Ex Sailors owed money from 1970's
Dear Department of Defence,
Lists of ex RAN sailors have surfaced that state said sailors as being provably owed money by Her Majesty's Royal Australian Navy. Multiple communiques between the Chief of the Navy's office, remain largely ignored, apart from a terse:
"Thank you for your emails. You will receive a response once the matter has been investigated." received by me on 4 December 2015.
There are 142 ex-sailors on one list alone. There could be more.
I am the first to ask for mine. Three months pay (1973). Now worth considerably more by the Reserve Bank and other sources. (up to $30,000.00 today depending on the number you pick). The questions:
1. Why were pay records and other data destroyed in December 2000 without recording who the Navy owes money to?
2. Why wasn't the money owed put on ASIC's MoneySmart web site?
3. Where is the money?
4. Did someone pocket it?
5. Where's mine?
6. Are descendants of deceased ex sailors entitled to the money?
Yours faithfully,
Brother Ian R110622 - EMC Able Seaman 1st Class (in 1973)
UNCLASSIFIED
Good afternoon
Thank you for your email. Your request in its present form is not a valid FOI Request. Under the Freedom of Information Act we can only provide access to documents. Your request as it stands is asking a series of questions of the Department of Defence. As such the use of the Freedom of Information Act is not the correct forum to obtain the answers that you are seeking.
As per your previous inquiries our office has forwarded your email onto our Navy Ministerial and Liaison Office for their action and direct response to you.
Kind regards
FOI Operations
[email address]
(02) 6266 2200
http://www.defence.gov.au/foi/
-----Original Message-----
From: Brother Ian [mailto:[FOI #1439 email]]
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 12:38
To: FOI requests at Defence
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Ex Sailors owed money from 1970's
Dear Department of Defence,
Lists of ex RAN sailors have surfaced that state said sailors as being provably owed money by Her Majesty's Royal Australian Navy. Multiple communiques between the Chief of the Navy's office, remain largely ignored, apart from a terse:
"Thank you for your emails. You will receive a response once the matter has been investigated." received by me on 4 December 2015.
There are 142 ex-sailors on one list alone. There could be more.
I am the first to ask for mine. Three months pay (1973). Now worth considerably more by the Reserve Bank and other sources. (up to $30,000.00 today depending on the number you pick). The questions:
1. Why were pay records and other data destroyed in December 2000 without recording who the Navy owes money to?
2. Why wasn't the money owed put on ASIC's MoneySmart web site?
3. Where is the money?
4. Did someone pocket it?
5. Where's mine?
6. Are descendants of deceased ex sailors entitled to the money?
Yours faithfully,
Brother Ian R110622 - EMC Able Seaman 1st Class (in 1973)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1439 email]
Is [Defence request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Department of Defence? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
Dear Department of Defence,
Dear FOI,
I thank you for your valued and timely response.
Very well.
Please provide documentary evidence of where the money owed to ex-sailors went.
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian
Dear FOI,
I thank you for your valued and timely response. Please forgive me for not being familiar with the proper FOI process. I believe the following comply with FOI requirements.
Very well, I will try to be more specific with regard to this issue.
Please provide documentary evidence of where money still due to ex-sailors went.
Please provide documentary evidence of the amount due to each ex sailor is.
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Brother Ian
I refer to your correspondence dated 18 December 2015 in which you sought
access, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), to documents.
We have interpreted the scope of your request as:
Lists of ex RAN sailors have surfaced that state said sailors as being
probably owed money by Her Majesty's Royal Australian Navy.
Please provide documentary evidence of where money still due to ex-sailors
went.
Please provide documentary evidence of the amount due to each ex sailor
is.
The Department excludes the personal details of its officers, such as
names, signatures and mobile telephone numbers, contained in documents
that fall within the scope of an FOI request unless you specifically
request such details.
If you do require these personal details, please inform us within five
days of receipt of this email so that the decision maker can consider your
request.
Defence also excludes duplicates of documents, and documents sent to, or
received from you, the applicant.
On 21 December 2015, Assistant Director FOI decided that there are no
charges associated with processing your request as the documents you are
requesting relate to your own personal information. Accordingly, the
statutory deadline for you to receive a response to your request expires
on 17 January 2016.
Should you have any questions relating to your request, please do not
hesitate to contact our office via telephone on (02) 6266 2200 or via
email to [1][email address].
