Single Quarters & Rations (R&Q) [MERGED]

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

This is definitely new.  The only paperwork at all, that has shown up here, was a random email printed out that said they were considering putting everyone in shacks on rations, and those de-linked, would only be able to do so for a 3 month grace period. 

The 5 most empowering words in the CF: "Show me that in writing".

Demand (courteously) but demand nonetheless to see the policy in its written form.  We operate on the basis of paperwork, not word of mouth: if a policy doesn't exist on paper then it doesn't exist at all.  It's your right to see it if it does.

Once you have it in writing you have a starting point and you can make an appropriate judgement as to where to go from there. 

And Yak is right, your SNCO's should be all over this.  Make sure you go to them before you do anything else because: a- they will help you, and b- you don't want to be on the receiving end of it if you go over their heads and they find out about it afterwards.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I agree with most of what is being said, and echo Willy's post comment of "show me that in writing".

Your first move, IMHO, is to request the policy/directive/whatever that authorizes the linking of R & Q, wherein a mbr is forced to pay for rations.  This does a few things for you.  1, it lets you write a clear memo to the CoC or whoever you shall direct it to.  2, if you do decide to file a Grievance IAW CFAO 19-32 and QR & O Vol 1 Ch 7 etc, this will let you write a clearly written grievance to your CO, who must determine who the IA will be and fwd it to that authority.

From my standpoint, there should be NO directive forcing members on rations if they live in SQs.  There BS answers of "forcing people onto the economy/out of SQs" should result in the unfeeling SOBs who are forcing troops to spend their pay to keep a Mess/Galley open receiving multiple kicks in the nuts. 

I never have, and never will, support a policy that screws the troops that does not have some legitimate military necessity behind it.  The fact that the mess's are too expensive, with sometime poor menu's, food quality etc which is making them undesireable is not a problem which the solution should be forcing people onto rations.

Spark, as for your staff/CoC not complaining about the time at work missed, they shouldn't be.  You are being forced to pay for rations, which is beyond your control.  You cannot control the lineups.  I applaud your concern here but, if it were me, I'd not be loosing a wink of sleep over the time missed out of the shop because of this SNAFU.  Your CoC should be using THAT to address this situation to their own higher CoC, in terms of productivity loss's, which SHOULD be a concern to 8 AMS.

Finally, I am living-in at Warrior Block here at 12 Wing.  Members here are not forced onto rations, period.  The day they tell me I "HAVE" to eat at the mess and live in is the day I would ask for a copy of the directive that authorized this.  I would then not take 1 meal at the mess in Warrior block.  Then I would file my Grievance.  I would submit a memo to my CO stating this extra forced expense by the CF is creating a situation of financial hardship (as I would NOT be eating at the mess, and still buying my own rations as I do now).

Also, is this policy in Trenton applicable to ALL RANKS.  IE, WOs and Sgts and members of the Officer's mess as well?  If they are going to force a standard, then it has to be a standard and not JUST for Junior Ranks. 

I also agree with the point of view that your MCpls, Sgts and WOs should be addressing this up the "NCO net" and not this "oh well, put up or shut up' crap.  NCOs that have that for an answer should be required to report to their RSMs and COs and explain why they have no fucking spine.  Thats my opinion of POS NCOs.

 

[CountDC]

CFAO 36-14 NOTES 1 AND 5 solves this for you - save your time:

Notes -1.  When a member who is on ration strength cannot be provided with
a meal from DND food services, he may claim for actual out-of-pocket
expenses for meals not exceeding the rates prescribed for individual meals
in Annex A to 209-13.

RATION STRENGTH5.    Unless authorized by NDHQ/DCBA (Director Compensation and Benefits
Administration), all occupants of single quarters shall be taken on ration
strength except:
    a.  chaplains who due to the nature of their pastoral duties elect
          not to be taken on ration strength;

    b.  members of a ship's company who are granted permission to live
          out but are allocated a cabin or bunk for operational reasons;
          and

    c.  living-in members of a ship's company who elect not to be taken
          on ration strength.

stop going to work late and leaving early. Talk to your MCpl and explain you will be submitting your meal claims as the mess is not open for the hours you need in order to eat and meet your work schedule. I am surprised that no one has come up with this for you as it took me less than a minute to find. I am also surprised that your coc who set your work schedule did not arrange things for your meals. When I had work hours that did not correspond to mess hours it was arranged that I was able to go in for an early meal half hour prior to regular hours.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Well you learn something new every day, thanks CountDC.

