Married Service Couples [MSC]

[armyvern]

Thanks so much, I do have 1 other question. The cost of flying a relative out to care for children, is it covered by the parents (me)? I'm positive it is, but have to clarify.

thanks

Yes, this is the members own financial responsibility.

NOTE TO MARRIED SERVICE COUPLES:

It is extremely unadviseable to list your "service spouse" as the emergency familycare provider on your own FCP ... and have the other "service spouse" listing you as the emergency familycare provider on their FCP.

It's happened ... and that couple is dealing with those consequences now. As far as I'm concerned, that should have been picked up by the OR and the form bounced back as unacceptable when it was submitted for inclusion onto their files.

The intent is to list an emergency familycare provider who would be available on "XX" number of hours notice should you be required to RFD or deploy in an emergency situation, if this situation should be a war etc ... why the fuck would you ever list your service spouse (who is also subject to, and may be) deployed on that emergency as well? (Their trade doesn't usually deploy?? That was the reason given for the listing of their svc spouse as the emergency provider in the above sit -- think again -- think Ice Storm etc).

Use these forms properly!! They are EMERGENCY familycare plans. When you are slated to deploy on an Op ... and your spouse on a course which occurs during your deployment, both of which you are advised about months in advance ... does not constitue an emergency.

 

[Bubbs25]

Good day all,

Unsure if this is the right place to post this but im sure you'll point me in the right direction.
I am awaiting a posting to borden to do my ACS TECH 3's in Borden, Since I have a service spouse, is there anyway that she could be posted with me for the duration of my 3's or will I have to attend the course on IR. Is there anyway that I could get her attach posted with me for the duration and posted to my Base/Wing after my 3's.
I have 2 small children as well.  Will it be in the best interest of the CF to post her after my 3's or with me on my 3's.

Any information would be greatly appreciated. 

Bubbs 25

 

[REDinstaller]

The Career Mangers always state during their breifings that they have no obligations to post service spouses as a couple. What trade is she? And how long is your QL3? These are usually determining factors in posting your DF & E. When your course message come out it will state any limitations, and sometimes dependant on course "The movement of DF & E is Restricted" Just wait until your message arrives and have your CoC explain it to you.

 

[Bubbs25]

My spouse is an MSE Op. I do 2 months manditory common core and 9 months for my 3's. As well like i mentioned we have 2 young children, not of school age yet.  Do you think this could be a factor as well.

 

[PMedMoe]

Your spouse* can always request a posting to be co-located with you but it may not probably won't happen until after your QL3 course, to avoid two cost moves in a short period of time.

*Note:  You do not request that your spouse be posted (or attach posted), she does.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Another thing to consider is how close it is to people proceeding on postings this APS.  Her CM would have had to figure out his/her posting plot long ago.  This might make your wife's CM alittle more reluctant to post/attach post her.

Note that, with attach postings, IIRC it is VERY rare to get a move of D, HG & E.

Not all Career Managers are uncaring.  I can't speak for any other trade but...the CWOs in my trade are excellent with stuff like this, from what I've seen so far (which is less than many in my trade at this time).

Having said that, it never hurts for her to ask, and the worst that can happen is...nothing.

 

[StevenCL]

Good morning,

    I'm a MARS Officer posted to Halifax and my wife is a qualified Social Worker considering joining the RegF as a Social Work Officer.  The only concern we have is about postings once she's done basic training and working as a Social Work Officer.  On the surface it would seem to me like it wouldn't be that hard to post a Social Work Officer anywhere they can post a MARS Officer and word having met a few service couples during my career it would seem like the trend is to try to post service couples together.  My question is, is there any reference or document that states that the powers that be must try to do this as much as possible?  I can't seem to find anything.  While we're both excited about the prospect of her joining up and not having to give up a job in the even I get posted away one day it'd be nice to have a bit more confidence that we wouldn't be separated beyond normal training/deployment or my sailing schedule.

Any info would be much appreciated.

Steve

 

[PMedMoe]

There is nothing in writing that states that they must post service couples together.  That being said, they do attempt to when they can, depending on positions available.  What you do have in your favor is being from two completely different trades in the CF.  That being said, be prepared for the possibility of a separate posting.

 

[aesop081]

  it'd be nice to have a bit more confidence that we wouldn't be separated beyond normal training/deployment or my sailing schedule.

The military offers no guarantees that you will be posted to the same location. Career managers try to post service couples together as much as possible but the needs of the service come first, thus they are under no obligation to do so.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .  On the surface it would seem to me like it wouldn't be that hard to post a Social Work Officer anywhere they can post a MARS Officer . . .

While you can't swing a dead cat in Halifax (or Esquimalt) without hitting a MARS officer there may be only limited positions for a Social Work Officer.  Granted these locations have greater military populations and will undoubtedly have a larger social work contingent, however that does not guarantee that there will be a vacancy to coincide with your posting there.  Her career manager may have other ideas; there could be shortfalls in other locations.  At one time (before much of the consolidation in the last decade plus) it was very common to find only one social worker at a base.

 

[Maritimegal]

Hi I am interested in joining as a social worker myself and my husband is Reg F army officer. I was talking to a Major who is a social worker and I was basically told that they will do their best to keep couples together, but it's not a guarantee. She also said it's important to decide whose career is more important because they may keep you together, but one of you may not be offered a posn that will help you work towards the next rank. 

