On 23 May 2024, the Office received complaints from 237 members of the public residing in Mpumalanga. The Complainants were former DOD employees who had served as cleaners and groundsmen at the South African Air Force Base Hoedspruit (AFB HSPT). They alleged that in the 1990s, they had formally requested their employer to provide transportation via military duty buses to facilitate their daily commute to and from work.

According to the Complainants, they were verbally assured by management at AFB HSPT that duty buses would be allocated based on their residential areas and were instructed to await further communication. Contrary to expectations, they were subsequently denied access to the base, resulting in their prolonged absence from duty. The absence was later classified as unauthorised, and their services were terminated because they were absent without official leave. The Complainants contended that they did not receive any termination benefits or pension payouts following their dismissal and requested the intervention of the Office to investigate the circumstances of their termination and facilitate access to any benefits owed.

Following a jurisdictional assessment, it was established that the matter concerned the termination of service of Public Service Act Personnel, which falls outside the mandate of the Military Ombud as outlined in section 4(1)(a)-(d) of the Act. During the preliminary investigation, the matter was found to have been subject to litigation in a civilian court. In terms of section 7(1)(b) and (c), read with section 4 of the Act, the Ombud is precluded from investigating any complaint that is pending before or has already been adjudicated by a military or civilian court.

Accordingly, in line with section 6(7)(c) of the Act, the Office referred the Complainants to the Chief of Human Resources (C HR) and the Secretary for Defence for further engagement and appropriate intervention, as the matter fell outside the Ombud’s jurisdiction.

1The Office received a complaint from a former SANDF recruit. The Complainant alleged that he had been unfairly withdrawn from the South African Army (SA Army) MSDS 2024 Intake on the grounds of medical unfitness. Following his withdrawal, the Complainant sought an independent medical opinion, which found him fit for military training. On this basis, he approached the Office seeking reinstatement into the training programme.

In investigating the matter, the Office engaged with the South African Military Health Service (SAMHS), which outlined the medical evaluation process applicable during the assembly phase of the MSDS intake. It was confirmed that all applicants must comply with medical fitness standards, and that any presenting or reported condition is subject to clinical review and further investigation as required. In the Complainant’s case, SAMHS reported that he had voluntarily disclosed a history of surgery in an affidavit. This prompted a comprehensive assessment by a medical officer, following which he was referred for further investigation. His medical classification was determined as G3K2, a profile carrying specific restrictions including a prohibition on driving military vehicles, handling weapons, or operating power-driven machinery. These limitations rendered him medically unfit for service under the MSDS criteria, which require a classification of G1K1. The Office sourced additional medical documentation confirming this classification and the underlying restrictions with the Complainant’s consent. It also emerged that the Complainant had been fully informed of the basis for his withdrawal and had signed an acknowledgement of the reasons provided. After thoroughly reviewing the applicable regulatory framework, including the medical standards governing entry into the MSDS, the Military Ombud found no evidence of procedural or substantive unfairness in the withdrawal process. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed in section 6(7)(a) of the Act.

In line with standard procedure, the Complainant was advised of their right to approach the High Court within 180 days to seek a judicial review of the Ombud’s decision, under section 13 of the Act.

A former SANDF member lodged a complaint concerning the delayed payment for a medical service he had received with prior approval. The matter concerns replacing a lower leg prosthesis, which was initially used for over six years. In 2021, the Complainant applied for a new prosthesis, which was subsequently approved by the relevant military authority on 20 April 2023. Following this approval, he engaged the services of a private Medical Orthotist and Prosthetist, who completed the procedure at a cost of R53,217.06 and submitted the invoice to the SANDF’s Medical Accounts Department.

Despite being rendered in May 2023, the Complainant later discovered that the service provider had not been paid. Upon further inquiry, the invoice initially contained incorrect military details due to a clerical error. The error was rectified, and a revised invoice was submitted on 28 November 2023. However, despite multiple follow-ups by the Complainant and the medical practitioner to the Area Military Health Unit KwaZulu-Natal and the Medical Accounts Department in Pretoria, no further communication or resolution followed. .

Concerned about the ongoing delay and the potential legal consequences faced by the Practitioner, the Complainant approached the Office seeking intervention and the prompt settlement of the outstanding payment .