Now, new thread?  The Cost of Rations for those in SQs is WAY too high.  ;D

Personally, I think the cost is too high.

 

[CountDC]

Well you learn something new every day, thanks CountDC.

Now, new thread?  The Cost of Rations for those in SQs is WAY too high.   ;D

Personally, I think the cost is too high.

Although I am not living in SQ I do agree - the cost is too high from the price I have seen (haven't been to every kitchen in the CF so can't speak for everywhere). Hopefully it is being justified somewhere in a budget showing what is spent on rations and that the charge is only a cost recovery not a money maker.

By the way Sparkplug - just because it is the CFAO's so it is legal does not mean it is right. Regulations can be changed (many have already been replaced by DAODs) so it is a good chance to try to have this changed, just now you have the correct info to go on. I engourage you to continue the good fight and submit your argument. Encourage the others to submit with you as the more that complain the more likely you are to get action.  Point out that this reg was issued in 1988 and times have changed - most living in are no longer that 17 year old private that may need more attention and taking care of (not that all needed taking care of then).

Good luck and hope to see a canforgen changing this in the future.

 

[Sparkplugs]

CFAO 36-14 NOTES 1 AND 5 solves this for you - save your time:

Notes -1.  When a member who is on ration strength cannot be provided with
a meal from DND food services, he may claim for actual out-of-pocket
expenses for meals not exceeding the rates prescribed for individual meals
in Annex A to 209-13.

RATION STRENGTH5.    Unless authorized by NDHQ/DCBA (Director Compensation and Benefits
Administration), all occupants of single quarters shall be taken on ration
strength except:
    a.  chaplains who due to the nature of their pastoral duties elect
          not to be taken on ration strength;

    b.  members of a ship's company who are granted permission to live
          out but are allocated a cabin or bunk for operational reasons;
          and

    c.  living-in members of a ship's company who elect not to be taken
          on ration strength.

stop going to work late and leaving early. Talk to your MCpl and explain you will be submitting your meal claims as the mess is not open for the hours you need in order to eat and meet your work schedule. I am surprised that no one has come up with this for you as it took me less than a minute to find. I am also surprised that your coc who set your work schedule did not arrange things for your meals. When I had work hours that did not correspond to mess hours it was arranged that I was able to go in for an early meal half hour prior to regular hours.

Yes, I've seen this paperwork, but they're not letting us work it that way.  Because the staff lets us come in late, and then leave early to go eat, it's not like we are "unable" to make the mess hours.  SUcks for them, but yes, they let us go, so I can't use this excuse. 

 

[CountDC]

Yes, I've seen this paperwork, but they're not letting us work it that way.  Because the staff lets us come in late, and then leave early to go eat, it's not like we are "unable" to make the mess hours.  SUcks for them, but yes, they let us go, so I can't use this excuse. 

ok - now I am confused. Your prior posts indicated that you were not aware of any regulation but now you say you have seen this paperwork?!?

 

[Sparkplugs]

ok - now I am confused. Your prior posts indicated that you were not aware of any regulation but now you say you have seen this paperwork?!?

Sorry, I've just now re-read that, I thought the poster that posted it was referring only to the claiming meals part, I didn't notice the other part until just now.

So now I wonder, why have they only enforced this on a few of us?  The guy beside me doesn't have to pay rations, he pays cash when he goes in, yet he's still in SQ.  How do I bring that up?  Now that I've seen the reg, what recourse do I have?

 

[TheCheez]

So now I wonder, why have they only enforced this on a few of us?  The guy beside me doesn't have to pay rations, he pays cash when he goes in, yet he's still in SQ.  How do I bring that up?  Now that I've seen the reg, what recourse do I have?

You don't bring it up. Even if you say that you know there's people out there, without names, in SQ not paying rations some gung ho clerk is going to audit everyone. They should not give you an exception just because there's others slipping by under the radar.

If the rules support the position you're in now, then you have to find a way around the rules. I think the easiest way to get out of it is move out ASAP. Changing the rules or getting another exception added could take years.

In other news Trenton Q's start at 612/mo+utilities for 2 BR. Apartments in town are cheaper. You would need appliances, however.

Damn fire alarm goin off.

 

[armyvern]

So now I wonder, why have they only enforced this on a few of us?  The guy beside me doesn't have to pay rations, he pays cash when he goes in, yet he's still in SQ.  How do I bring that up?  Now that I've seen the reg, what recourse do I have?

Pretty simple,

because that guy was already living in the shacks when the new regulations came into effect and therefore he was grandfathered and given a 3 month grace; you, on the other hand, moved into singles quarters after the new regulations came into effect and therefore -- no grace.

You'll also probably be quite disappointed to learn that all of us shiftworkers in Trenton got those midnight box lunchs provided for us --- regardless of whether we lived in the shacks or not ... so absolutely zero dollars of your monthly meal costs is going towards box lunchs - consider them more of a "free bonus" for being a shifty.

Hope you're enjoying snags. They (snags) never did seem too put out by allowing people to eat their requisite meals during shifts ... actually made a habit of hitting the Yukon Galley for lunch (especially on Fridays) and I think you are the first person in NATO that I've ever heard complaining about the lack of "choice" in that particular establishment actually.

 

[Occam]

Rations and quarters were delinked in 1999.

See http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/orgpages/dgcb/dcba/engraph/delinking_e.asp and http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dfoodsvcs/Documents/Chapter%204ejan08.doc#_Ref10875876 (para 434).  (DWAN links only).

I'll post the contents of the first link below for reference purposes.

DCBA 001 291500Z JAN 99

SIC WAN

SUBJ: DE-LINKING RATIONS AND QUARTERS FOR LIVING-IN MEMBERS

REFS: A. CFAO 36-14 PARA 5

B. DCBA 3135 291947Z JUL 96

C. DCBA 3194 111530Z MAR 97

D. RECORD OF DISCUSSION AND DECISIONS - MEETING ON STANDARDIZATION OF FOOD SERVICES POLICIES 22 JUNE 1998

E. RECORD OF DISCUSSION AND DECISIONS - D SUP 4 MEETING 2 SEP 98

F. DCBA 012 061204ZJAN 99 TR POL 02/99

1. THE REQUIREMENT OF REF A TO OBTAIN DCBA APPROVAL TO REMOVE MEMBERS FROM RATION STRENGTH WAS WAIVED BY REF B (AMPLIFIED BY REF C) AT ONLY THOSE LOCATIONS WHERE ALTERNATE SERVICE DELVIREY (ASD) INITIATIVES FOR FOOD SERVICES WERE ADOPTED. SUBJECT TO COMMAND APPROVAL VOLUNTARY LIVING-IN MEMBERS SUBJECT TO PAY DEDUCTIONS AT THESE LOCATIONS WHERE ASD WAS BEING INITATED COULD VOLUNTARY DE-LINK. ALL OTHER SITUATIONS STILL REQUIRED DCBA APPROVAL

2. NOW THAT ASD AND OTHER USER PAY AND POINT OF SALE SYSTEMS ARE NOW OPERATING ACROSS THE COUNTRY IT WAS AGREED AT REF D THAT DE-LINKING SHOULD BE MADE AN OPTION AT ALL CF UNITS FOR ALL VOLUNTARY LIVING-IN MEMBERS SUBJECT TO MONTHLY PAY DEDUCTIONS. IT WAS FURTHER AGREED THAT FOR COMPULSORY LIVING-IN MEMBERS, SUCH AS OFFICER CADETS AT RMC, FORMATION COMDS BE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE DE-LINKING.

3. ACCORDINGLY, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY ALL BASES ARE AUTHORIZED TO OFFER DE-LINKING FOR VOLUNTARY LIVING-IN MEMBERS SUBJECT TO MONTHLY PAY DEDUCTIONS FOR RATIONS. UNITS SHALL ADVISE DCBA AND D SUP 4 AT LEAST ONE MONTH IN ADVANCE OF INITIATING VOLUNTARY DE-LINKING.

4. ALSO EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY COMPULSORY LIVING-IN MEMBERS MAY ALSO DE-LINK SUBJECT TO FORMATION COMDS APPROVAL.

5. IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT:

A: LIVING-IN MEMBERS RETAIN THE OPTION NOT TO DE-LINK R AND Q, AND CONSEQUENTLY, CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO MONTHLY PAY DEDUCTIONS FOR RATIONS AT THE NATIONAL RATES PROMULGATED YEARLY BY DCBA, AND

B: THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR MBRS RESIDING IN SQ AT PUBLIC EXPENSE TO BE PLACED ON RATION STRENGTH SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE PUBLIC FOOD SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE, REF F AMPLIFIES.

 

[armyvern]

Rations and quarters were delinked in 1999.

See http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/orgpages/dgcb/dcba/engraph/delinking_e.asp and http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dfoodsvcs/Documents/Chapter%204ejan08.doc#_Ref10875876 (para 434).  (DWAN links only).

I'll post the contents of the first link below for reference purposes.

You'll note that para 1 quite clearly states:

"subject to Command approval".

And that para 2 says "should be made an option".

BTW -- it's an "option" that this base is now moving away from as well.

:

 

[Occam]

ou'll note that para 1 quite clearly states:

"subject to Command approval".

:

You'll also note that para 3 quite clearly states "EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY ALL BASES ARE AUTHORIZED TO OFFER DE-LINKING FOR VOLUNTARY LIVING-IN MEMBERS SUBJECT TO MONTHLY PAY DEDUCTIONS FOR RATIONS...".  :

Para 1 describes how things worked prior to Jan 1999, which is why para 2 starts out " NOW THAT ASD AND OTHER USER PAY AND POINT OF SALE SYSTEMS ARE NOW OPERATING ACROSS THE COUNTRY IT WAS AGREED AT REF D...".

 

[CountDC]

You'll also note that para 3 quite clearly states "EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY ALL BASES ARE AUTHORIZED TO OFFER DE-LINKING FOR VOLUNTARY LIVING-IN MEMBERS SUBJECT TO MONTHLY PAY DEDUCTIONS FOR RATIONS...".   :

now this is getting fun. ;D  

it says "ARE AUTHORIZED TO OFFER" it does not say that they MUST offer. Fine point but I garuntee as a clerk that this is the type of wording that will bite you in the arse.

 

[Occam]

BTW -- it's an "option" that this base is now moving away from as well.

Not according to CFB Gagetown Standing Orders.

http://armyonline.kingston.mil.ca/LFAA/143000440001108/5_1_8_DELINKING_R_Q.DOC

 

[armyvern]

Nice ninja edit, by the way 

No ninja edit at all ... you'll note that I did it so soon afterwards that not even a post edit timing shows in the bottom of my post.  

Needless to say, many bases are now now going back to the old way; you want R&Q - you pay for R&Q.

As per the previous thread already linked into this one discussing the subject --

One simply can not continue to write-off hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of rations every month (and thus the taxpayer pay for it) based on a "living in member may show up to eat this meal."

 

[armyvern]

Not according to CFB Gagetown Standing Orders.

http://armyonline.kingston.mil.ca/LFAA/143000440001108/5_1_8_DELINKING_R_Q.DOC

Did you read my post?

Gagetown is now "moving away" from this option. IE looking into others. IE is "moving away from". Last Comd O Gp. Hasn't it been passed on to you yet? 

 

[blacktriangle]

This kind of stuff is what truly pisses me off...its so hard to get a straight answer on some things. So what is the end all, are they linked, delinked since 1999, or is it depending on where you live?

 

[Occam]

now this is getting fun. ;D  

it says "ARE AUTHORIZED TO OFFER" it does not say that they MUST offer. Fine point but I garuntee as a clerk that this is the type of wording that will bite you in the arse.

I'd have to agree.  One would have to find out if Trenton decided to delink since they were authorized to back in '99.  The whole argument would hinge on the answer to that question.  

 

[armyvern]

This kind of stuff is what truly pisses me off...its so hard to get a straight answer on some things. So what is the end all, are they linked, delinked since 1999, or is it depending on where you live?

It's a option ... at Command's discretion. Exactly as stated in the given refs below. But, at those bases where this was previously offered as an option -- many are considering going back to the old way as this is costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in written off food - and that's simply - not on.