§
Mr. Caplin
[holding answer 8 June 2004]:. Figures for the number of trained personnel who are recorded as going/being absent without leave are given in the tables. No officers in the Naval Service or the RAF went absent during the last five years. Figures for the Army are unable to be broken down into officers and other ranks as the information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For the same reason, it is not possible to break down the figures to show any who may have served in Iraq.
| Navy |
| Calendar year |
Total number reported AWOL1 |
| 1999 |
35 |
| 2000 |
50 |
| 2001 |
85 |
| 2002 |
90 |
| 2003 |
115 |
| Royal Marines |
| Calendar year |
Total number reported AWOL1 |
| 1999 |
15 |
| 2000 |
20 |
| 2001 |
15 |
| 2002 |
20 |
| 2003 |
15 |
| Army |
| Financial year |
Total number reported AWOL1 |
| 1998–99 |
1,400 |
| 1999–2000 |
1,665 |
| 2000–01 |
1,850 |
| 2001–02 |
1,655 |
| 2002–03 |
1,685 |
| RAF |
| Financial year |
Total number reported AWOL1 |
| 1998–99 |
20 |
| 1999–2000 |
20 |
| 2000–01 |
20 |
| 2001–02 |
15 |
| 2002–03 |
25 |
| 1Rounded to the nearest 5. |
Recording of absence differs between the Naval Service, the Army and the RAF, which means that the figures are not directly comparable on a tri-Service basis. Additionally, the Naval Service changed the basis of their reporting in 2001. The Naval Service and the Army record multiple periods of absence by the same
415W
person. The RAF registers an individual once, regardless of how many times they are absent within a financial year.