Upon the Ombud’s intervention, the SAMHS confirmed on 07 May 2024 that the invoice had been processed and the practitioner had received payment in full. The Complainant confirmed his satisfaction with the outcome and thanked the Investigating Officer for the professionalism and transparency demonstrated throughout the process. In line with the provisions of section 6(6)(b) of the Act, the matter was resolved amicably through corrective action by the SANDF, prompted by the Office’s involvement .

The son of a deceased former SANDF member, who passed away on 14 July 2022, submitted a complaint. Acting on behalf of his late father’s estate, the Complainant submitted documentation to the DOD in January 2023, seeking to process the pension and funeral benefits. He raised concerns about the lack of communication and prolonged delays in finalising the benefits .

In response to the Ombud’s inquiries, it was confirmed that the deceased contributed to the pension fund and was covered under the SA Army Foundation’s funeral and life insurance schemes. While the funeral and life cover had been paid to the surviving spouse in July 2024, the DOD Pension Administration cited the absence of required legal documentation as the main reason for the delay in processing the pension benefit. Telephonic interviews confirmed that the Complainant had not been appointed as the Executor of the estate and, as such, lacked the legal standing to represent the estate in formal pension claims .

Following a review of the applicable regulatory framework and the Complainant’s status, the Office found that the matter could not be pursued further until the required appointment was obtained. The complaint was therefore dismissed in terms of section 6(7)(a) of the Act. The Complainant was informed that obtaining a Letter of Executorship from the Master of the High Court would be necessary to pursue any further claims on behalf of the estate. This case illustrates the importance of ensuring legal standing when acting on behalf of deceased members, particularly concerning financial and estate matters .

Although an audit was conducted in 2008, only a partial correction was made in 2009. She was informed then that the issue would be resolved automatically through the Occupation-Specific Dispensation (OSD) process. However, the initial error persisted, and she was translated into OSD with the discrepancy intact.

Had the correction occurred in 2008, she would have been eligible for progression to Chief Dentist (level 12) and Clinical Grade 2 by 2009. Instead, she only reached Clinical Grade 2 in 2016. The Complainant lodged a formal grievance in 2016, which was eventually upheld by the C SANDF, who instructed the salary to be corrected. Despite this, the directive remained unimplemented.

As her retirement approached in March 2025, the Complainant sought the Ombud’s assistance to expedite the matter, citing concerns over its impact on her pension benefits.

The investigation revealed that the Chief Directorate of Human Resource Management had failed to implement or acknowledge the instruction. The documentation reviewed showed that the original appointment at level 10 was in error, and subsequent audits relied on salary scales misaligned with the Complainant’s attested rank. The findings confirmed that the audit outcomes were fundamentally flawed and failed to reflect the Complainant’s legitimate claim.

Further investigation confirmed the Surgeon General’s endorsement of her re-appointment as Principal Dentist (level 11) effective 1 November 2003 and functional promotion to Chief Dentist (level 12) effective 1 November 2006. The C SANDF supported this recommendation, but the relevant HR authorities had not acted upon it.

The complaint was upheld in section 6(7)(a) of the Act. The Office recommended that the C SANDF instruct the C HR to implement the rectification, ensuring that the correction is effected before the Complainant’s retirement date. The failure to execute the C SANDF directive highlighted administrative inefficiencies and the need to implement grievance resolutions promptly to safeguard members’ financial entitlements.

The Office received a complaint from a serving member of the SANDF, stationed at the South African Ship Immortelle (SAS Immortelle), accompanied by an application for condonation of late referral in terms of Section 7(2)(c) of the Act, read with Regulation 6 of the Military Ombud Complaints Regulations, 2015.

The complaint centred on an alleged irregular termination of service, following events that unfolded in August 2022. The Applicant was booked off sick from 01 to 03 August 2022 and extended his absence upon recognising the need for further recovery. He reported for duty on 24 August 2022 and simultaneously submitted a formal resignation. However, he was subsequently verbally informed that he had been dismissed in terms of Section 59(3) of the Defence Act 42 of 2002 for failing to report for duty. His salary was suspended, his resignation was not processed, and he was denied access to South African Navy (SA Navy) premises and official documentation, including the statement relating to his resignation.

