I have just looked at the JSP 754 and can confirm that to use a Q-PI-C or D using an NVQ, it states:
Management or trade-relatedS/NVQ Level 3 with, in addition, D32/D33 or A1 (provided they have notpreviously been used for AIP)

SoI think that is quite clear to everyone

It also states that Unit HR Staff areresponsible for giving initial advice to individuals on the award of AIP and that you should state various things on your gen app one of which is to certify that the qualification was not gained whollythrough attendance at a Service training course except those specificallyauthorised in the relevant trade section.

That's all very well but what are D32/D33 or A1? I can find no reference to them in the JSP.