Benefits Cut...

[aesop081]

including the losing and gaining unit chief clerks. 

Unit CC have no authority WRT imposed restrictions.

 

[PuckChaser]

If this kind of thing is an abuse, it would have been stopped I imagine.

People are unwilling or unable to stop it, and that's why they had to figure out how to save money from IR, hence the change.

 

[Jay4th]

Unit CC have no authority WRT imposed restrictions.

Ack, only mentioned because these things cross their desks and if against policy, would raise eyebrows among clerks familiar with policy.

 

[MeatheadMick]

Ack, only mentioned because these things cross their desks and if against policy, would raise eyebrows among clerks familiar with policy.

Who may in fact turn a blind eye, especially if it benefits the clerk in any way... makes me recall a recent Court Martial actually.

 

[McG]

If this kind of thing is an abuse, it would have been stopped I imagine.

I would not make that assumption.  It is possible for deviation from policy (or expected practice) to become so culturally engrained that nobody even bats an eye to continued abuse of the rules.  Many things contribute to such situations such as lazy staff officers who do not know (but believe they know) the policies, rules, and regulations for which they are responsible to advise and administer, or leaders who are overly familiar with subordinates and who don’t want to be seen to say “no.” Once a deviation becomes culturally engrained, it takes a particularly strong leader well up the chain of command to turn things around (because nobody below wants to be the only one to “screw his guys” by being the only one to conform to policy) – score inflation on PERs is one symptom of this sort of dynamic.

That being said and as stated earlier, I believe that the change to SE was an attempt to stop the abuse.  Unfortunately, the change was too broad a hammer aimed at the wrong target.  As a result, many pers not on IR were in the beaten zone and the IR abuses loop-holes remain in place for those who decide to exploit them.

 

[bridges]

Also, sometimes the original intent of a policy has been overtaken by events, lost in the mists of time or is otherwise no longer relevant, yet the policy persists.  Sometimes it takes a while for these things to be identified, analyzed & rectified. 

 

[4Feathers]

Who may in fact turn a blind eye, especially if it benefits the clerk in any way... makes me recall a recent Court Martial actually.

Pretty harsh generalization, if I were a clerk I would take objection to your comment. Seems to me I have seen all trades represented at STs and CMs, including MPs.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

What are you on about? He didn't say 'All clerks are knowing participants in fraudulent IR claims', he just highlighted the possibility that maybe, somewhere, the CF has within it's ranks persons of less than stellar morals, who could be inclined to 'look the other way'. 

 

[bridges]

Who may in fact turn a blind eye, especially if it benefits the clerk in any way...

Actually I could have done without seeing that as well.  But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he had one or two individuals in mind, rather than a general tendency for a group of people to manipulate situations to their own advantage.    :not-again:

 

[Shamrock]

Actually I could have done without seeing that as well.  But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he had one or two individuals in mind, rather than a general tendency for a group of people to manipulate situations to their own advantage.    :not-again:

I suspect he had a former chief clerk in mind.  Incidentally, that individual was figured out by another clerk.

 

[MeatheadMick]

I suspect he had a former chief clerk in mind.  Incidentally, that individual was figured out by another clerk.

That would be the one.  Don't really see how my previous comment could have been seen as a rude generalization. It was definitely not aimed at a specific trade. I have had the opportunity to work with STELLAR members of the CF as well as those who really should NOT be in the CF. Any person regardless of trade can fudge benefits in his or her favour. I was merely referring to a specific case in which a clerk happened to be the subject of. I too have seen MPs in shit, I am the last person to say my trade is perfect... if I did that'd be bringjng my own integrity into question

No offense intended, my apologies to those I did.

 

[armyvern]

Just recd into my inbox from the career manager ...

latest and greatest CANFORGEN on IR; it actually acknowledges that there are indeed three distinct classes of personnel separated from family:

1)  Authorized to move DF&E;
2)  Restricted Move of DF&E; and
3)  those Prohibited by the CF from moving DF&E.