Despite his efforts to clarify the situation, including a formal retraction of his resignation and requests to be reinstated, the Applicant received no resolution. He raised concerns about procedural irregularities, namely:

• The absence of formal notification regarding the suspension of his salary;
• The failure to communicate the non-approval of his resignation;
• The delay in the finalisation of the Board of Inquiry (BOI); and
• The mischaracterisation of his absence as unauthorised, despite a valid medical certificate.

The Applicant submitted that these irregularities caused undue financial and emotional hardship, given the lack of income and unresolved employment status.

In assessing the condonation application, the Office took cognisance of relevant case law, including Abrahams v EOH Mthombo (Pty) Ltd [2021] ZALCJHB 313; Maphai v South African Forestry SOC Ltd (JR 1021/19); and Balmer & Another v Reddam (Bedfordview) (Pty) Ltd (2011) 32 ILJ 2121 (LC).

Accordingly, the Military Ombud condoned the late submission of the complaint in terms of Regulation 6(2) of the Military Ombud Complaints Regulations. The matter was admitted for investigation.

On or about 13 April 2023, the Office received a complaint from a former member of the South African Army Gymnasium (SA Army Gym) regarding his alleged non-inclusion in the Military Dispensation (MD). The Complainant stated that he had been employed at SA Army Gym for twenty-three (23) years and was removed from his post as Workshop Foreman on 06 May 2021, as reflected on the PERSOL system. He alleged that this removal occurred without any formal notice or prior consultation.

In April 2022, the Complainant briefly received MD benefits, which were cancelled the following month because he no longer occupied a technical post. He contended that he was never officially informed of his removal from the post and had not requested such a change. The Complainant submitted letters to the Formation on 11 July 2022 and 09 January 2023 to enquire about the matter, but received no feedback. The Complainant further indicated that he submitted a formal grievance on 22 November 2022. However, the grievance was only officially captured in the system on 06 February 2023 under ID number 8640, and no response was provided when lodging the complaint with the Ombud.

In April 2023, the Complainant was placed in a Warrant Officer Class 2 (WO2) post in Nelspruit, to be utilised at SA Army Gym in Heidelberg. Following this placement, his MD was reactivated, and upon his retirement in June 2023, he received MD benefits for the final three months of his service (April to June 2023). The Complainant alleged that he had unfairly lost a full year of MD, which impacted his pension contributions, monthly income, and associated benefits such as the birthday bonus. He sought intervention from the Military Ombud to secure retrospective MD payments from 01 April 2022 to his retirement date of 30 June 2023.

The investigation revealed that the Complainant was placed in an additional structure with effect from 06 May 2021, following an instruction from Chief SA Army Human Resources that members aged 57 years and older be placed as such. The Complainant had not requested this placement and continued to fulfil his previous duties, including managing his section, due to the absence of the new incumbent..

Despite performing the responsibilities of his former post, the Complainant was not transferred to MD when it was implemented on 01 April 2022, owing to the technicality that he was not occupying a formal post. This exclusion negatively affected his income and pension, while the SANDF benefited from his continued technical duties without awarding the associated allowances.

The investigation also found that the Complainant’s grievance was not processed following the requirements of the Individual Grievances Regulations (IGR) process, resulting in noncompliance with prescribed timeframes by the SA Army. The complaint was upheld in terms of section 6(7)(a) of the Act. It was recommended that: • The C SANDF consider paying the Complainant MD benefits for the period 01 April 2022 to 30 June 2023, including all associated allowances; • The Complainant’s salary scale and pension be recalculated to reflect the missed MD benefits; • The SA Army be sensitised to implement systems ensuring compliance with IGR timeframes, to prevent future procedural lapses.

The Office received a complaint regarding alleged unfair service termination from a member enlisted in the MSDS. The Complainant alleged that her service was prematurely terminated after it was discovered in February 2023 that she was pregnant. She was withdrawn from a functional course and returned to her unit, where she was informed during subsequent meetings that her service would be terminated on account of her pregnancy.

The Complainant applied for re-mustering due to the unavailability of posts in her mustering, but her application was not considered. She also alleged that she was denied the opportunity to complete the contract renewal process. Instead, she was later offered a Reserve Force contract and sought the Military Ombud’s intervention to be granted a Core Service System (CSS) contract. The investigation established that the Complainant had entered into a two-year fixed-term MSDS contract, which included a clause allowing termination on medical grounds, including pregnancy. The termination process was initiated in August 2023, shortly before the birth of her child on 30 August 2023. However, the Complainant remained in service beyond the birth of her child and ultimately completed the full term of her MSDS contrac.