Yours sincerely
FOI Operations
(02) 6266 2200
[2]http://www.defence.gov.au/foi/
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence
and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the
sender and delete the email.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.defence.gov.au/foi/
Dear Beacroft, Melanie DR,
I have no desire of personal particulars of officers whatsoever.
I already have the Names and Service numbers of the personnel involved as they are in the public domain and accessible by all.
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian
UNCLASSIFIED
Good afternoon Brother Ian
1. I refer to your email of 21 December 2015 in which you
requested access, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), to:
Lists of ex RAN sailors have surfaced that state said sailors as being
probably owed money by Her Majesty's Royal Australian Navy.
(Item 1) Please provide documentary evidence of where money still due to
ex-sailors went.
(Item 2) Please provide documentary evidence of the amount due to each ex
sailor is.
Excluding personal details of officers involved.
Intention to refuse request
2. I am writing to inform you that I believe the work
involved in processing your request in its current form would
substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Defence from its
other operations. This is called a ‘practical refusal reason’ (see section
24AA of the FOI Act).
3. Accordingly, I intend to refuse access to the documents
you have requested. However, before I make a final decision to do this,
you have an opportunity to revise your request. This is called a ‘request
consultation process’, as set out under section 24AB of the FOI Act. You
have 14 days to respond to this notice in one of the ways set out below.
Scope of Request
4. Upon receipt of your request, our office undertook
inquiries with relevant Groups within Defence in relation to the documents
you are seeking. As a result of those inquiries our office has determined
that the scope of your request, in its current form, is considered too
broad to be processed and would therefore attract a practical refusal
under section 24AA of the FOI Act.
5. I note the request for documentation refers to lists of
ex-RAN sailors that may be owed money by the Royal Australian Navy. I
understand that there are 142 ex-sailors on one list alone. I am aware
that you have already been provided advice from Navy that all pay records
relating to this time period were destroyed in 2000 and that you were
provided administratively with a copy of your personnel file. For Defence
to locate and examine personnel files for at least 142 ex-sailors in order
to respond to your request would be an unnecessary use of resources.
Practical Refusal Reason
6. Taking the above into consideration, under section 24AA of
the FOI Act and for the purposes of section 24 of the FOI Act, Defence
considers that a “practical refusal reason” exists in relation to your FOI
request. Specifically, Defence considers that the work involved in
processing the request in its current form would substantially and
unreasonably divert the resources of Defence from its other operations. In
particular, a very significant number of resources would have to be
diverted from other Defence activities to identify, locate and collate the
documents within Defence.
7. This diversion would constitute a significant drain on the
resources of the areas involved and would have an unreasonable,
substantial and adverse effect on the ability of those areas to conduct
their normal business.
8. I understand that the Deputy Chief of Navy wrote to you on
21 December 2015 in relation to this matter advising you that there are no
documents in relation to your own claim to be owed money.
Consultation
9. Consequently, in accordance with section 24AB of the FOI
Act, Defence is required to consult with you advising of the intention to
refuse access to your request in its current form. In accordance with
paragraph 24AB(2)(c) of the FOI Act, I am the nominated the person with
whom you should contact with a view of agreeing to one of the following
options:
a. withdraw your request;
b. revise your request; or
c. indicate that you do not wish to revise your request.
10. Please note, that if documents relating to your request
contain information other than your personal information you are likely to
be charged a pro rata fee for the processing of your request.
11. You should note that, in accordance with section 24AB(9) of
the FOI Act, Defence is only required to undertake the above consultation
process once, and that you are required to contact me within 14 days of
receipt of this notice. Accordingly, if you do not contact me by 18
January 2016, or an additional period of time is not agreed, your request
will be withdrawn. Should you require further time to respond, please
contact me to discuss.
Further Information
12. The FOI Act can be accessed online at:
[1]https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C... . Should you have any
queries about this matter please do not hesitate to contact me on the
details below.
Regards
Dr Melanie Beacroft
Case Manager, Freedom of Information
Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
CP1-06-005A
PO Box 7910 Canberra ACT 2610
(02) 6266 3685
I work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence
and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the
sender and delete the email.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C...
Dear Beacroft, Melanie DR,
You advise me that: "I believe the work involved in processing your request in its current form would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Defence from its other operations. This is called a ‘practical refusal reason’ (see section 24AA of the FOI Act)."
I would like to know what form my request should take please?