01  01  101509Z OCT  12  RR      UUUU                CMP 078/12
            NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
            CANFORGEN
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 184/12 CMP 078/12
SIC WAA
SUBJ: CHANGES TO IMPOSED RESTRICTION POLICY
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS: A. CFAO 209-28
B.  CBI 208.997 SEPARATION EXPENSE
C.  CANFORGEN 145/12 CMP 063/12 301435Z JUL 12
1. THIS CANFORGEN ANNOUNCES CHANGES TO THE CF POLICY ON IMPOSED
RESTRICTION (IR) AND IS EFFECTIVE 15 OCT 12
2. IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CF THAT MBRS AND THEIR FAMILY
BE TOGETHER AND ABLE TO SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER AT THE MBR S PLACE OF
DUTY.  REF A ACKNOWLEDGES THREE CATEGORIES OF DEPENDANTS HOUSEHOLD
GOODS AND EFFECTS (DHGE) MOVEMENT IN RESPECT OF A MBR WHO IS POSTED
TO A NEW PLACE OF DUTY:
A. AUTHORIZED MOVE - DHGE CAN BE MOVED
B. RESTRICTED MOVE - DHGE CANNOT BE MOVED UNTIL SUITABLE
ACCOMMODATION FOR DHGE IS FOUND
C. PROHIBITED MOVE - DHGE CANNOT BE MOVED AT ALL
3. REF A ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES IR AS AN APPROVED DELAY IN MOVING DHGE
FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME, INTENDED TO BE AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE. 
DELAYS IN MOVING DHGE ARE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE MBRS IN MANAGING
THEIR PERSONAL AND FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE NECESSARY RELOCATION
TO THEIR NEW PLACE OF DUTY.  WHILE EXTENDED DELAYS MAY BE APPROVED,
IAW THIS INSTRUCTION, THEY ARE TO BE LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM
NECESSARY AS INTENDED AT REF A, ENABLING MBRS AND THEIR FAMILY TO
SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER AT THE MBRS PLACE OF DUTY
4. MBRS MAY REQUEST, IN WRITING, THROUGH THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND,
BEFORE AND AFTER THEIR COS DATE, THAT A RESTRICTION NOT BE LIFTED. A
REQUEST SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS A REQUEST FOR IR
5. EFFECTIVE 15 OCT 12, SUBJECT TO PARAS 6 AND 7, THE CAREER MANAGER
(CM) IS THE APPROVING AUTHORITY FOR IR REQUESTS FROM REG F MBRS. 
MBRS FROM THE REG F MAY HAVE THEIR RESTRICTION FOR IR LIFTED IAW THE
DIRECTION PROVIDED AT PARA 15 OF REF A.  CO, AREA COMD OR OFFICER
COMMANDING A COMMAND (OCC) ARE THE APPROVING AUTHORITY FOR IR
REQUESTS FROM RES F MBRS.  MBRS ON THE PRIMARY RESERVE LIST (PRL)
MAY HAVE THEIR RESTRICTION FOR IR LIFTED BY THE CO, AREA COMD OR OCC
AS APPLICABLE, BASED ON THE DIRECTION PROVIDED AT PARA 15 OF REF A
6. EFFECTIVE 15 OCT 12, IR STATUS MAY BE GRANTED FOR A MAX OF FOUR
CONSECUTIVE YEARS, AFTER WHICH THE IR STATUS SHALL BE TERMINATED.  
THE CM AND A CO, AREA COMD OR OCC FOR A PRL SHALL CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING FACTORS WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO GRANT OR DENY A REQUEST
FOR IR:
A. THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CF
B. THE MBR S POSTING HISTORY
C. THE MBR S EFFORT TO BE TOGETHER WITH THEIR DHGE, INCLUDING THE
MBR S EFFORTS TO FIND SUITABLE ACCN FOR THEIR DHGE AT THEIR NEW
PLACE OF DUTY
D. THE ANTICIPATED DURATION OF THE MBR S POSTING
E. THE MBR S COS DATE
F. THE DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE MBR OF MOVING THEIR DHGE ON
THE COS DATE AND ON ANY LATER DATE
G. A DEPENDANT S EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES, RESOURCES, AND SERVICES
THAT ARE AT THE CURRENT AND NEW PLACES OF DUTY
H. THE SPECIALIZED AND EXCEPTIONAL HEALTH CARE RESOURCES AND
