AFCS Scheme is all wrong

A Royal Navy sailor has been paid £1million after injuring her back playing a drunken game during an Armed Forces function.

The 25-year-old – who is still serving – was hurt plunging from the top of a human pyramid built by alcohol-fuelled troops as they larked about in the mess.

In stark contrast, the compensation is double the amount paid to Ben Parkinson, the most seriously hurt British soldier to survive the Afghan frontline.

Then aged 23, the paratrooper was blown up by a mine in 2006. He was left in a coma for months with 37 injuries, including losing both legs, damage to his spine, skull, pelvis, hands, spleen and ribcage.

The £570,000 awarded to Ben Parkinson is clearly not enough – although it is the maximum allowed under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) – while the £1 million payout to the Royal Navy Sailor was awarded through a legal claim – completely different to an AFCS award.

The route cause of this inequality is the inclusion of the word “compensation” in the AFCS.

I have campaigned since the inception of AFCS in 2005 for the Ministry of Defence to take out the word “compensation” from their scheme. They need to do so with immediate effect.

by Hilary Meredith