 

[Dissident]

The decision was made that the wife and I could not go together for TF1-11. So she is going and I am not. Somewhat of a bummer, but life goes on.

I am rather curious, how many (married?) service couples have deployed together? How many from the same unit?

 

[FDO]

My wife and I were to be deployed at the same time. We were in the same MOG but different ships. She got to go and I had to stay back to watch the kids. She got the better deal!!

 

[ModlrMike]

I can't answer the specific question you asked, but I can give you some insight into how the decision might have been arrived at. On my last two tours, I had two married couples working for me. For one couple, one member stayed home as the parent. The other couple deployed together, but to separate locations. The deployed couple had only infrequent contact while in theatre due to their physical separation.

 

[TimBit]

rant on:

And that is why, although there is much hype about the service couple in the CF nowadays, it is NOT a functional model for a military. I say, that the cornerstone of our military remains logically the one-serving-member-per-family-couple.

It's all fine and dandy to deploy in rotation in today's small, expeditionary mission, but in a larger more "conventional" war like those of yester years, either married couples with children would face the risk of being sent off to war and having their children orphaned, or they would not be deployed simultaneously which completely thwarts the purpose of being in the military in the first place. Would canadian population really stand for children being orphaned when both parents die in an operation? Me thinks not.

So it bothers me slightly when service couples get such great conditions and benefits while traditional one-serving-member families haven't got much anything new, really...

/rant off.

Now that I'm off ranting mode... I haven't really got anything to say...

 

[ajp]

When I was on tour there was a Svc Couple that had overlapping tours.  One going in a few months before the other came out.  The kicker was that her son was inbound as well.  If I recall, she saw each of them for a visit just prior to her returning home.

 

[Journeyman]

So it bothers me slightly when service couples get such great conditions and benefits while traditional one-serving-member families haven't got much anything new, really...

How long has that "tradition" been dead? Traditionally, men could abuse women (google the belief behind the "rule of thumb"...or within a military context, "Tailhook").

So what are you proposing -- a celibacy bonus for the unmarried? A change to the NDA making it a chargable offense to marry someone other than a WalMart cashier? Maybe another DEU badge for those whose spouse isn't military?

You're going to love the 21st century....when you get here. Women can work outside the home, choosing any career field -- even the military; hell, they can even vote now!

From personal experience: another reality is the commonality of divorce. When we both deployed to Afg together (she went to Kabul; I went south), the daughter from her training marriage stayed with her ex- .  Service couples are here to stay; deal with it.

Now that I'm off ranting mode... I haven't really got anything to say...

Seen.

 

[TimBit]

How long has that "tradition" been dead? Traditionally, men could abuse women (google the belief behind the "rule of thumb"...or within a military context, "Tailhook").

So what are you proposing -- a celibacy bonus for the unmarried? A change to the NDA making it a chargable offense to marry someone other than a WalMart cashier? Maybe another DEU badge for those whose spouse isn't military?

You're going to love the 21st century....when you get here. Women can work outside the home, choosing any career field -- even the military; hell, they can even vote now!

From personal experience: another reality is the commonality of divorce. When we both deployed to Afg together (she went to Kabul; I went south), the daughter from her training marriage stayed with her ex- .  Service couples are here to stay; deal with it.

Seen.

I knew someone would clip me on the "traditional" bit... wrong word, I admit. Especially considering enlisted members couldn<t even marry...what was it, only 60 years ago, I think?

For the record, and I don't know where you got the whole "anti-woman-in-the-workplace" thing from, I very much support free women thank you! Duh! They can and should get any job they want, yes, including military, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. For the record as well, my wife is a university graduate who works as a teacher, so obviously I am not going for the Walmart thing here...?!? What I am saying however, is that there are many attemps to support service couples nowadays, through joint postings and so on. Service couples are always assured of retaining two salaries when getting posted, it is their right after all. I find however that in case of total war, if that ever happens again (crystal ball, anyone?), service couples with children suddenly won't work so well. As well, I find that non-service couples are still facing the same hurdles associated with postings and so on and that I am not sure that an equivalent number of support measures exist for those than there are accomodations for service couples.

Is my stance clearer?

Oh, and I am very much in the 21st century thank you. From my day 1 in the CF there was about 1/3 of my platoon who were girls and that is fine with me.

 

[Journeyman]

Is my stance clearer?

Your point was clear from your initial post.

You feel hard done by, and it's somehow the military's fault, that you chose to marry a non-service member. You selectively ignore service-couple hardships, like both being equally subject to absences due to deployments, courses, TD. The benefits that apply in both groups, such as the financial assistance available through Imposed Restriction postings for example, apparently don't count.

And you choose to buttress your argument by saying that World War III would be...... awkward -- inconvenient even.



In sum, as you've already stated, ranting.

 

[TimBit]

Yes, I was ranting! Which is why I put that "mode" on.

It is not the military's faut. I am responsible for my choices. Please don't put words into my mouth, I am not a 5-years old. Personnally, I am happy that my kids won't have to go their grandparents for 9 months because for that ONE time, we did get deployed at the same time. So no, it's not all bad...

Now, that being said, I am not or was not so much trying to buttress my argument as to raise a question by itself when I suggested that service couples would be awkward in a "total war". Wouldn't they be?