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian
Dear Beacroft, Melanie DR,
Yesterday, I selected the wrong radio button.
I meant to select 'Anything Else' instead of 'Internal Review'.
My most sincere apologies for any inconvenience.
It's just that I've asked the same question in 2 different ways and both requests end up with your 'question in its current form'' answer.
Yes, there are 142 on one list, haven't counted the others yet on the others, but will if required.
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Brother Ian,
As explained, the scope of your request is too broad to be processed in its current form. An option to narrow it would be to limit the scope of your request to include only a small number of individuals, perhaps just yourself.
However, as outlined in the letter, I understand that you have already been provided with evidence that your pay records were destroyed in 2000 and that the Deputy Chief of Navy has advised you that there are no documents relating to your own circumstances.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed with this request,
Dr Melanie Beacroft
Case Manager, Freedom of Information
Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
CP1-06-005A
PO Box 7910 Canberra ACT 2610
(02) 6266 3685
I work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
-----Original Message-----
From: Brother Ian [mailto:[FOI #1439 email]]
Sent: Monday, 4 January 2016 16:31
To: Beacroft, Melanie DR
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Ex Sailors owed money from 1970's
Dear Beacroft, Melanie DR,
You advise me that: "I believe the work involved in processing your request in its current form would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Defence from its other operations. This is called a 'practical refusal reason' (see section 24AA of the FOI Act)."
I would like to know what form my request should take please?
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian
-----Original Message-----
UNCLASSIFIED
Good afternoon Brother Ian
1. I refer to your email of 21 December 2015 in which you requested access, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), to:
Lists of ex RAN sailors have surfaced that state said sailors as being probably owed money by Her Majesty's Royal Australian Navy.
(Item 1) Please provide documentary evidence of where money still due to ex-sailors went.
(Item 2) Please provide documentary evidence of the amount due to each ex sailor is.
Excluding personal details of officers involved.
Intention to refuse request
2. I am writing to inform you that I believe the work involved in processing your request in its current form would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Defence from its other operations. This is called a 'practical refusal reason' (see section 24AA of the FOI Act).
3. Accordingly, I intend to refuse access to the documents you have requested. However, before I make a final decision to do this, you have an opportunity to revise your request. This is called a 'request consultation process', as set out under section 24AB of the FOI Act. You have 14 days to respond to this notice in one of the ways set out below.
Scope of Request
4. Upon receipt of your request, our office undertook inquiries with relevant Groups within Defence in relation to the documents you are seeking. As a result of those inquiries our office has determined that the scope of your request, in its current form, is considered too broad to be processed and would therefore attract a practical refusal under section 24AA of the FOI Act.
5. I note the request for documentation refers to lists of ex-RAN sailors that may be owed money by the Royal Australian Navy. I understand that there are 142 ex-sailors on one list alone. I am aware that you have already been provided advice from Navy that all pay records relating to this time period were destroyed in 2000 and that you were provided administratively with a copy of your personnel file. For Defence to locate and examine personnel files for at least 142 ex-sailors in order to respond to your request would be an unnecessary use of resources.
Practical Refusal Reason
6. Taking the above into consideration, under section 24AA of the FOI Act and for the purposes of section 24 of the FOI Act, Defence considers that a "practical refusal reason" exists in relation to your FOI request. Specifically, Defence considers that the work involved in processing the request in its current form would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Defence from its other operations. In particular, a very significant number of resources would have to be diverted from other Defence activities to identify, locate and collate the documents within Defence.
7. This diversion would constitute a significant drain on the resources of the areas involved and would have an unreasonable, substantial and adverse effect on the ability of those areas to conduct their normal business.
8. I understand that the Deputy Chief of Navy wrote to you on
21 December 2015 in relation to this matter advising you that there are no documents in relation to your own claim to be owed money.
Consultation
9. Consequently, in accordance with section 24AB of the FOI Act, Defence is required to consult with you advising of the intention to refuse access to your request in its current form. In accordance with paragraph 24AB(2)(c) of the FOI Act, I am the nominated the person with whom you should contact with a view of agreeing to one of the following
options:
a. withdraw your request;
b. revise your request; or
c. indicate that you do not wish to revise your request.
10. Please note, that if documents relating to your request contain information other than your personal information you are likely to be charged a pro rata fee for the processing of your request.
