90-year-old former Royal Navy veteran, Ernest Williams, refuses to die before he gets his pension rights. He refers to it as a “robbery,” and he’s not going to give up until he gets restitution. Williams enlisted in the Royal Navy at the age of 18 in 1952 and rose to the rank of Chief Petty Officer. In 1969, his service experienced a sudden change. He accepted a lump sum redundancy offer under a scheme known as DCI 1187/68. The effects of this decision have left him with an unresolved sense of injustice around loss of his military pension.
On November 28, 1970, Williams was told he would be discharged from the navy. His military pension was £440 per annum. It’s an astonishingly low figure that is in stark contrast from the £880 a year paid to his brother-in-law, Ronald Oswell, discharged in 1972. Both men were some of the first to be released. Williams estimates that about 400 others were in the same boat at the time. Overall, more than 1,000 of these veterans died by suicide in a second wave two years after discharge.
Williams is understandably upset, given how little control he’s had over selecting his release date. He’s worried, too, about the way that date may impact his pension. He argues that nobody told him how varying discharge dates could affect his future pension payment. This lack of clarity, he said, created confusion and frustration.
There was no briefing on pensions, Williams recounted. It’s something I knew nothing about as a child. We shouldn’t have ever been allowed to have any lack of insight into the issue. His sentiments are shared by other veterans who have dealt with the same battle.
Since the 1980s, Williams has continued to seek justice and to have his pension corrected. This can became widely known when Stroud MP David Drew intervened on his behalf. Drew did not know Williams, but felt he was a victim of an unfair system. Williams fought hard, but the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency informed him in 1998 that his pension reflected his “complete and accurate entitlement.” Nonetheless, he was shocked by the unsatisfactory terms of their response.
So it’s not really that I’m so brilliant or clever, I’m just a stubborn old sod and I’m not going to give in, he asserted.…I would like someone to tell me—properly in person, if possible—that ‘you were right and we were wrong’.
Williams is individually very shocked and hurt by the treatment he received from the MOD. In fact, he goes on record as saying that he was “bitter” about the whole thing. He wants everyone to understand that his fight is not only for himself, but for his wife, Wendy Williams.
I’m almost 91 and have not much time left, Ernest Williams stated. “I’m doing it for my wife.”
As the chief and former-plaintiff herself, Wendy Williams has been outspoken about her experience. Asking why people discharged during the first wave experienced financial discrimination while later ones did not.
“What did this 400 do that was so wrong they had to be discriminated against financially?” she asked.
Ernest Williams’ case spotlights the difficulties that many veterans face when trying to access pension benefits. His ongoing struggle highlights the importance of accountability in military administration and the need for transparent communication about pensions among service members.
