Doing our duty? Improving transitions for military leavers

This report examines how and why the lives of some service personnel fall apart on leaving the British Armed Forces, asks how they can be rebuilt and presents solutions to prevent these personal tragedies. 
On average over the previous six years, an average of more than 20,000 personnel have left the UK Armed Forces each year. For some, transition is a difficult and complicated process. 

Many of the issues Service Leavers face are rooted in the disadvantage some recruits face before they enter service; research suggests that of the non-officer personnel in the military, 69 per cent were found  to have come from a broken home; 50 per cent were classified as coming from a deprived background; and 16 per cent had been long-term unemployed before joining. More than a third of Early Service Leavers (ESLs) – those who leave having served less than four years – have endured the highest levels of childhood adversity. This disadvantage is often sheltered whilst in the military, but military careers are finite. In 2009/10, 60 per cent of those leaving the UK Armed Forces had served six years or less. The problems and consequences of such disadvantage can therefore lie dormant until after the service leaver is discharged from the Armed Forces.

This report is based around five key issues that confront some service leavers, and it explores the barriers that exist to their successful re-integration at their point of discharge, and examines the consequences of failing to overcome them.
They are:
- Employment
- Housing and Homelessness
- Alcohol and Drug Use
- Mental Health
- Crime

Negative outcomes in these areas are a terrible reality for some current and future service 
leavers. This report will tackle why and how this is the case, identify where they are most 
common in the Armed Forces, and make recommendations on how they can be avoided

Read the full article
Report a problem with this article

Related articles

  • More for Policy & Practice

    Medical discharge from the UK Armed Forces and the role of combat injury: A short report from the ADVANCE-INVEST study

    The recent conflict in Afghanistan resulted in hundreds of serious injuries to UK Armed Forces personnel, necessitating their aeromedical evacuation. Due to the nature of their injuries, many individuals have been medically discharged from the Armed Forces. Using both quantitative and qualitative data from the ADVANCE and ADVANCE-INVEST studies, this report investigates the outcomes and experiences of those who were medically discharged, with a focus on those with combat injuries. The ADVANCE-INVEST study, a sub-study of ADVANCE, is a mixed-methods investigation of transition experiences and outcomes for those with combat injuries arising from the conflict in Afghanistan, funded by Forces in Mind Trust. The study used questionnaire data from over 500 ex-Service personnel who had sustained combat injuries, as well as 28 in-depth interviews regarding their perceptions and experiences of transition in the context of their injuries. Most participants who sustained a combat injury left the military via a medical discharge. Some of those who were medically discharged experienced an abrupt ending to their career and life in the military, contrary to their ambitions and expectations of a long career in Service. This was also true of those who believed the military would retain them in spite of the seriousness of their injuries and did not anticipate a medical discharge. The difficulties that some participants felt in relation to the rapid ending of their military career was exacerbated by a perceived lack of collaboration with the military regarding their leaving, something they felt they had little, or no, control over. The abrupt ending to their service was felt to be compounded by a lack of communication from their former military chain of command after they had left.UK Armed Forces personnel who were medically discharged were eligible for the highest level of support provided by resettlement services for their transition. Nonetheless they had lower rates of post-Service employment compared to those who left via other methods of discharge. This could have been due to the nature of their injuries; however, participants also reported a lack of tailored careers advice specific to the challenges they faced related to their injury. The pace at which participants engaged with future career planning was varied, and existing structures did not always have the flexibility to match the needs of the injured person. Transfer of medical records was still reported as being inconsistent, with some complaints of civilian medical practitioners being unable to access their full medical details, forcing injured personnel to retell their medical histories many times. Compensation for injuries was welcomed and could be seen to have benefits beyond merely the immediate material benefit to the injured person; for example, it provided acknowledgement of their injury, a buffer while seeking re-employment in the civilian job market and supported a healthy worklife balance in the context of ongoing pain and medical issues. Conversely, problems could occur when payment amounts and transfer dates were unknown, when a lack of tailored financial advice was provided, and/or when poor financial decisions were made. Some participants were engaged in lengthy tribunal processes to claim compensation, particularly those who were injured but did not sustain limb loss; these processes were emotionally demanding for them. Based upon our findings, a summary of our recommendations and the audiences they are aimed at is given.

    Mental Health Physical Health