Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 564: To ask the Minister for Defence, further to Parliamentary Question Nos. 525 of 7 February 2006 and 650 of 14 February 2006, if a person (details supplied) in County Clare was before a medical board on 5 July 2005 as previously stated. [8817/06]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As previously mentioned in earlier replies, this case has been the subject of lengthy consideration by the military authorities. I am advised that the board which reviewed the case of this individual on 5 July, 2005 was in fact an extension of service board and not a medical board as previously indicated. The error in this regard is regretted.

The procedure in relation to assessing applications for extension of service requires that an extension of service board must assess each application on a case by case basis. The board's function is to determine whether an applicant meets all the necessary criteria for extension of service, as prescribed in the relevant "A" administrative instruction made pursuant to Defence Forces Regulation A10. These mandatory criteria include inter alia a requirement to meet a minimum medical classification code for extension of service. The board then makes a recommendation as to whether an application for extension of service should be recommended.

The individual in this case had an extension of service medical assessment on 24 March 2004. This medical was carried out by a military medical officer of the medical corps to assess his military medical classification code in the context of his application for extension of service. His military medical classification code as assessed by the military medical officer was below the minimum required for extension of service. The member in question underwent a further medical examination on 24 August 2004. The military medical officer who carried out that examination indicated that it was not possible to upgrade the person in question to a higher medical classification due to his medical condition. The medical condition in question is permanent and is due to surgery required for injuries sustained by the person in question in a road traffic accident in 2002. The condition now regrettably renders him permanently below the minimum military medical classification standard for extension of service.

As the individual did not meet the medical classification criteria for extension of service, the board did not recommend his application for extension of service. As previously outlined, the case was referred to the deputy chief of staff — support — for consideration on 12 September 2005, who having considered the matter directed that the individual's discharge should proceed as he did not meet the required criteria for extension of service.

The individual was informed on 18 October 2005 that his application for extension of service had not been approved and he was given seven days within which to submit representations in regard to his proposed discharge. The application for discharge, together with representations from the person in question enclosing a consultant's report, were submitted to the general officer commanding 1 Southern Brigade on 14 November 2005. The general officer commanding having considered these representations and enclosures and having consulted again with the military medical authorities was unable to recommend extension of service as the person in question did not meet the medical criteria for extension of service.

The case together with the individual's representations was again submitted to the deputy chief of staff — support — on 19 December 2005 who considered it further and directed that discharge should now proceed. The date of discharge has been set at 9 March 2006 having regard to all outstanding leave entitlements in the case.

All personnel are required to meet the required medical criteria for extension of service, which are of general application and exceptions cannot be made in individual cases.