P.O.E.S. – Higher Military Schools for non-commissioned officers


SUBJECT: Higher Military Schools for Non-Commissioned Officers
RELATED : a. Law 1404/1983 (Government Gazette A’ 173, “Structure and operation of Technological Educational Institutions”)
b. Law 1911/1990 (Government Gazette A’ 166, “Admission of women to the highest military schools, regulation of recruitment issues and other provisions”)
c. Law 2916/2001 (Government Gazette A’ 102, “Structure of higher education and regulation of issues in its technological sector”)
d. Law 3187/2003 (Government Gazette A’ 233, “Higher Military Educational Institutions”)
e. Law 3883/2010 (Government Gazette Α΄ 167, “Service progression and hierarchy of the Armed Forces executives − Issues of the administration of the Armed Forces, Conscription and related provisions.”) (1f)
f. No. prot. 093/2021 our document
Mr. Minister.
Recently, a draft law entitled “Research, development and innovation in the Armed Forces, modernization of the institutional framework of ASEIs, establishment of a Joint Informatics Corps and other provisions” was leaked to defense media. Articles 12 to 47 of the plan in question concern the upgrading of the Higher Military Educational Institutions (ASEI), in the context of undertaking actions of their full parity with the HEIs. However, the Higher Military Schools of Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) are emphatically absent.
Taking the occasion of the disclosure to bring back an issue that concerns many executives and is a permanent fixture on our agenda [ενδεικτικά ως σχετικό (στ)], we have to make it clear that every upgrade finds us absolutely in agreement. It is, however, questionable, the fact that, while ASEI and ASSY face to some extent common problems, the Leadership once again chooses to turn a deaf ear to most of them. It does not seem very likely that the ASSY simply “escaped”: rather the “absence” seems to be intentional.
It is probably not widely known that ASEIs have never actually had equal rights with HEIs. For example, an Engineer, a graduate of SND, would not be able to register as a member of the corresponding Technical Chamber (there is also a court ruling on this). However, as can be seen from the current framework, ASEIs have always been HEIs, even if with partially reduced rights. Now the problem is properly cured by article 21 of the s/n: “The Higher Military Educational Institutions (ASEI) are equal to the institutions of the university sector of higher education, as defined each time by the current legislation, providing equal education and granting degrees equal to these.” Commonly, in a parsimonious formulation, equal professional and academic rights are provided and injustice is remedied for good.
The question that arises is, why isn’t a corresponding initiative taken for ASSY, whose graduates remain deliberately hostage?
We remind you that ASSY with the relevant article 11 (b), as amended and in force, are considered schools of higher education and in fact with admission through nationwide exams. However, there is the serious peculiarity that they are considered higher schools of post-secondary education. In general, the graduates of ASSY, who have competed in nationwide exams, together with candidates who were admitted to HEIs such as NTUA, to ASEIs such as SSE etc., to TEIs such as Automation or Mechanical Engineering, are considered by law to be graduates of IEK.
Has anyone ever heard of students entering IEK through the nationwide exams? Even the educational innovation of “parallel computing” which was implemented for the first time in 2023 (and concerns IEK), is a process outside of nationwide exams. In general, all of the above really constitute a (still) unique innovation of the Ministry of Health, the perpetuation of which fully justifies the reference to innovation in the title of the draft law.
Has it not gone unnoticed that, this year, the Permanent Petty Officer School had a higher admissions base (13,700 points) than the general Military class (12,744) and only 99 points less than the general Engineer class (13,799) of the Naval Cadet School, both schools with traditionally high bases? How can one explain, then, the fact that a graduate of SND who participated in the same national exams and competed in the same courses, will be considered an absolutely equal graduate of HEI, but a graduate of SMYN will be considered a graduate of IEK?
This year we have been notified of at least one case in which a SND student was invited to the SMYN as a runner-up. We are wondering, the Service informed the said executive that if he accepted the invitation in question, he would be deprived of his fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed rights, or he hid it, as he has been doing for years, every year to the candidates of the military schools, which for the Ministry of Defense are considered “productive “, meaning the deprivation of every other right? The perpetuation of this major injustice creates very serious problems.
The above example is mentioned entirely indicatively, since it results in very serious inequalities that may affect major constitutional provisions. Candidates for ASSY do not know that these Schools are institutionally treated unequally. And the fact that, for decades, military schools have been included in the nationwide examination system, reinforces the above illusion of equality.