SERVICES THAT A DEPENDANT REQUIRES THAT ARE AT THE CURRENT AND NEW
PLACES OF DUTY.  THESE ARE RESOURCES THAT ARE UNIQUE AND SPECIFIC TO
AN INDIVIDUAL S CASE, AS AN EXCEPTION AS OPPOSED TO A RULE
I. A DEPENDANT S EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE AT THE CURRENT
AND NEW PLACES OF DUTY
7. THE FOLLOWING MBRS SHALL NOT BE GRANTED IR:
A. MBRS OF THE REG F WHO DURING THEIR CURRENT PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS
SERVICE IN THE REG F HAVE ELECTED AN INTENDED PLACE OF RESIDENCE
(IPR)
B. A MBR WHO HAS BEEN ON IR FOR THE MAX OF FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS
CALCULATED WITH REF TO THEIR PREVIOUS, CURRENT, AND NEW PLACES OF
DUTY
C. MBRS WHOSE LAST REQUEST FOR IR WAS GRANTED FOR A DURATION OF FOUR
CONSECUTIVE YEARS AND, AFTER THAT IR ENDED, HAVE NOT PHYSICALLY
RESIDED IN THEIR HOME WITH THEIR DHGE FOR AT LEAST ONE CONTINUOUS
YEAR PRIOR TO THEIR CURRENT REQUEST
D. A MBR WHO REACHES THEIR OCCUPATION FUNCTIONAL POINT AND
THEREAFTER IS POSTED FOR THE FIRST TIME TO A NEW PLACE OF DUTY, AND
E. A MBR ON CLASS (A) OR (B) RESERVE SERVICE
8. WITH RESPECT TO MBRS ON IR PRIOR TO 15 OCT 12, NOTHING IN THE
ABOVE SHALL BE INTERPRETED OR APPLIED IN A WAY THAT CHANGES THEIR IR
STATUS ON 15 OCT 12.  IR DURATION IAW PARA 6 BEGINS ON 15 OCT 12
9. ADDITIONALLY, IR STATUS IS ONLY ONE OF EIGHT CONDITIONS THAT MUST
BE SATISFIED BEFORE AN ENTITLEMENT TO CBI 208.997 SEPARATION EXPENSE
(SE) IS ESTABLISHED.  IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A MBR ON IR MAY NOT BE
ENTITLED TO SE
10. A MIL PERS INSTR WILL BE ISSUED ON THIS SUBJECT AT A LATER DATE.
EXCEPTIONS TO THIS POLICY MAY ONLY BE AUTHORIZED BY CMP
11. SIGNED BY RADM A. SMITH, CMP
END OF ENGLISH TEXT/DEBUT DU TEXTE FRANCAIS
OBJ: CHANGEMENTS A LA POLITIQUE SUR LA RESTRICTION IMPOSEE
REF: A. OAFC 209-28
B. DRAS 208.997 FRAIS D ABSENCE DU FOYER
C. CANFORGEN 145/12 CMP 063/12 301435Z JUL 12
1. LE PRESENT CANFORGEN ANNONCE DES CHANGEMENTS A LA POLITIQUE SUR
LA RESTRICTION IMPOSEE (RI), ET IL ENTRE EN VIGUEUR LE 15 OCT 12
2. IL EST DANS L INTERET DES FC QUE LES MILITAIRES ET LEUR FAMILLE
SOIENT REUNIS ET CAPABLES DE SE SOUTENIR MUTUELLEMENT AU LIEU DE
SERVICE DU MILITAIRE. LA REF A RECONNAIT TROIS CATEGORIES DE
DEMENAGEMENT DES PERSONNES A CHARGE, ARTICLES DE MENAGE ET EFFETS
PERSONNELS (PACAM ET EP) LORSQU IL S AGIT D UN MILITAIRE AFFECTE A
UN NOUVEAU LIEU DE SERVICE:
A. LE DEMENAGEMENT AUTORISE - LES PERSONNES A CHARGE, ARTICLES DE
MENAGE ET EFFETS PERSONNELS (PACAM ET EP) PEUVENT ETRE DEMENAGES
B. LE DEMENAGEMENT RESTREINT - LES PACAM ET EP NE PEUVENT ETRE
DEMENAGES AVANT QU UN LOGEMENT LEUR CONVENANT N AIT ETE TROUVE
C. LE DEMENAGEMENT INTERDIT - LES PACAM ET EP NE PEUVENT NULLEMENT
ETRE DEMENAGES
3. LA REF A RECONNAIT AUSSI QUE LA RI EST UN REPORT DU DEMENAGEMENT
DES PACAM ET EP APPROUVE POUR UNE PERIODE PRECISE, QUI SE VEUT LA
PLUS BREVE POSSIBLE. LES REPORTS DE DEMENAGEMENT DES PACAM ET EP
VISENT A AIDER LE MILITAIRE A GERER SES AFFAIRES PERSONNELLES ET
FAMILIALES EN VUE DE LA REINSTALLATION NECESSAIRE AU NOUVEAU LIEU DE
SERVICE. BIEN QUE DES REPORTS PROLONGES PUISSENT ETRE APPROUVES,
CONFORMEMENT A LA PRESENTE INSTRUCTION, ILS DOIVENT ETRE LIMITES AU
DELAI NECESSAIRE MINIMAL, COMME LE VEUT LA REF A, POUR PERMETTRE AUX
MILITAIRES ET A LEURS FAMILLES DE SE SOUTENIR MUTUELLEMENT AU LIEU
DE SERVICE DU MILITAIRE
4. LE MILITAIRE PEUT DEMANDER, PAR ECRIT ET EN PASSANT PAR SA CHAINE
DE COMMANDEMENT, AVANT ET APRES LE DEBUT DE SA DATE DE CS, QU UNE
RESTRICTION NE SOIT PAS ENLEVEE. UNE DEMANDE SERA DESIGNEE COMME UNE
DEMANDE DE RI
5. A PARTIR DU 15 OCT 12, SOUS RESERVE DES PARAGRAPHES 6 ET 7, LE
GESTIONNAIRE DES CARRIERES (GC) EST L AUTORITE APPROBATRICE DES
DEMANDES DE RI DES MILITAIRES DE LA F REG. CES DERNIERS PEUVENT
DEMANDER QUE LA RI SOIT LEVEE CONFORMEMENT A LA DIRECTIVE FIGURANT
AU PARA 15 DE LA REF A. LE CMDT D UNITE, CMDT DE SECTEUR OU
COMMANDANT DE COMMANDEMENT (CMDT COMD) SONT LES AUTORITES
APPROBATRICES POUR LES DEMANDES DE RI DES MILITAIRES DE LA F RES.
LES MILITAIRES DU CADRE DE LA PREMIERE RESERVE (CPR) PEUVENT
DEMANDER A FAIRE LEVER LEUR RI PAR LE CMDT D UNITE, CMDT DE SECTEUR
OU COMMANDANT DE COMMANDEMENT, SELON LE CAS, COMPTE TENU DE LA
DIRECTIVE FIGURANT AU PARA 15 DE LA REF A
6. A PARTIR DU 15 OCT 12, LE STATUT DE RI PEUT ETRE ACCORDE POUR UN
MAXIMUM DE QUATRE ANNEES CONSECUTIVES, APRES QUOI, IL PRENDRA FIN.
LE GC ET UN CMDT D UNITE, CMDT DE SECTEUR OU CMDT DE COMD DU CPR
DEVRONT PRENDRE EN CONSIDERATION LES FACTEURS SUIVANTS POUR ACCORDER
OU REFUSER UNE DEMANDE DE RI:
A. LE MEILLEUR INTERET DES FC
B. LES ANTECEDENTS D AFFECTATION DU MILITAIRE
C. LES EFFORTS DU MILITAIRE POUR ETRE REUNI AVEC SES PACAM ET EP, Y
COMPRIS SES DEMARCHES POUR TROUVER UN LOGEMENT CONVENABLE POUR SES
PACAM ET EP AU NOUVEAU LIEU DE SERVICE
D. LA DUREE PREVUE DE L AFFECTATION DU MILITAIRE
E. LA DATE DES CS DU MILITAIRE
F. LES REPERCUSSIONS FINANCIERES DIRECTES SUR LE MILITAIRE S IL
DEMENAGE SES PACAM ET EP A LA DATE DU CS OU A UNE DATE ULTERIEURE
G. LES POSSIBILITES D ETUDES, LES RESSOURCES ET LES SERVICES POUR LA
PERSONNE A CHARGE QU ON TROUVE AU LIEU ACTUEL ET AU NOUVEAU LIEU DE
SERVICE H. LES RESSOURCES EN SANTE SPECIALISEES ET EXCEPTIONNELLES
AINSI QUE LES SERVICES QUE REQUIERT UNE PERSONNE A CHARGE ET QUI SE
TROUVENT AU LIEU DE SERVICE ACTUEL ET AU NOUVEAU LIEU DE SERVICE. IL
DOIT S AGIR DE RESSOURCES QUI SONT UNIQUES ET SPECIFIQUES AU CAS DE
LA PERSONNE A CHARGE ET QUI CONSTITUENT UNE EXCEPTION PLUTOT QUE LA
REGLE
I. LES POSSIBILITES D EMPLOI D UNE PERSONNE A CHARGE QU ON TROUVE AU
LIEU DE SERVICE ACTUEL ET AU NOUVEAU LIEU DE SERVICE
7. LES MILITAIRES CI-APRES NE DOIVENT PAS SE FAIRE ACCORDER DE RI:
A. LE MILITAIRE DE LA F REG QUI, AU COURS DE SA PERIODE ACTUELLE DE
SERVICE CONTINU DANS LA F REG, A CHOISI UN  DOMICILE PROJETE (DP)
B. UN MILITAIRE QUI A FAIT L OBJET D UNE RI POUR LE MAXIMUM DE
QUATRE ANNEES CONSECUTIVES CALCULEES EN TENANT COMPTE DE SES LIEUX
DE SERVICE PASSE, ACTUEL ET NOUVEAU
C. LE MILITAIRE DONT LA DERNIERE DEMANDE DE RI A ETE ACCORDEE POUR
UNE DUREE DE QUATRE ANNEES CONSECUTIVES ET QUI, APRES QUE LA RI AIT
PRIS FIN, N A PAS HABITE PHYSIQUEMENT DANS LE MEME LOGEMENT QUE LEUR
PACAM ET EP PENDANT AU MOINS UNE ANNEE CONTINUE AVANT LA DEMANDE
ACTUELLE
D. LE MILITAIRE QUI ARRIVE AU POINT FONCTIONNEL DE SON GROUPE
PROFESSIONNEL ET QUI, PAR LA SUITE, EST AFFECTE POUR LA PREMIERE
FOIS A UN NOUVEAU LIEU DE SERVICE
E. LE MILITAIRE EN SERVICE DE RESERVE DE CLASSE (A) OU (B)
8. POUR LES MILITAIRES EN RI AVANT LE 15 OCT 12, RIEN DE CE QUI
PRECEDE NE DOIT ETRE INTERPRETE OU APPLIQUE D UNE QUELCONQUE FACON
QUI CHANGE LEUR STATUT DE RI AU 15 OCT 12.  LA DUREE DE LA RI, EN
ACCORD AVEC LE PARA 6, COMMENCE LE 15 OCT 12
9. EN OUTRE, LE STATUT DE RI N EST QUE L UNE DES HUIT CONDITIONS
AUXQUELLES IL FAUT SATISFAIRE AVANT D VOIR DROIT AUX FRAIS D ABSENCE
DU FOYER EN VERTU DE LA DRAS 208.997. IL EST POSSIBLE QU UN
MILITAIRE EN RI N AIT PAS DROIT AUX FRAIS D ABSENCE DU FOYER
10. UNE INSTR PERS MIL A CE SUJET SERA PUBLIEE ULTERIEUREMENT.  LE
CPM PEUT AUTORISER DES EXCEPTIONS A LA PRESENTE POLITIQUE
11. SIGNE PAR LE CAM A. SMITH, CPM

Interesting in that it does not mention any differentation in entitlements etc for the three distinct groups, yet it places authority back with the Career Managers. In my situation, it has always been my CM granting the authority as I fall into category 3 (prohibited) being 1/2 of an MSC.

The tidbit that I find interesting is "IR STATUS MAY BE GRANTED FOR A MAX OF FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, AFTER WHICH THE IR STATUS SHALL BE TERMINATED". Being that I'm in my 4th year now (after two postings for me to a separate locations from my spouse [two postings for him too in 4 years, neither of which was to where I am]), the word "shall" indicates that there is no choice in the matter and that the status will terminate. I'd like to see what career shops does with those of us in category 3 (prohibited) after the 4 year cut-off ... will they then make all attempts to finally post MSCs together to "break" that 4 year in a row clause and give us some time to spend together as a family too ... or do they just say "f' it, your 4 years is up and you're done" despite the fact that we are prohibited move of F&E.

I also like the bit about "the member's effort to locate their family with them at the member's place of duty" being a factor that must be considered in approving IR requests. I hope that those with the powers of approval read this as I do ... No effort/intent to move your family to your place of duty = no IR ... or IR with NO entitlement to SE (another lovely bit in the above message). I have a feeling that will succeed in knocking quite a few free-riders off of that gravy train.