It was found that the rationale for initiating her termination was to safeguard the health of both mother and child during training and deployment. However, following the birth, the medical condition no longer applied, and the termination grounds were no longer valid. The Respondent issued the Complainant a Reserve Force contract and paid her a completion bonus, confirming successful fulfilment of her MSDS obligations. Nonetheless, it was confirmed that the Complainant was not allowed to be considered for re-mustering or to apply for a CSS contract. The Respondent treated the initial termination decision as final, failing to reassess her eligibility once the pregnancy-related concern had resolved.

While there was no inherent right to be granted a CSS contract, the Complainant was entitled to a fair and transparent selection process. The complaint was partially upheld, and the following recommendations were made:

• That the Respondent consider the Complainant for a CSS contract based on her completed service and eligibility;

• Appropriate disciplinary measures should be taken against officials who failed to afford the Complainant procedural fairness in the re-mustering and CSS application process.

On 30 August 2024, a former Reserve Force member of the SANDF lodged a complaint with the Office, accompanied by an application for condonation due to the delayed submission. The Complainant sought redress for unpaid technical allowances, reimbursement of R600 spent during an official duty trip, compensation for unused leave credits, and a review of the premature termination of his call-up contract upon reaching the age of 65.

The Complainant cited unawareness of regulatory timeframes and verbal assurances from senior officers as reasons for the delay. Regarding Regulation 4 of the Military Ombud Complaints Regulations, 2015, the Ombud considered whether the reasons provided warranted condonation. Following an assessment of the merits, the Ombud found that the claims regarding unpaid technical allowances and the R600 reimbursement warranted further investigation. However, the allegations relating to leave credits and the call-up termination lacked sufficient prospects of success, particularly as Reserve Force members are not entitled to leave pay-outs, and the termination aligned with retirement policy.

Given potential prejudice to the Complainant and the interests of justice, the Ombud granted condonation for the late submission related to the unpaid technical allowances and the reimbursement claim, but declined condonation for the remaining matters. The complaint remains under active investigation.

A former SANDF member approached the Office following an incident in November 2021, in which he and his spouse were denied entry to military accommodation at an SA Navy base. The Complainant had retired five months prior and had entered into a monthly rental agreement with the Base, pending the completion of his private residence. The Complainant and his spouse had temporarily left the premises on the night in question due to load shedding. They were returning with food, leaving their daughter, who was preparing for examinations, inside the house.

Upon their return, they were denied access by guards allegedly instructed by a Commander to refuse entry. The Complainant claimed this was linked to allegations of his failure to maintain the property as required by a previous inspection. He and his spouse were forced to spend the night in their vehicle and were only allowed access the following morning after senior intervention. The Complainant was later forcibly removed from the premises and relocated to an open plot of land where he was constructing his new home. The Complainant requested redress against the implicated Commander, compensation for violating his rights, and reimbursement for property damages.

The investigation confirmed that the Complainant’s extended occupation of state housing after retirement was irregular. It contravened the State Housing Policy, which limits postretirement occupation to three months with approval. However, the Commander acted outside policy by instructing sentries to deny entry without following legal eviction procedures. Furthermore, the Unit failed to obtain a court order, as required in such circumstances. The complaint was upheld in section 6(7)(a) of the Act. It was recommended that:

• The MOD&MV direct the C SANDF to consider disciplinary action against the implicated Commander;

• The Unit (SAS Saldanha) receives training on appropriate procedures for managing housing-related disputes and evictions. The Complainant’s civil claims for compensation fell outside the Military Ombud’s mandate in this instance and were not considered.

In February 2025, a former member of the SANDF lodged a complaint with the Office concerning salary discrepancies and the non-payment of outstanding service benefits. The Complainant had served continuously from February 2024 until his retirement in January 2025. He alleged that during October and November 2024, his salary was short-paid. When queried, he was informed that this was due to irregular attendance at work. The Complainant disputed this, asserting he was present and had supporting proof..

