I’ve served for 17 years, so as you can imagine, the army is a big part of my life. I started my career in 2003 as a regular. 5 years later I moved into civilian employment but continued my service with the Reserves. In 2014, I re-joined into full-time regular service in the Dental Corps. In my current role as a dental nurse, I assist with treating patients in a clinical environment and I manage bookings and patient’s records.

While I was on maternity leave, I heard about the armed forces’ Flexible Duties Trial that was testing the concept of Flexible Service. I kept a close eye on the trial because I could see how part-time working could make a real difference to the amount of time my child and I would get to spend together.

When I returned to full-time service after maternity leave, I didn’t feel like I got to spend much time with my daughter, Gracie. This feeling was magnified because Gracie would visit her dad on alternate weekends. Working full-time as a single parent made life pressured but manageable, but I felt like Gracie and I were missing out on spending time together during her magical early years.

The possibility of reducing the amount of time I served by 20%, so that Gracie and I could have that 1 extra day together each week, was an opportunity I couldn’t let pass. The 20% pay reduction seemed fair and affordable, especially when balanced against not having to pay the childcare costs for that day.

Flexible Service is enabling Gracie and I to spend more time together when we need it most, has relieved some of the pressures in my life, and has reduced the stress of the balancing act. My 3-year Flexible Service arrangement takes me up until the end of my current assignment and up until Gracie starts school, when I expect to return to full-time service.

I think that policies like Flexible Service will help people to continue to serve when their circumstances change. There are limits of course; for example, applications are considered against the operational needs of the unit and the Service, and individuals can take a maximum of 4-years of Flexible Service in a 12-year period. This means Defence can continue to fulfil its purpose and keep the full-time ethos of military service intact, while offering flexibilities that are common in civilian employment.

Related information

Flexible Service’s Restricted Separation allows me to continue to serve knowing that I won’t be separated from home base for lengthy periods, so I know I’ll be able to continue to give my son the support he needs for his disability. This removes the worry about who could do this while I’m not here, which was making me seriously consider leaving the RAF.

I’ve been in the RAF for over 18 years. I’m currently part of the Joint Communications Support Unit. My role involves creating and hosting video conferences, managing the video conferencing network and configuring equipment so it can be dispatched to operational areas.

I’m a single parent to my 4 sons. My eldest 2 are weapons technicians and are also in the RAF. Thomas, 23, has served for 4 years and Mark, 20, is about to start his trade training after passing out last year. My younger sons, Harry, 15, and Sean, 12, are both at school.

Shortly after Sean’s second birthday, I received the life-changing news that he had a brain tumour. He received treatment and 5 years ago, he and I experienced life-changing relief when we were told that he was in remission. The tumour caused a left-sided Hemiparesis, which means he has limited use of the right-hand side of his body. It also led to scoliosis for which he wears a spinal brace and he had rods inserted in his back roughly a year ago. He’s able to do all sorts of things one-handed and he’s becoming increasingly independent, despite his decreased mobility. However, he still needs my support for certain things for now, such as travel to and from his regular medical appointments.

If I were to deploy, I’d need to ask my mother to support Sean for the length of my tour, as she’s my only family support. She’d have to travel over 500 miles from her home and asking her to do this becomes less realistic each year. This was a real worry and I was seriously considering whether I’d have to leave the RAF for a job that doesn’t have any kind of long-term separation from where we live.

Flexible Service’s Restricted Separation has changed our lives by removing the possibility of long-term separation from my home base for 3 years. This is balanced by a fair reduction to my pay. I can still be separated for up to 35 days each year which means I can stay up to date with training and be deployed for short periods if my skills are needed away from home base. For example, I recently attended a week-long equipment course and whilst on the Flexible Duties Trial, which preceded Flexible Service, I was deployed overseas for a short period to install and configure video conferencing equipment.

My line manager, Sergeant Mitchell, has been very supportive. He says:

Having a duty of care towards my staff, the importance of finding a balance between work, welfare and wellness is imperative. In Corporal McDonalds case, Flexible Service couldn’t be more apt applying benefit to both the RAF and himself.

Corporal McDonald shows loyalty to the Service and ensures that the impact on the section is kept to a minimum during hospital visits and care for his son. Flexible Service allows him to attend to his youngest son and provide care without the added stress of possibly being deployed at short notice.

By the time my arrangement ends, Sean will no doubt be even more independent, and I’ll be able to assess my next steps. In the meantime, Defence gets to keep my skills and the military continues to provide me with a home and regular income, which is essential for me to support my family effectively.

Flexible Service Case Study: Restricted Separation

Anthony Michael Cardoza has had his bankruptcy restrictions extended, and for the next seven years is banned from running limited companies and must disclose his status when he attempts to secure £500 or more in credit.

In January 2019, Anthony Cardoza (75), from Milton Keynes, was ordered to repay £2.79 million at Birmingham County Court after he inappropriately received millions of pounds that were meant to be used for the redevelopment of Northampton Town Football Club’s Sixfields Stadium.

But the former stockbroker and father of former chairman of Northampton Town Football Club, David Cardoza, could not afford to pay his debts and in April 2019, applied for his own bankruptcy.

When reviewing the bankruptcy, the Official Receiver established that Northampton Borough Council provided £10.25m worth of loans to Northampton Town Football Club Limited between 2013 and 2014 to renovate the club’s Sixfields Stadium, currently known as the PTS Academy Stadium.

The funds from the local authority were diverted to other connected companies formed to oversee the stadium’s re-development, including 1ST Land Ltd, County (Oundle) Ltd and County Developments (Northampton) Limited, but the renovations were not completed.

The Official Receiver discovered that Anthony Cardoza was one of the directors of the companies formed to oversee the stadium redevelopment – County Developments (Northampton) – and approved funds to be transferred to himself as a repayment of loans he had previously made to Northampton Town Football Club.

This transfer, however, should have never taken place as the original loans made by the local authority should have only been used for renovations to the stadium.

Due to the size of Anthony Cardoza’s debts and the risk he posed to creditors, the Official Receiver applied to increase Cardoza’s bankruptcy restrictions.

On 10 August 2020, Anthony Cardoza had his seven-year Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking accepted by the Secretary of State.

This is not the first time the Insolvency Service has acted against a director connected to the failed redevelopment of the Sixfields Stadium.

In January 2019, Howard Grossman was banned from being a company director after he failed to ensure 1ST Land maintained records.

1ST Land was one of the companies set-up to oversee the stadium’s redevelopment and Howard Grossman’s misconduct meant that investigators were unable to determine the exact nature of more than £5.6m worth of payments made to various parties from the company’s accounts.

Official Receiver Kevin Read said:

Similar to other directors involved with the failed redevelopment of the Sixfields Stadium, Anthony Cardoza abused his position when he diverted millions of pounds for his own benefit.

To protect other lenders in the future and severely curtail his activities, Anthony Cardoza will have to comply with seven more years of bankruptcy restrictions. This is a significant amount of time and should serve as a stark warning to other directors to refrain from abusing funds intended for specific projects.

Anthony Michael Cardoza is from Broughton and his date of birth is September 1944.

Public-facing details of Anthony Cardoza’s Bankruptcy Restrictions Undertaking is available on the Individual Insolvency Register.

Bankruptcy restrictions are wide ranging. The effects are the same whether you are subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or to an undertaking. Guidance on the main statutory consequences flowing from a bankruptcy restrictions order or undertaking.

Information about the work of the Insolvency Service, and how to complain about financial misconduct.

You can also follow the Insolvency Service on: