Written Answers - Air Corps Personnel.
Emmet Stagg
Ceist:
144
Mr. Stagg
asked the
Minister for Defence
if his attention has been drawn to the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare who is to be discharged from the Air Corps on 18 May 2001 on the basis that he has been found to have fallen below the minimum standard of fitness; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that his apprenticeship has only two years left to finish and that he can continue this apprenticeship notwithstanding his blindness; if he will make a concession in this case to allow the person to finish the course; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[13018/01]
I am familiar with the circumstances of the case raised by the Deputy. All aspects of this case were fully considered before a final decision was taken to discharge the person in question from the Defence Forces.
I will outline the background to the case. The person in question enlisted in the PDF as an apprentice aircraft mechanic in the Air Corps on 24 August 1994. He developed a serious medical condition in early 1996 which deteriorated rapidly leading to a very serious degree of visual impairment, such that he was not in a position to, and has since remained unable, to complete his course of training as an Air Corps apprentice. Unfortunately, the prognosis for the future does not envisage any change in his situation. Clerical work experience and allied educational and training opportunities were provided for him in order to facilitate the transition to civilian life and alternative employment.
In September 1998 a medical board found that the diagnosed medical condition indicated that his medical classification was below the Defence Forces's medical standards. This finding of the board derived from the fact that his medical condition left him unfit for military duties by way of the marked degree of visual impairment occasioned by his medical condition. The individual was informed of his right to make representations to the director of the Medical Corps against the determination of the medical board but did not, in the event, elect to do so.
In accordance with Defence Force regulations, the procedures for his discharge from the Defence Forces were then initiated. He was informed by his commanding officer on 19 November 1998 that it was proposed to discharge him and that he had seven days within which to make representations, either verbally or in writing, against the proposed discharge.
The person in question subsequently made an application to the deputy chief of staff, support, under Defence Force regulations for continued retention in service. On 1 February 1999, the deputy chief of staff, support, having considered the case, decided that he should be discharged from the Defence Forces in accordance with Defence Force regulations.
The person concerned then submitted a redress of wrongs application in relation to his proposed discharge under the provisions of section 114 of the Defence Act. This redress application duly reached me through the usual sequence of appeal provided for within the redress machinery.
Having considered the matter in great detail and for a considerable period, I could find no grounds for deciding that a wrong had occurred in this case and, therefore, the proposed discharge should proceed.
Unfortunately, the severity of the medical condition, which has resulted in the proposed discharge, is such that there is no practical or reasonable alternative course of action available.