Accordingly, ASSY graduates do not know that they will leave the schools as graduates of a lower educational level (post-secondary) than the one for which they competed and believe they have succeeded (tertiary), a fact that adversely affects professional and academic rights, and therefore the right access to the labor market. The last comment is made in the context of increasing resignations.
Accordingly, although the so-called right of access to lifelong learning is constantly advertised, this right is deliberately denied to ASSY graduates, who do not even have equal opportunities to participate in qualifying exams for enrollment in TEI or HEIs, nor certainly an equal right to attend postgraduate courses study programs at any university, nor is there any other correspondence or equivalence with graduates of other TEIs, while graduates of private Colleges have everything, for a fee.
Mr. Minister.
We publicly address the following critical question: when did the ASSY cease to be protected by Article 16 of the Constitution and this was not noticed? Or were they never subject to Article 16 and this was carefully concealed? We are referring to the same article that a top government official recently called (as to its adherence) “obsession” and “ankylosis”. Could it be that, after all, the Ministry of Health has been a pioneer and innovator in the past and in this problem (of non-compliance with the same article)?
Is the specific official attitude of the State towards all ASSY graduates, who, as we mentioned above, since 1992 have been included in the nationwide examination system for admission to higher education, in line with what the Principles of Equality and Proportionality provide? Or is it in line with the above Principles that the graduates of private colleges enjoy full and equal academic and professional rights with the graduates of HEIs, with the result that private colleges have been indirectly upgraded to HEIs?
We remind you that the TEIs, from their establishment until their upgradation, were educational institutions of higher education, just like the ASSYs, after the corresponding regulation that took place in 2001 with Law 2913 and before the upgradation of the TEI. However, the curious thing is another: we are able to know authoritatively that, for other schools of higher education (that is, equal to ASSY), there have been dozens of cases of grant of degree parity for the graduates of these schools, a fact that favorably carries with it a multitude of other parameters. For ASSYs, the approval of the MINISTRY of HYPETHA is required. Why;
Unfortunately, during the previous years the Ministry of Education, stubbornly and with its full and absolute fault, did not allow the graduates of ASSY to receive what they are entitled to. This was probably happening because, until a few years ago, there was an anachronistic and incorrect perception of the creation of a NCO Corps, to the implementation of which the existence (and thus the upgrading) of the ASSYs has always stood in the way. However, we are sure that such plans have been shelved for good.
Obviously, the upgrading of secondary schools is also necessary and properly regulated, but it is not the only problem found in education. It is now clear that there is no justification for not having a corresponding regulation for ASSY, because any exclusion of them will create suspicions of intentions for their indirect abolition.
Following the above, which were cited in the statement of reasons, we consider that the leaked draft law is the ideal opportunity for the definitive resolution of this timeless injustice. In this spirit we propose the following arrangement:
Article…
Paragraph 5 of Article 11 of Law 1911/1990 (Α΄166) is replaced as follows: “a. The three-year Higher Military Schools for Non-Commissioned Officers (ASSY) are equal to the institutions of a corresponding specialty in the technological sector of higher education (TEI), as defined each time by the current legislation, providing equal education and granting degrees equal to them and equivalent professional rights with their graduates.
b. The Higher Military Schools of Non-Commissioned Officers (ASSY) until 2016, are equal to the institutions of the corresponding specialty of the technological sector of higher education (TEI) as defined by the framework of Law 1404/1983 (Α΄ 173). For those who were admitted to the ASSY until 2016 through exams and as long as they hold a high school diploma or a six-form high school or equivalent technical schools, regardless of the time the degree was obtained, the degrees they have been granted are considered equal to the degrees of the institutions of the corresponding specialty in the technological sector (TEI) of higher education, as applicable at the time of their admission to the ASSY, and correspond to professional rights of the same category.”
We remain at your disposal for any clarification or information.
Messrs. Members of the Hellenic Parliament, to whom this is communicated, are requested to highlight the matter, through parliamentary control.

Read the original at Defence247.gr

Related Posts