Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Service actions for affairs

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
It is absolutely right for the Service to take action when a senior takes advantage of a subordinate, it's called discipline and leadership. To bleat the right to private life line is extremely poor!

Who says that he wasn't seduced by the little minx? Your view is somewhat sexist in assuming that he led the way.
 
Who says that he wasn't seduced by the little minx? Your view is somewhat sexist in assuming that he led the way.

A woman taking the lead? Won't happen. Women are clearly cut out to follow rather than lead. Generations of female officers and senior NCOs have shown this to be true.
 
John Lloyd, that is irrelevant. It is a matter of leadership and that is why the service takes an interest and a very dim view.
 
With so many people being deployed OOA these days the 24 hour posting should be in effect as a deterrent to the chancers. Used to come with a formal warning too if I remember correctly
 
John Lloyd, that is irrelevant. It is a matter of leadership and that is why the service takes an interest and a very dim view.

Do they take a dim view these days? The cases I know both individuals were given the postings of their choice and were both well chuffed! Used to be a big no no career wise, but like many other things that have declined over the years I don't think it is anymore.
 
John Lloyd, that is irrelevant. It is a matter of leadership and that is why the service takes an interest and a very dim view.

Out of date somewhat. The Service only takes an interest, and a dim view, if their action(s) fail the Service test.
 
Out of date somewhat. The Service only takes an interest, and a dim view, if their action(s) fail the Service test.

Link back to the example and you will see that I am not! Snco shagging one of his his sac's, how does that not fail the service test? It is a chain of command issue and hence a leadership issue
 
It was no great secret but I was in the same situation with my Missus 'playing away' whilst I was in Turkey in 2000 ish. The new 'Service Moral Code of Conduct' had just been introduced and I was the very first individual who had to abide by it! It wasn't worth the paper it was written on!
Hypothetical scenario: Said SNCO is married and his wife has a job? Kids are settled in schooling? Why should they be disadvantaged due to HIS actions and be forced to give up their jobs/schooling due to a short notice posting being afflicted upon him?
24 hour postings are no longer a feature in today's Service and unless (as stated) the two individuals are in the same chain of command.....NOTHING can be done.....Even if they are in the same chain of command a gentle chat and the offer of a posting of their choice will ensue which if they refuse again NOTHING will be done! In my case it was made perfectly clear his life would be made unbearable if he remained on unit. Then again he was on TCW who operate more like the Army with regards to discipline. End result.....He went to Benson so his missus could keep her job in Oxford, he was refused to sign on and two years later was out. I chinned off the missus and everyone was happier if not perhaps skint flint for a while.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this is along the same lines. When I was out in Cyprus many years ago the Gynecologist (Group Captain) at Aki was married to a Cpl. When questioned about it her reply was ' you need me I don't need you' the RAF had to live with it
 
Link back to the example and you will see that I am not! Snco shagging one of his his sac's, how does that not fail the service test? It is a chain of command issue and hence a leadership issue

Part of leadership is getting the extraordinary from the ordinary.

Ergo, if he got an extraordinary blowjob from an ordinary SAC, I'd say he had top class leadership skills. :PDT_Xtremez_14:
 
Here's one from about 10 years ago. It's my own, so I'm not sharing anything I shouldn't. The situation was different however.

1. Junior Technician Vee2, you are formally warned that your incident of sexual misconduct will nor be tolerated by the Royal Air Force.

2. In DATE, you had sexual intercourse with the wife of a fellow serviceman. You knew the serviceman in question, you knew that he was married to the woman with whom you had intercourse and you knew that they had children.

3. Your actions have breeched the Code of Conduct for the Armed Forces and have had a significant impact on operational effectiveness. The other serviceman now refuses to work alongside you and this has necessitated your posting away from the Unit QR 554 (Blameworthy).

4. You have significantly impacted on a relationship and the morale and welfare of the other serviceman. Furthermore, your posting from the Unit has caused significant inconvenience to your section and reduced the usefulness of expensive training recently invested in you. The fact that this incident occurred whilst you were under the influence of alcohol is no excuse and your attention is drawn to AP3392 Vol 5 Leaflet 117 Annex B (Alcohol Abuse Advice and Information for RAF Personnel; a copy of which is issued to you.

