Temporary Duty ( TD ) merged

[captloadie]

The link below is one of the reasons the rules are being applied as stringently as they are. I knew Shari, and sadly she is but one of the individuals that "we" tried to do what we we thought was best for an individual.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mother-pushes-rcmp-for-answers-about-daughter-s-death-1.2777381

You can blame the bean counters all you want, but they aren't the ones implementing this rule. It is the Command Structure. And yes, part of it is to discourage individuals from taking their POMVs, when it requires travelling a long distance. If it costs someone x number of annual days, they must ask themselves if the trade-off is worth it. Maybe instead of bitching you have to take annual days, you should be thanking the CoC and the policy makers for inserting an option that allows you to take your POMV at all.

 

[Pusser]

The link below is one of the reasons the rules are being applied as stringently as they are. I knew Shari, and sadly she is but one of the individuals that "we" tried to do what we we thought was best for an individual.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mother-pushes-rcmp-for-answers-about-daughter-s-death-1.2777381

You can blame the bean counters all you want, but they aren't the ones implementing this rule. It is the Command Structure. And yes, part of it is to discourage individuals from taking their POMVs, when it requires travelling a long distance. If it costs someone x number of annual days, they must ask themselves if the trade-off is worth it. Maybe instead of bitching you have to take annual days, you should be thanking the CoC and the policy makers for inserting an option that allows you to take your POMV at all.

That link has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.  It makes no mention whatsoever of the leave status of the member.

If the CAF doesn't want members to use POMV, why do they fully expect you to drive on posting (no, you don't have to, but it is certainly not discouraged and all the policies assume that is the first choice).  The root of the problem here is a growing and pervasive attitude that no one should be allowed to do anything that is actually convenient or beneficial to the member (notwithstanding that it may actually cost the Crown less).  We will go to great lengths to ensure no one enjoys what we do to them.

The reality is that this is a big country and many or our bases are huge with little in the way of recreational facilities for use in off duty hours (not everybody wants to go to the gym, the base museum - if it's open - is only entertaining for so long and base theatres are an endangered species, etc).  We all know that spending the weekend stuck on a large sprawling base in the middle of nowhere really sucks, so yes, folks want to take their POMVs in order to preserve their sanity.  Why do some folks need to make it so difficult?

Luckily, I've never been saddled with a chain of command that took such a narrow view of a regulation that doesn't really exist.  I've always been able to use POMV to travel on TD when it suited me and I've never had to take any annual leave to do so.  Based on my experiences with grievances and in compensation and benefits policy, I would predict that anyone grieving being forced to take annual leave on a weekend because he/she asked to take POMV, would win their case.  Paid leave is any leave where you're getting paid.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Since member is going on course his authorized travel day would be Monday prior to course start...I believe if he wanted to drive he would have to depart prior to that on his on dime ....

 

[Lumber]

I'm surprised it took me this long to chime in... but here I am!

My personal opinion is that this isn't the result of any intentional attempt to make the benefits harder to acquire. However, I agree with Pusser that the prevailing attitude seems to be that "no one should be allowed to do anything that is actually convenient or beneficial to the member."

My personal opinion is that this stems from an unintended lack of consistency in terminology, that is now being applied in an extremely strict manner.

First, we have "paid leave" which appears only in the CDTDTIs (and once in the CF Leave Policy Manual), and otherwise is not clearly defined anywhere. Then, we have "weekend leave", which is used all over the place, but does not exist as an official type of leave IAW QR&Os, DAOD, or the CF Leave Policy Manual. Finally, we have "paid service", which is defined as "all service except: LWOP, NES, ED&T, LOP or periods of forgeiture".

I reached out several months ago to DCBA/DGCB, and eventually I got this response. This response came from the formation, not from DCBA, because DCBA passed my query down to them to answer:

"If member departs on Saturday(Duty day reimbursable), a leave pass would be submitted for the remaining Sunday onwards (reflecting Sunday weekend, Monday to Friday (annual, short etc)), until arrival at location of course. The same methodology would be used on the return trip.

...[snipped]

Nowhere does it state a member can’t travel on a weekend, it does specify that the member will need to covered by paid leave (paid service) as identified above."

So, MY assumption is that whoever drafted the CFTDTIs didn't have a list of approved and official terms sitting next to them when they wrote them. What they really mean by "paid leave" was "paid service". They wanted to use the term paid "leave" to make it clear that there is no entitlement to additional time off in order to facilitate travel; you get one day, and everything else has to be approved time away from work, or in their heads, "leave".