 

[DAA]

Just recd into my inbox from the career manager ...

latest and greatest CANFORGEN on IR; it actually acknowledges that there are indeed three distinct classes of personnel separated from family:

1)  Authorized to move DF&E;
2)  Restricted Move of DF&E; and
3)  those Prohibited by the CF from moving DF&E.

Interesting in that it does not mention any differentation in entitlements etc for the three distinct groups, yet it places authority back with the Career Managers. In my situation, it has always been my CM granting the authority as I fall into category 3 (prohibited) being 1/2 of an MSC.

The tidbit that I find interesting is "IR STATUS MAY BE GRANTED FOR A MAX OF FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, AFTER WHICH THE IR STATUS SHALL BE TERMINATED". Being that I'm in my 4th year now (after two postings for me to a separate locations from my spouse [two postings for him too in 4 years, neither of which was to where I am]), the word "shall" indicates that there is no choice in the matter and that the status will terminate. I'd like to see what career shops does with those of us in category 3 (prohibited) after the 4 year cut-off ... will they then make all attempts to finally post MSCs together to "break" that 4 year in a row clause and give us some time to spend together as a family too ... or do they just say "f' it, your 4 years is up and you're done" despite the fact that we are prohibited move of F&E.

I also like the bit about "the member's effort to locate their family with them at the member's place of duty" being a factor that must be considered in approving IR requests. I hope that those with the powers of approval read this as I do ... No effort/intent to move your family to your place of duty = no IR ... or IR with NO entitlement to SE (another lovely bit in the above message). I have a feeling that will succeed in knocking quite a few free-riders off of that gravy train.

The classes above have always existed and apply to everyone whether single or married.

Years ago, IR had to be reviewed on an annual basis and was only granted in one year increments.  Once the cost of maintaining a service member on IR reach the equivalent of a cost move, the CM would advise the member that should the IR continue beyond that point, there would be no entitlement to a cost move for the family.  I also seem to recall IR being restricted to a max of 7 years as well.

In my opinion, MSC's should be administered differently as they are NOT the ones requesting IR Status, it is being imposed on them due to service reasons.

IR is merely a short term tool available to a CF member, which allows transition into a new job and location without creating undue hardship on the family unit.  If someone is proceeding to a new location on IR and have absolutely NO intention of relocating their family to that area, then they are defeating the purpose of IR.

 

[McG]

Interesting in that it does not mention any differentation in entitlements etc for the three distinct groups, yet it places authority back with the Career Managers. In my situation, it has always been my CM granting the authority as I fall into category 3 (prohibited) being 1/2 of an MSC.

