Neill McKay said:
That's correct (except that there is a cadet clothing doc, not the DND 638 temp loan card); they are accounted for locally within the unit, but not by the greater CF supply system. I gather there was a time when cadet uniforms were in fact accounted for through the CF supply system just as CF uniforms were, but that was before my time.
I realize that we are not talking the CF Supply system which is why I used the term
per se. As far as the Units around here go though, they still call their clothing/kit room a QM.
Permanently issued CF uniforms are still accounted for using the CFSS BTW, a personal DEU uniform issue (a Logistik item - retained upon release) is still issued electronicly to their clothing docs, and is then signed for as proof of receipt of said item. Exchanges are then handled via Logistik, but the initial issues still show on the clothing docs. We don't track the exchanges thereafter as they are not done from our stock, nor ordered by us for the individual. But Logistik still tracks the "exchanges" (items ordered by members using points from their Logistik stock...), so that we get the bill for it. Points
aren't free. The CF / DND is paying Logistik in dollars for each point used. Granted the member (or cadet) doesn't see the cost, but the bean counters in Ottawa do as it is indeed coming out of the operating budget. Ergo, tracking (however your Corps wishs to do that) to ensure there is no abuse is smart, but required, just as it is for anything the Crown eventually ends up covering the costs for.
The direction we've had in the Atlantic provinces is not to pursue any recovery of costs for cadet uniforms. Given that we are allocated enough points with Logistik to kit out every cadet who joins and handle as-needed replacements, there's little purpose in recovering uniform parts to keep in inventory anyway. I've never seen wilful damage to a cadet uniform, but I've seen a few sartorial crimes committed with irons!
Granted, that is the standard; however there are always exceptions to the rule when a monetary recovery for wilful abuse may be reuired. As an example I cite, "but I gave it to my friend to use as part of his Halloween costume and he gave it back like this (with spray paint "camo" all over it)." I have seen worse than accidental death by iron shiney-pants syndrome. We've also had a case where the cadet was issued all the kit (brand new kit I might add), never to return again. Recovery action was pursued for these items; as it is our responsibility to the taxpayer to do so.
I agree, that it is not the norm, but it is the exception.
Edited to insert an example.