5. Junior Technician Vee2 you are hereby formally warned your social misconduct is totally unacceptable and breeches the Armed Forced Code of Conduct. The matter is taken very seriously and any further violations of the Code of Conduct will result in consideration of further administrative sanctions being taken against you. The immediate effects of this warning are:

a. You are screened from all movement in the Royal Air Force for a period of 6 months subject to operational requirements and the provision of QR 554.

b. You are barred from advancement in rank for a minimum period of 6 months.

c. Subject to review of your suitability for overseas service.
 
Last edited:
At one time, such a misdemeanour would have attracted a great deal of opprobrium, quiet and quick postings all round to distant parts, as well as the usual stuff illustrated by Vee2.
It came under the heading, I believe, of what was once called "Section 69, 'Bringing the Service into disrepute' [Conduct Prejudicial ?], where the Service took a very dim view of such goings on.
 
Last edited:
No it wasn't. Section 69 was an section of the Air Force Act 1955 - conduct prejudicial to good order and air force discipline. As such would have been actioned by a charge either heard summarily or at a Court Martial.

Such instances were (and indeed still are where the conduct fails the Service test) dealt with by admin action. IIRC (and the memory is getting strained), postings were dealt with under the terms of QR1021 for officers, QR554(Blameworthy) for ground trades, and a separate QR for Airmen Aircrew that I can't remember.

There was never a charge of bringing the air force into disrepute - it is one of those urban myths alongside the ficticuous tech charge.
 
Last edited:
No it wasn't. Section 69 was an section of the Air Force Act 1955 - conduct prejudicial to good order and air force discipline. As such would have been actioned by a charge either heard summarily or at a Court Martial.

Such instances were (and indeed still are where the conduct fails the Service test) dealt with by admin action. IIRC (and the memory is getting strained), postings were dealt with under the terms of QR1021 for officers, QR554(Blameworthy) for ground trades, and a separate QR for Airmen Aircrew that I can't remember.

There was never a charge of bringing the air force into disrepute - it is one of those urban myths alongside the ficticuous tech charge.

I'm not too sure what you're arguing with me about.
 
Not arguing with you. Sorry finger trouble with the small iPod buttons. Was commenting on ex bay's assumption that such things were dealt with under the Air Force Act.

Corrected that post now to avoid the confusion.

Sorry again.
 
Last edited:
No it wasn't. Section 69 was an section of the Air Force Act 1955 - conduct prejudicial to good order and air force discipline. As such would have been actioned by a charge either heard summarily or at a Court Martial.

Such instances were (and indeed still are where the conduct fails the Service test) dealt with by admin action. IIRC (and the memory is getting strained), postings were dealt with under the terms of QR1021 for officers, QR554(Blameworthy) for ground trades, and a separate QR for Airmen Aircrew that I can't remember.

There was never a charge of bringing the air force into disrepute - it is one of those urban myths alongside the ficticuous tech charge.

Well, when I joined (1960), Section 69 was usually added to any other charge on the sheet. If they didn't get you for one they always got you for Section 69. As I understood it (and memory is possibly a bit suspect), if you broke the rules, you'd be guilty of 'Conduct Prejudicial'.
 
Well, when I joined (1960), Section 69 was usually added to any other charge on the sheet. If they didn't get you for one they always got you for Section 69. As I understood it (and memory is possibly a bit suspect), if you broke the rules, you'd be guilty of 'Conduct Prejudicial'.

Luckily the RAF I joined (and have been in for the last quarter of a century) appreciated the principle of law relating to only being charged for an offence once. Section 69 was frequently used for an offence not covered by any of the other Sections not as an addition to a charge under another section.
 
My experience was that ‘admin’ actions always left room for a huge amount of discretion – and didn’t necessarily have any impact on a career..

Many moons ago I became involved in a complicated relationship with a wraf who was ‘separated’. I genuinely believed she was separated from the marriage and heading for a divorce (lived in single accommodation, didn’t go ‘home’ many weekends, and lead me to believe her marriage was over). Unfortunately, ‘separated’ to her was a distance thing only – and I found out afterwards her hubby had been deployed somewhere, hence the not going home. We had kept the relationship discreet, mostly as she was separated and didn’t want word she was seeing someone else to get out before the divorce was finalized.