The tidbit that I find interesting is "IR STATUS MAY BE GRANTED FOR A MAX OF FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, AFTER WHICH THE IR STATUS SHALL BE TERMINATED". Being that I'm in my 4th year now (after two postings for me to a separate locations from my spouse [two postings for him too in 4 years, neither of which was to where I am]), the word "shall" indicates that there is no choice in the matter and that the status will terminate. I'd like to see what career shops does with those of us in category 3 (prohibited) after the 4 year cut-off ... will they then make all attempts to finally post MSCs together to "break" that 4 year in a row clause and give us some time to spend together as a family too ... or do they just say "f' it, your 4 years is up and you're done" despite the fact that we are prohibited move of F&E.

Careful Vern.  You are slipping into the missing the distinction between SE entitlement and IR through the old inaccurate colloquialism of referring to both groups under the same label of "IR status."

There are three categories of DHGE movement related to a member who is posted (Authorized, Restricted, Prohibited), but these are not directly analogous to the three types of separation related to a move (Unaccompanied, IR and Prohibited).  Unaccompanied is an option lasting up to six months for somebody who is posted Restricted; IR is something that can be requested and authorized for somebody posted Authorized or Restricted; and Prohibited is Prohibited.

This CANFORGEN speaks to IR, and one should not attempt to extrapolate implications for SE as it relates to Unaccompanied moves or Prohibited postings.

In my opinion, MSC's should be administered differently as they are NOT the ones requesting IR Status, it is being imposed on them due to service reasons.

MSCs and other pers prohibited posted are not on "IR Status."  That term never accurately applied and this CANFORGEN does not change that.  Let's not slip back into that sloppy vernacular because it will inevitably lead to some lazy administrators missunderstanding the policy they apply ... likely such sloppiness will see entitled MSCs denied SE when some fool slaps them under the "IR Status" label.  That being said, perhaps we could now look at reversing some of the SE cuts exclusively for those who are either unaccompanied or Prohibited.

This CANFORGEN is a step in the direction that should have been taken as opposed to the extent of the initial SE cuts.  I am happy to see it, though I might have gone farther. As quality of life is an underlying theme, I would also like to see some sort of direction restraining durations and frequencies of prohibited postings and MSC separations.

 

[navymich]

The tidbit that I find interesting is "IR STATUS MAY BE GRANTED FOR A MAX OF FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, AFTER WHICH THE IR STATUS SHALL BE TERMINATED". Being that I'm in my 4th year now (after two postings for me to a separate locations from my spouse [two postings for him too in 4 years, neither of which was to where I am]), the word "shall" indicates that there is no choice in the matter and that the status will terminate.

8. WITH RESPECT TO MBRS ON IR PRIOR TO 15 OCT 12, NOTHING IN THE
ABOVE SHALL BE INTERPRETED OR APPLIED IN A WAY THAT CHANGES THEIR IR
STATUS ON 15 OCT 12.  IR DURATION IAW PARA 6 BEGINS ON 15 OCT 12

The way that I read this is that the 4 year clock starts on 15 Oct 12.  Unless I've interpreted it wrong?

 

[armyvern]

The way that I read this is that the 4 year clock starts on 15 Oct 12.  Unless I've interpreted it wrong?

No, that's correct. I'm already in my fourth year and the clock starts ticking anew on 15 Oct. I wonder if my mangler will observe that now and attempt to co-locate finally (IE: the spirit of the CANFORGEN, that families should be together at least one year after every four apart), or whether he says he can send me somewhere else again for another 4 years ... or whether he says "F it, you're done with being authorized" this next APS when I come up for authority renewal (at the end of this current 4 years of being separated) and still keeps me separated.

 

[armyvern]

Careful Vern. 

There are three...

:

Just stop. Stop responding to my posts; you and I have been through this routine so many times, regardless of the topic, it is ridiculous. You are VERY well aware that I know the difference between the three.  I actually find your posts (and not just those posts to me) quite very patronizing; it's getting very old, very quick.

I flat out stated there were three distinct groups identified and that no differentiation was made in this CANFORGEN regarding benefits for any of them either. None. As far as this latest reads, we are still all being treated the same benefits wise. I do not confuse the three.

This is the last time I will respond to one of your posts to me as you simply see my name and don't bother to read what I wrote ...

I respectfully bow to your smuggy superior knowledge and SMEness of ... well ... apparently ... everything.

I, quite literally, do not have a dick in this contest. Done. [add to ignore]

 

[DAA]

MSCs and other pers prohibited posted are not on "IR Status."  That term never accurately applied and this CANFORGEN does not change that.  Let's not slip back into that sloppy vernacular because it will inevitably lead to some lazy administrators missunderstanding the policy they apply ... likely such sloppiness will see entitled MSCs denied SE when some fool slaps them under the "IR Status" label. 

Oh but they are on IR Status............Regretably, I think we may have already gone that way with respect to MSC's.  This past APS we had part of an MSC posted to our unit and the spouse was posted elsewhere (ie; not geographically co-located) and she took possession of the HG&E and children.  However, the supporting URS for our guy refused to pay SE without an approved IR.  In my mind, it was a "no brainer" and SE should have been automatic, as it always had been.  But after consulting with DCBA, it came to light that there are currently "no provisions" within the policy to automatically approve SE benefits for one part of an MSC when geographical separation occurs.

Hence, they actually have to go through the process of applying for IR and once granted, they become entitled to SE.  :  OMG......is there no common sense left?

 

[armyvern]

Regretably, I think we may have already gone that way with respect to MSC's.  This past APS we had part of an MSC posted to our unit and the spouse was posted elsewhere (ie; not geographically co-located) and she took possession of the HG&E and children.  However, the supporting URS for our guy refused to pay SE without an approved IR.  In my mind, it was a "no brainer" and SE should have been automatic, as it always had been.  But after consulting with DCBA, it came to light that there are currently "no provisions" within the policy to automatically approve SE benefits for one part of an MSC when geographical separation occurs.

Hence, they actually have to go through the process of applying for IR and once granted, they become entitled to SE.  :  OMG......is there no common sense left?

The authority for MSCs has always been the career manager. I have never had to "apply for IR" to my CM via that little IR request form they make others do as he knows exactly why I am going unaccompanied - HE and my spouse's CM decided I would go that way. I'm going to fill out a form telling him why he is sending me prohibited?? That's hilarious ... and wrong. My posting messages have never stated "IR authorized until ..." rather they have read "Prohibited move authorized until XX Month XX".

DCBA actually cut an email out ~2010 to CClerks that pointed out that MSCs were NOT IR and thus would (should) never have a message stating "IR authorized" rather that it should be the posting message from the CM that simply states "Prohibited move auth until ..."

Your guy's CM simply needs to ensure his posting message reads "prohibited move authorized until ..." - the CM can't authorize him to be IR exactly because he is a MSC.

 

[McG]

Well, I am sorry differing opinions are so difficult on you (or in this case, a caution on how you represent mutually accepted facts).  In any case ...

You are VERY well aware that I know the difference between the three. 

I am aware that you know the difference between IR and Prohibited postings.  However, when you read a CANFORGEN on IR changes and then describe its application on yourself (a person not IR), then it is not clear to the reader that you are correctly interpreting that CANFORGEN.  In fact, your narrative (and posts since) falsely suggests that MSC will loose entitlement to SE after 4 years - nowhere in the CANFORGEN does it say that, and the only way to arrive at that conclusion is to incorrectly equate IR and SE.

But, it is not all about you anyway.  While I replied to your post, you were not my target audience.  I was hoping to interdict the individual who will otherwise come into this thread and lead us down the imagined rabbit-hole of MSC being served an injustice through being forced to cover the costs of separation after 4 years.  Understanding that SE and IR are different, one sees that this injustice is not going to exist.

As far as this latest reads, we [three groups entitled to SE] are still all being treated the same benefits wise. I do not confuse the three.

You have confused things.  This CANFORGEN applies changes to only one group (IR), and you have interpreted that change across all groups entitled to SE.  You are putting things into the message that are not there.