In addition to the salary matter, the Complainant sought reimbursement for counter-claims allegedly submitted three years earlier and enquired about payment for unused leave credits. The Military Ombud assessed whether the complaint was lodged within the permissible timeframe. As it was filed within 180 days, no condonation was required. Upon review, it was confirmed via PERSOL records that short payments occurred in the specified months. The Reserve Force Headquarters clarified that members are not entitled to leave credit pay-outs upon retirement. Furthermore, no grievance or documentary evidence could be found to support the counter-claim reimbursement, and the matter was not substantiated.

The complaint regarding short salary payment was accepted for investigation. The Complainant was advised that, due to the lack of information, the counter-claim matter could not proceed unless further evidence was provided. The investigation into the salary matter remains ongoing.

The Complainant approached the Office following delays in implementing a promotion to a Colonel post within the Joint Operations Division. The submission for his promotion was made in 2018, subsequently supported by the C HR, and approved by the C SANDF on 16 October 2019. However, the Complainant, a Military Law Practitioner (MLP), was serving at level ML4 and required Ministerial Authority for functional promotion to level ML6, per the Personnel Management Code for MLPs.

The Complainant sought the implementation of the SANDF’s decision, supported by the Adjutant General’s instruction dated 28 October 2019. He requested a retrospective salary adjustment to ML6, claiming decisions had unfairly prejudiced him at a higher command level. The investigation confirmed that while the Complainant’s nomination was supported, he had not met the eligibility requirement of three years’ service as a Lieutenant Colonel, having only completed two years at the time of the recommendation. Consequently, he was granted a temporary Colonel rank from 01 November 2019, with substantive promotion effected on 01 November 2020. Ministerial approval for functional promotion to ML6 was subsequently denied in February 2021 to maintain compliance with established policy. The Complainant progressed to ML5 on 01 April 2022 and is projected to become eligible for ML6 in 2027.

The Military Ombud found no irregularity in the promotion’s processing, and the denial of retrospective salary adjustment was consistent with policy. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant, a Chaplain seconded to the SANDF by his church, alleged that he was unfairly discharged from the DOD after resigning from his church in 2023. Although he attempted to withdraw his resignation the day before it took effect, the higher authority within the church did not accept the withdrawal. He further alleged inconsistent policy application, noting that other Chaplains who had transitioned from seconding churches were not discharged. Additionally, he submitted that his formal grievance on the matter was not finalised before his discharge in February 2024. As relief, the Complainant sought reinstatement into the SANDF Chaplain Service..

The investigation confirmed that the Complainant was seconded by his church, and upon resignation, he forfeited this status. Furthermore, he ceased participating in the church’s activities, and no formal support for his reinstatement was received from the seconding authority. While the termination of service was found to be procedurally sound, the investigation revealed that the Complainant’s grievance (No. 09119) had not been finalised within the prescribed timeframes, resulting in administrative unfairness. The Military Ombud upheld the grievance-handling complaint and recommended that the Chaplain Service Division be sensitised regarding compliance with the IGR, 2016. However, the main complaint relating to the termination of service was dismissed.

The complaint relating to the termination of service was dismissed.

The Complainant, a former member of the SANDF, lodged a complaint regarding compensation for injuries allegedly sustained during physical training at Riemvasmaak Training Area, which he claimed led to his early retirement in 1998. He submitted that a 1996 request for a medical board was lost, delaying appropriate medical classification. A further assessment was eventually conducted on 23 January 2019 at 6 South African Infantry (SAI) Battalion, at which point compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder and injuries was proposed pending completion of treatment. Additionally, the Complainant sought assistance with awarding two military medals, which a senior officer had recommended at the time.

As the complaint was lodged outside the prescribed 180-day period, the Complainant was required to submit an application for condonation per Regulation 6(1) of the Military Ombud Complaints Regulations, 2015. Upon review, the Office noted that the 2019 medical assessment had been initiated by the Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA), not the SANDF, as the Complainant was no longer a serving member. Further inquiry revealed that the delay in submitting the complaint was inadequately explained, and no supporting documentation was provided to substantiate the medical claims. Moreover, the IOD compensation claims fall under the mandate of the GPAA in this instance and lie outside the jurisdiction of the Military Ombud.