11. You should note that, in accordance with section 24AB(9) of the FOI Act, Defence is only required to undertake the above consultation process once, and that you are required to contact me within 14 days of receipt of this notice. Accordingly, if you do not contact me by 18 January 2016, or an additional period of time is not agreed, your request will be withdrawn. Should you require further time to respond, please contact me to discuss.
Further Information
12. The FOI Act can be accessed online at:
[1]https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C... . Should you have any queries about this matter please do not hesitate to contact me on the details below.
Regards
Dr Melanie Beacroft
Case Manager, Freedom of Information
Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
CP1-06-005A
PO Box 7910 Canberra ACT 2610
(02) 6266 3685
I work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914.
If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1439 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
Dear Beacroft, Melanie DR,
Your Records Disposal Authority
Department of Defence
Military personnel
Job no 2002/04896824
8 April 2003
The 98 page document explicitly states Personnel Records (page 7 of the authorisation). Yes, I have been saying "Pay records", perhaps incorrect vernacular for the Navy MLO's office.
Further, if the destruction of service records indeed occurred in December 2000, (as I have been informed on multiple occasions), then it is my understanding that the destruction of said records occurred without the correct permission to do so as the above date indicates.
It is therefore no wonder there are "no documents relating to my own circumstances". By implication, this would hold true for others for that matter.
Page 6 of the Authority:
"From time to time the National Archives places ‘freezes’ on the disposal of some groups of records, which places a moratorium on the destruction of these records. If you require further information about disposal freezes and whether they affect the application of this Records Disposal Authority, please contact the National Archives"
I would deem this issue would fall under this category. Money due to ex personnel should be an appropriate group, it is after all NOT the Navy's money.
Page 5 of the Authorisation quotes:
"Disposal authorisation
Under section 24 of the Archives Act 1983 a person must not engage in conduct that results in the destruction or other disposal of a Commonwealth record; or the transfer of the custody or ownership of a Commonwealth record; or damage to or alteration of a Commonwealth record; unless the action of disposal is positively required by law"...
Same page 5 to 6:
"Where an agency believes that its accountability will be substantially compromised because a retention period or periods are not adequate, the agency should contact the National Archives for review of the retention period."
I'd say this qualifies for that. I'm not dead yet.
Page 35 of the Authority:
"MILITARY PERSONNEL
The function of managing all service members, accredited representatives, reservists and national
service members from recruitment to final discharge. Also includes managing deployed civilians (in
support of operations) for disciplinary misconduct and honours and awards. Activities include career management, postings, promotions, reclassification, recruiting, appointment and enlistment, discharge and transfers, honours and awards, disciplinary misconduct, pay, entitlements and allowances, travel, superannuation and retirement benefits, grievances, casualties, non-compensable occupational rehabilitation and leave."
The operative word in this is "PAY". In fact, it's referred to in many of the repeated cut/paste headings.
Somebody didn't do their job.
Page 71:
"Service History (Case File) – Continued
The Service History Case File (service dossiers) is to be used, for operational reasons, to collect
together records relating to specifically identified transactions for the purpose of managing individual members' service from recruitment to final discharge. This is to ensure that the history of service of a member is properly recorded and maintained so that individuals’ rights and entitlements to compensation, pensions and other benefits, as both serving and non-serving personnel, are established. Includes accredited representatives but does not include deployed civilians. "
I repeat:
THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE HISTORY OF SERVICE OF A MEMBER IS PROPERLY RECORDED AND MAINTAINED SO THAT INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENTS TO COMPENSATION, PENSIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS, AS BOTH SERVING AND NON-SERVING PERSONNEL, ARE ESTABLISHED. INCLUDES ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVES BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE DEPLOYED CIVILIANS."
Somebody didn't do their job.
That includes any Admiral that has been advised otherwise.
This authorisation wouldn't pass muster at any peer review. It was definitely created AFTER the Service Records were destroyed.
This matter is not resolved.
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Brother Ian,
The points you raise below relate to what you believe to be incorrect use of a Records Disposal Authority.
This is not an FOI matter. The FOI Act allows you to access documents held by a Commonwealth agency.
I understand that you are currently in contact with Defence Legal in regards to the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defence Administration (CDDA) Scheme in relation to some of the points you raise below.
As such we will take no further action on this email from an FOI perspective.