I guess inevitably, someone did find out and helpfully called my WO to say I was having an affair and how it would devastate the husband etc etc. After it came out that the affair was a loneliness thing for her that she was planning to end it when her husband got back – and I had genuine reason believe her marriage was over, it all got dealt with quite sensibly. The wraf was posted to a base nearer her husband so they could both live in the same quarter rather than one be in single accom.

The WO and I had what was mostly a ‘fatherly’ chat about the pitfalls of seeing a ‘separated’ woman, and how I was on no account to attempt to contact her. (Then ended with some helpful comment about “you were used for sex by a married woman, it’s over, get over it”). He also mentioned that if I kept to my word he would forget to add the note to my HR file (I think he mentioned P1 file, but it was a long time ago). I guess he kept to his word, I didn’t get a formal warning, or written warning and it didn’t hold me back on any assessments or promotion. To the best of my knowledge he didn’t mention it to my flt cdr (as least it never came up!), so only a handful of people ever knew.


Roll forward a few years – and a Christmas party. Several drinks in and I was merrily trying to cop of with a cute wraf but not really getting anywhere – on the way back from a trip to the gents I was chatting to a few people along the way and found myself stopped under some mistletoe talking to a girl I knew, who was married - so was expecting nothing more than a kiss on the cheek for Christmas. I don’t remember how we started necking, and knew it was wrong, but just couldn’t stop. Walking out of building hand in hand, and then being seen walking her home at 4am didn’t help my changes of keeping one of the most indiscreet nights of my life quiet. Next day wasn’t pleasant – bad hangover, the cute wraf I had been working on no longer talking to me, and tales of the night before coming at me from many people, some of whom I barely knew!..

On Monday I made it as far as the afternoon before my flt cdr wanted a little chat about some ‘rumours’ he had been hearing. I played it straight with him, no point in denying it – I think there were pictures as proof!, He told me I had been stupid, but there would be no action (even informal) unless a complaint was made by her husband, or the wifey, in question.

Roll forward about 2 months and I’m in a bar downtown – the girl from the Christmas party is there with her husband, and decided to introduce us! I wanted the floor to open up and swallow me whole when she said yes, this is the guy from the Christmas party I told you about. This was followed by a very awkward few moments before I managed to make any excuse possible to leave.

Net result, although far too many people knew what I had done, there was no complaint so no admin action resulted and it seemed to be forgotten over a few weeks as other people’s antics put them in the spotlight.

You would think after an inadvertent affair, and a night of total stupidly, I would have learnt my lesson! Unfortunately, on my resettlement course I met a really cute WREN / WRN (whatever the correct acronym for sailorettes is) also ending her service. We were both in the same hotel (bless you rate 1’s) and her husband was at sea , this time I knew what I was doing, but we agreed it would be a course fling only and then we would walk away from each other. Stupidly - we didn’t, and even more stupidly I stayed overnight at her MQ a few times (we were both civvy’s at this stage) – navy MQ’s tend to be in a local town, not on a base.

One night there was a knock at the door and in wandered a couple of other wife’s and husbands for a ‘little chat’ – which was along the lines of they knew what was going on, so we should decided in the next 5 minutes whether we would carry on seeing each other, in which case they would tell her husband (a good mate of the sailors) – or it could be chalked up to loneness while hubby was away and no one would need to be told so long as the affair ended immediately and I never came back (plus some talk of damage to my car, and me, if I did).

By this stage I was in quite deep, and asked her to leave her husband for me (see, not a mindless fling) and was nearly devastated when she said no – and we had to end it there. To their word, the matloe’s gave me safe passage to my car, and to mine I never went back. Ironically, although again no formal record, it was probably the most effective ‘admin’ dealing with an affair I had ever seen.

As an aside, I found out years later her marriage failed anyway as her husband became an abusive drunk and started knocking her about – I guess we all have to live with the choices we make.…

Anyway, that’s quite enough of the sordid details of my long left behind past. The point being that having an affair isn’t the career ender people once assumed it was or would be – unless you were really blatant!..
 
Back
Top