Based on these findings, condonation was not granted due to poor prospects of success and lateness. The complaint regarding IOD compensation was referred to the Public Protector South Africa in terms of Section 6(7)(c) of the Act, and the Complainant was advised to pursue the medal matter with the Directorate HR Maintenance.

The Complainant approached the Office, dissatisfied with a non-promotion outcome. In 2021, the General Officer Commanding recommended the Complainant and four others for placement and promotion into WO2 posts. However, only two promotions were ultimately effected, as two of the four available posts were reported to have been removed from the Unit structure. The Complainant, being one of those not promoted, lodged a grievance, which did not resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

He subsequently sought retrospective promotion to WO2, effective 2021. The investigation established that the Complainant had no accrued right to promotion, as he was not placed in a vacant and funded WO2 post. It was further confirmed that the two members promoted were senior to the Complainant, and only two funded posts were available then. Nonetheless, the Complainant was duly considered for promotion, and the selection process adhered to the required procedures. The Military Ombud concluded that there were no procedural irregularities and dismissed the complaint in terms of Section 6(7)(a) of the Act.

The Complainant submitted a complaint following her unsuccessful application to the 2024 MSDS intake of the South African Air Force (SAAF). After receiving an invitation to participate in the selection process, she attended the assessment held at 5 SAI Battalion on 03 October 2023. She completed all required stages, including psychometric testing, medical evaluation, and a formal interview.

In December 2023, her mother received a missed call from a number identified as belonging to a SAAF member. Efforts to return the call were unsuccessful. Ms Boyi subsequently visited the SAAF Headquarters and was informed that the selected candidates had already departed for training. She was further advised that, due to age restrictions and the absence of a tertiary qualification, she was ineligible to reapply for the 2025 intake. The Complainant sought the Military Ombud’s assistance to be admitted to the programme, arguing that she had raised her concerns in time.

The investigation found that the SAAF recruitment process complied with the regulatory framework governing MSDS intakes. While the Complainant completed the selection process, this did not guarantee placement. Recruitment was based on merit and institutional considerations, including budget and demographic targets. The absence of a formal call-up notification indicated that she had not been selected. The Military Ombud found no evidence of unfair treatment or irregularity and dismissed the complaint.

A service provider lodged a complaint with the Office concerning non-payment for repair services rendered to the DOD. The service provider had been contracted in May 2024 to repair two toilets at a DOD unit. The work was completed and approved on 15 June 2024; an invoice was submitted on 24 June 2024. After experiencing payment delays beyond the 30- day timeframe stipulated by Treasury Regulations under the Public Finance Management Act, the Complainant approached the Office for intervention..

The investigation revealed that the initial invoice contained incorrect details, which contributed to the delay. Following the Ombud’s intervention, the service provider was requested to submit a corrected invoice, after which the DOD processed the payment accordingly..

The matter was resolved through the Office’s facilitation, as required by Section 6(6)(b) of the Act.

On 4 July 2024, the Office received a complaint from a member of the public on behalf of a private company, alleging improper official conduct by a SANDF unit. The matter concerned a contractual dispute related to a swimming pool renovation. The company initially submitted a quotation of R5.8 million, which was declined due to financial constraints. A revised quotation of around R2.65 million was subsequently accepted, and the company was formally appointed on 3 October 2023.

The agreement entailed phased payments—30% upon completion of phases one and two, and 70% upon final completion. While the first two phases were completed and paid for, complications arose during phase three due to the failure of underground piping attributed to ageing infrastructure. Despite advising that a complete system replacement was required, the company was instructed to amend the scope of work in line with budgetary constraints.

Negotiations between March and July 2024 failed to yield a resolution. The department proposed a cost-sharing arrangement for the remaining work, withholding the outstanding amount of roughly R1.82 million. The Complainant found this position unreasonable, as the additional costs fell outside the agreed-upon scope. The Office investigated the matter in terms of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act, which empowers it to address complaints from members of the public relating to official conduct. The investigation established that a valid and binding agreement existed and that the department’s actions amounted to a breach thereof. The complaint was upheld, and the outstanding payment was subsequently made to the Complainant.