Kind regards,
Dr Melanie Beacroft
Case Manager, Freedom of Information
Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
CP1-06-005A
PO Box 7910 Canberra ACT 2610
(02) 6266 3685
I work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
-----Original Message-----
From: Brother Ian [mailto:[FOI #1439 email]]
Sent: Sunday, 10 January 2016 15:14
To: Beacroft, Melanie DR
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Ex Sailors owed money from 1970's
Dear Beacroft, Melanie DR,
Your Records Disposal Authority
Department of Defence
Military personnel
Job no 2002/04896824
8 April 2003
The 98 page document explicitly states Personnel Records (page 7 of the authorisation). Yes, I have been saying "Pay records", perhaps incorrect vernacular for the Navy MLO's office.
Further, if the destruction of service records indeed occurred in December 2000, (as I have been informed on multiple occasions), then it is my understanding that the destruction of said records occurred without the correct permission to do so as the above date indicates.
It is therefore no wonder there are "no documents relating to my own circumstances". By implication, this would hold true for others for that matter.
Page 6 of the Authority:
"From time to time the National Archives places 'freezes' on the disposal of some groups of records, which places a moratorium on the destruction of these records. If you require further information about disposal freezes and whether they affect the application of this Records Disposal Authority, please contact the National Archives"
I would deem this issue would fall under this category. Money due to ex personnel should be an appropriate group, it is after all NOT the Navy's money.
Page 5 of the Authorisation quotes:
"Disposal authorisation
Under section 24 of the Archives Act 1983 a person must not engage in conduct that results in the destruction or other disposal of a Commonwealth record; or the transfer of the custody or ownership of a Commonwealth record; or damage to or alteration of a Commonwealth record; unless the action of disposal is positively required by law"...
Same page 5 to 6:
"Where an agency believes that its accountability will be substantially compromised because a retention period or periods are not adequate, the agency should contact the National Archives for review of the retention period."
I'd say this qualifies for that. I'm not dead yet.
Page 35 of the Authority:
"MILITARY PERSONNEL
The function of managing all service members, accredited representatives, reservists and national service members from recruitment to final discharge. Also includes managing deployed civilians (in support of operations) for disciplinary misconduct and honours and awards. Activities include career management, postings, promotions, reclassification, recruiting, appointment and enlistment, discharge and transfers, honours and awards, disciplinary misconduct, pay, entitlements and allowances, travel, superannuation and retirement benefits, grievances, casualties, non-compensable occupational rehabilitation and leave."
The operative word in this is "PAY". In fact, it's referred to in many of the repeated cut/paste headings.
Somebody didn't do their job.
Page 71:
"Service History (Case File) - Continued The Service History Case File (service dossiers) is to be used, for operational reasons, to collect together records relating to specifically identified transactions for the purpose of managing individual members' service from recruitment to final discharge. This is to ensure that the history of service of a member is properly recorded and maintained so that individuals' rights and entitlements to compensation, pensions and other benefits, as both serving and non-serving personnel, are established. Includes accredited representatives but does not include deployed civilians. "
I repeat:
THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE HISTORY OF SERVICE OF A MEMBER IS PROPERLY RECORDED AND MAINTAINED SO THAT INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENTS TO COMPENSATION, PENSIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS, AS BOTH SERVING AND NON-SERVING PERSONNEL, ARE ESTABLISHED. INCLUDES ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVES BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE DEPLOYED CIVILIANS."
Somebody didn't do their job.
That includes any Admiral that has been advised otherwise.
This authorisation wouldn't pass muster at any peer review. It was definitely created AFTER the Service Records were destroyed.
This matter is not resolved.
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian
-----Original Message-----
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Brother Ian,
As explained, the scope of your request is too broad to be processed in its current form. An option to narrow it would be to limit the scope of your request to include only a small number of individuals, perhaps just yourself.
However, as outlined in the letter, I understand that you have already been provided with evidence that your pay records were destroyed in 2000 and that the Deputy Chief of Navy has advised you that there are no documents relating to your own circumstances.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed with this request,
Dr Melanie Beacroft
Case Manager, Freedom of Information
Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division
Department of Defence
CP1-06-005A
PO Box 7910 Canberra ACT 2610
(02) 6266 3685
I work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1439 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
Dear Beacroft, Melanie DR,
Thank you.
It took me 5 hours to reply to your last message due to infirmity. While this is obviously irrelevant to the subject matter, I will take your advice and go elsewhere. Ex/Dead sailors are people too.
I thank you sincerely for your time and apologise for any inconvenience.
Yours sincerely,
Brother Ian