N Deu, M Srinivasan, P Srinivasan. Issues In Temperamental Unsuitability: Re-Examining Concepts And Current Practice In The British Army

Currently, in the UK military, and particularly in the Army, a significant number of personnel are regularly discharged on the grounds of being assessed as "Temperamentally Unsuitable (TU) for military duties", under Queen’s Regulations (QRs): (Army) 9.414 and 9.434 (1). In the last two years (2001-2003), preliminary figures suggest that approximately 700 serving personnel were recommended for discharge under this category by only four psychiatrists in the south of England.The regulations governing TU have been in existence and essentially unchanged since their development long before the 1960s albeit subject to parliamentary quinquennial review.The Army General and Administrative Instructions (AGAI) (2) standards also remain unchanged over this period. This paper raises questions about the current validity and relevance of existing TU concepts and regulations with suggestions as to what is being proposed in the context of changing roles, technology and advances in the modern armed forces. Introduction Temperamental Unsuitability (TU) There are a number of problems with the TU concept and regulations as they exist today; a lack of academic and clinical consensus on the definition and operational criteria of "temperamental unsuitability", and the variable application of the psychiatric opinion, for what would appear to amount to a mis-match between individual and military environment or role. Yet, in practice, TU is widely used as a legitimate, expeditious exit -route for disaffected, inefficient or non-effective service personnel, often as an alternative to more appropriate administrative procedures, which would otherwise be protracted, thereby burdening units. The existing criteria for TU are vague and intangible, and raise several questions; how do we define "temperament" personality traits, behaviour or attitude?; is the "unsuitable temperament" reflecting a definable pathological diagnosis?; is TU considered to be enduring and intractable regardless of environment or time, or indeed, is TU a "state", i.e. reactive to the presenting circumstances and only applicable to military environment? Does the existence of such a category infer a mismatch between personality characteristics and military generally? Or is it, as is more often the case, a reactive incompatibility between the individual, for example, failed expectations, and the demands of military life e.g. postings, deployments and unconditional acceptance of authority and hierarchy? Historical Perspective The history of (temperament) personality assessment in the military dates back to WW2. In the US, psychologists’ roles developed from basic personnel selection through to utilising clinical expertise in the field of personality assessment in 1941, with a keen focus on developing procedures to predict behaviour in typical Army conditions and on differential diagnosis of neuropsychiatric conditions Rath & McCarroll (3). Post WW2, the focus of activity remained primarily in psychological assessment and personality specifically, but between the early 60’s and late 80’s there is a relative gap in the literature on personality assessment in the military.The basis for this is unclear but may be related to debates and controversies in the field of personality measurement at this time. Milgram (4) highlights that whilst there is a general acknowledgement in the military field of the importance of personality variables in all phases of military life, there is a paucity of military psychology literature dedicated to this area. The majority of activity had been undertaken in the occupational domain i.e. personality assessment for selection, with research focusing on recruitment and attrition. It would seem that the areas of retention, resilience, recovery and adaptability have been somewhat neglected. Most importantly there appears to be no established scientific background to the research of TU as it has not, to our knowledge, been studied within the British Army before. A review of international and reputed literature databases in the public domain, and internal restricted databases has not elicited any previous research.There Dr N Deu, BSc(Hons), MSc, PsychD. CPsychol Consultant Clinical and Forensic Psychologist