The Office received a complaint from a member of the SA Army regarding the refusal of his application to transfer from the Infantry Corps to the Ordnance Service Corps. The member had obtained a Diploma in Transport Management from the University of Johannesburg and, in 2015, submitted all requisite documentation to initiate the transfer process. However, the application was declined based on a disciplinary offence committed in 2002. The decision relied on a directive from the Directorate Army Human Resources, which disqualifies applicants with prior offences from being considered for corps transfers. The Complainant contended that the offence had been finalised almost two decades prior, and that the refusal to consider his application was unjust and detrimental to his career progression.

The investigation established that the SA Army’s decision contravened Clause 10(g) of SA Army Instruction 051/2019, providing members with finalised disciplinary cases to be considered for transfer. It was further noted that the Complainant’s career aspirations had not been considered. The complaint was upheld in terms of Section 6(7)(a) of the Act, with recommendations made to the MOD&MV to instruct the C SANDF to ensure the application is reviewed fairly and expeditiously. Relevant policy directives should be correctly applied within the SA Army.

A former member of the Reserve Force approached the Office with a complaint concerning the termination of his service. The Complainant, formerly stationed at Sabelo Phama Field Workshop, stated that in 2019 he was sentenced by the Military Court and that the related charges were registered with the South African Police Services (SAPS) Criminal Record Centre. The Officer Commanding had initially advised that he could only be called up once he had a police clearance certificate.

Upon successfully obtaining clearance from the SAPS, the Complainant returned to his unit on 5 February 2025 to submit the documentation and request authority to undergo a Concurrent Health Assessment. He was informed that he had been removed from the Reserve Force without prior notification and was required to reapply for service. The Office determined that the complaint was lodged within the prescribed timeframe and assumed jurisdiction in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act. Verification on the PERSOL system confirmed that the Complainant had been removed from the Reserve Force on 30 June 2024 under reason code BH (service completed) and was currently listed under controlled reserve. Despite the earlier conviction, the Complainant continued to serve until February 2022 and received a voluntary service bonus in January 2023. The Office is investigating the procedural and substantive fairness surrounding the terminatio.

The Office investigated a complaint from a former member of the SAMHS relating to a partial medical claim payment by the Regular Force Medical Continuation Fund (RFMCF). The complaint involved a surgical procedure undergone by the Complainant’s wife. While the Complainant believed the Fund was liable for the full cost, an amount of R20,434.91 was unpaid, and the Complainant was required to settle the shortfall. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Office referred the relevant documentation, including the doctor’s invoice, to the RFMCF. Following the review, the Fund confirmed that the claim would be fully settled. The Complainant was reimbursed for the outstanding amount, and the matter was resolved. The complaint was finalised in terms of Section 6(6)(b) of the Act.

On 28 February 2025, the Office received a complaint from a WO2, a serving member of the SANDF, regarding non-adjustment of salary following his promotion effective from 1 July 2022. The Complainant submitted that the corresponding salary notch adjustment had not been implemented despite receiving formal promotion documentation and assuming increased responsibilities.

The member lodged a formal grievance on 3 May 2023, and the Grievance Board responded on 22 November 2024. Dissatisfied with the outcome, he sought the intervention of the Military Ombud. The Complainant maintained that the applicable implementation instruction required a salary notch adjustment and that the delay adversely impacted his well-being.

The Office determined that the complaint met the time requirements in terms of Regulation 4(a) of the Military Ombud Complaints Regulations of 2015. The matter is under investigation to assess compliance with applicable regulations and whether the Complainant is entitled to retrospective salary adjustments.

On 15 April 2024, the Office received a request from the Office of the Health Ombud (OHO), via the Office of Health Standards Compliance, to undertake a joint investigation into alleged medical malpractice at a Military Hospital. The complaint, submitted initially to the OHO by the spouse of a deceased SANDF member, related to the circumstances surrounding her death following heavy sedation during trauma treatment. The incident dated back to 1 March 2017 when the late member experienced psychological shock after encountering an intruder in her home. She was hospitalised at the Military Hospital and died shortly thereafter.

The collaborative investigation was undertaken under the existing memorandum of understanding between the two offices. Medical records and the BOI documentation were granted access. It was established that no post-mortem was conducted, and that the prescribed medication and dosage aligned with the reported condition. The OHO concluded that there was insufficient evidence to confirm malpractice. A final report was issued without deviation from the preliminary findings, and the matter was resolved.