Those serving in the British military expect to be looked after at work. When things go wrong and someone gets hurt, we hope they'll receive the necessary medical treatment and help to get back to work. Tied into this is a compensation scheme that can compensate them for such harm.
Since 2005, there have been 127,414 Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) claims and more than £1.4 billion paid out. Just over half received a payout. A third of the claims were rejected and one in ten "awarded" but weren't significant enough for a financial award.
For those who appealed their AFCS decision between 2005-2024, fewer than 0.5% led to the tribunal lowering the award (n.55 out of 11,035). i.e. 99.5% of decisions were increased or remained the same. And within that 99.5% roughly half were increased. Part of the reason for so few being lowered is the legislation itself, which includes a few barriers to award reduction. But even with the legislation factor taken into account, more than 45% of appealed cases led to the award being increased. We can't extrapolate from this that 45% of all 127,414 AFCS decisions were too low, but it does indicate that a very significant proportion may have been.
The most concerning statistic relates to those most seriously harmed on duty. Of those receiving a lump sum and annual payment (called a Guaranteed Income Payment), 67% don’t initially receive the annual award component. They had to challenge the MOD's decision through a reconsideration and many had to appeal via a First Tier Tribunal. These can be tough processes to undergo, requiring time, effort and mental strength. Having legal support through them can reduce the emotional charge for the claimant and, anecdotally, may lead to a higher final award.
It feels wholly inappropriate for such a large proportion of those most seriously harmed to have erroneous initial decisions.
What does this mean for those harmed on duty?
If you were injured in the military, then you should put a claim in. More than half that did so got a payout. Yes, the claim goes to your employer. But the scheme's payouts are factored into your employment and how the MOD operates. It's part of your contract; make use of it. The cash for AFCS awards doesn't come out of the budget for kit, training and salaries. It’s from a pot specific to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme.
AFCS intro
What is the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS)? It's a compensation scheme for UK serving and former service personnel who were harmed as a result of their military service. Such harm could be an injury, illness or death. It's a no-fault system that , so to have a claim accepted you don't need to demonstrate that the Ministry of Defence made a mistake. If the MOD did screw up and cause your harm, you may be entitled to civil compensation through the courts (speak to a lawyer). The scheme has nothing to do with PAX or life insurance. This post isn't an in-depth guide into how the scheme works or how to claim. If you want a frank description of one's person's journey and reflections on the scheme - while not providing individual support or legal advice - I recommend having a look at AFCS Help.
The numbers
What do the last 20 years' numbers tell us about the scheme's operation?
The latest MOD statistics cover up to 31 March 2024. Let's first think about who is putting in claims and their outcomes.
Of the 127,414 claims, 75% were submitted by serving personnel. That makes sense as there is usually a 7 year window in which to submit a claim (nuances here folks re when the 7 years begin: if you're not sure how the scheme works and how it applies to you, please seek legal advice). With many personnel serving 22 years, many will have to submit their claim while still serving. For those injured before April 2005, your claim falls under the War Pension Scheme, which has different rules. Do not confuse War Pension rules with AFCS ones; they are totally separate schemes. If you're still serving today with a pre-2005 injury that's going to get you a war pension, then fair play as you're getting on a bit and must have taken quite some brufen to get through all those years!
Ok, back to the numbers.
Half of all AFCS claims led to a financial award. Such awards today range from £1236 (Tariff 15) to £650,000 (Tariff 1), with more than 90% receiving between £1236 and £10,100. The tariff amounts are in the AFCS legislation (scroll to very bottom).
A third of claims were rejected and one in ten accepted but with no financial award. For those most seriously harmed on duty, fewer than 5% received an award and annual payment (GIP) and most of those had to fight to get that award.
More in-depth statistics
The MOD AFCS page for 2023/24 home page includes a pdf summarising the scheme. The page references below relate to that pdf.
Page 5: Flow chart of the AFCS claim process
- Total claims: 127,414
- Rejected: 36,226
- Harm accepted, no award: 14,773
- Harm accepted, award made: 64,276
- Harm accepted, award made & annual payment (GIP): 5236
- Claims being processed: c.5200
The Ministry of Defence prepared the chart below. Source: UK Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Annual Statistics 6 April 2005 to 31 March 2024 (published: 18 July 2024), page 5:
What leaps out?
- 30% claims are rejected initially, and that percentage stays the same after reviews, reconsiderations and appeals.
- 12% of claims are awarded but no financial payment made. I imagine this is psychologically frustrating.
- 67% of those most seriously injured, don’t initially receive an annual award (GIP) in addition to a lump sum. We can’t tell how many went from an initial nil award to lump sum and GIP. As a lifetime award, for the average such claimant, this represents the MOD under-awarding them tens of thousands of pounds. And which cohort submitting claims is likely to have the most challenging time describing their harm and loss, managing the claims process and going on to challenge MOD decisions? This same group.
Page 6: Registered claims
In fewer than 20% of claims did the claimant ask for a mandatory reconsideration. And in fewer than 10% of cases was the decision appealed. All appeals must first go through the reconsideration process, so these percentages overlap.
Page 9: Clearance times
The MOD continues to misrepresent its impact on appeal tribunal durations, “it should be noted that the MOD has no control over the length of time it takes for a decision to be made as appeal tribunals are independent.” Even with AFCS appeals now being processed by the Tribunal Service under direct lodgement, the MOD still prepares document bundles, asks medical advisors for comment, responds to evidence provided by appellants, along with various other tasks that require time.
Page 10, Figure 4: Survival analysis
The chart below, prepared by the Ministry of Defence in the 2024 AFCS statistics, covers 2020-2024. Have a look at Reconsideration and the 20% of reconsideration requests that the MOD processed in only 3-4 days. That seems exceptionally fast, particularly if retrieving paper files, and I wonder what was special about those 20% of cases that allowed such swift processing.
Page 12, Least injury/illness claim outcomes
This chart indicates that ongoing appeals may affect decisions reaching all the way back to 2012/13. Some people are waiting 12 or more years to get their decision finally decided.
Future research: What can't we tell from the data
- How many personnel had a valid claim but never applied . Why didn't they apply? I've spoken to people who didn't, some of whom said: unaware of AFCS scheme, feared harm to employment and promotion prospects, and bad advice from advisor.
- How many initial decisions were too low but never challenged
- If 50% of appeals led to the award being increased, what percentage of unchallenged original decisions should have been higher?
Write Here...