If we could all just stop yammering about weekend leave not being "leave", and accept that, in the context of the CFTDTIs, weekend leave is "paid leave", then we'd all be getting along just fine! It's those who are adamant you can't travel on weekends because weekends aren't "paid leave" that are making a mess of this.

 

[CountDC]

If it’s annual leave then they need to make the change to reflect that.

Paid leave is ******* simple.  It is all types of leave with the exception of LWOP.

We don’t need a dentition for something that requires a basic amount of common sense.

Personally I am fed up with orderly rooms interpreting rules and regs when 99% of the time they are clear.

Why the frig would someone have to take an annual?  It is because some ******* wrongly interpreted the rule years ago?  Is it to make the process so unfavourable to the member that they will most likely never choose to take their PMV?

perhaps you missed the part about DCBA? You know, the people that control this stuff.  Stop blaming ORs for passing on regulations and policy decisions that are given to us.  I am fed up with people always blaming ORs for things we have no control over and merely performing our duties. 

 

[Mongo007]

My OR is not telling me I need to take Annual leave on the Sat and Sun only that I need to take 1 annual day on the Monday. My OR has been very good with my request to take my PMV I just figured I would do a bit of research to see if there was an option for me to get my original request for the Monday not to be an annual day.

My original question was that since my first travel day which is a duty day is on a weekend, if I could get the Monday not to require an annual day of leave.

Thanks everyone on the great number of replies to my question.

 

[CountDC]

Don't recall anyone saying that you couldn't travel on the weekend.  I believe the discussion was what leave would be required and the problem of written policy indicating one thing by referring to something that doesn't exist within our regulations/instructions/policies (paid leave) and policy clarifications that indicate something different (annual leave). This is an ongoing problem in the modern CAF that rather than issuing pub amendments they attempt clarifying by FAQs and emails which just continue to muddy the waters as they also at times conflict with each other depending on who in the shop is sending it and what year.

I also don't think the intent is to discourage mbrs from using their PMV but to ensure the mbr is properly advised and taken care of within TB guidelines.  Many units are still sending mbrs via pmv without completing a cost comparison or annex a.  This to me is a big no as that mbr is now travelling without understanding the possible repercussions to them or their estate should something happen. Drive 600 kms in one day, crash, get injured and try to claim VAC.  Good luck when they find out you exceeded 500 kms.  To them you were not on duty and thus do not qualify for the benefits of someone that is on duty and injured.  Hard enough for mbrs to get VAC claims through without us making it even more difficult on the mbr. 

If the intent was to stop mbrs from driving then they would simply do that - regulation is no one is authorized to travel PMV.  Instead they come out with policies that allow the mbr to do so with the CO authorizing that meet the requirements imposed on government employees.

Ultimately it is the CO that is signing off on the travel authorization so if he makes the educated decision that he will sign off with the mbr taking short leave vice annual as the published policy reads "paid leave" that is up to him.  I certainly would not refuse to process a claim under those terms.  Due diligence has been served, I have passed on the information I have received and he has made his choice.  That is why he is a CO.

Personally I have refused to use my own vehicle for TD and insist on DND providing my tpt.  That way if something does happen I am covered as much as possible.  Yes it has annoyed others when I demand a DND vehicle but as I point out to them, If I break down on the highway is DND sending a wrecker to get me and are they paying for the repairs. Of course not.  If I need a vehicle occasionally while there I can rent one real cheap.  Never had to do that though as there are lots of others that opted to drive their PMV that I am able to tag on to.

 

[Lumber]

My OR is not telling me I need to take Annual leave on the Sat and Sun only that I need to take 1 annual day on the Monday. My OR has been very good with my request to take my PMV I just figured I would do a bit of research to see if there was an option for me to get my original request for the Monday not to be an annual day.

My original question was that since my first travel day which is a duty day is on a weekend, if I could get the Monday not to require an annual day of leave.

Thanks everyone on the great number of replies to my question.

Short answer: If you need 3 days to travel, and your first travel day is Saturday, then you either need to be on Annual or Short leave on Monday (unless Monday is a stat holiday, then you're covered).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The link below is one of the reasons the rules are being applied as stringently as they are. I knew Shari, and sadly she is but one of the individuals that "we" tried to do what we we thought was best for an individual.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mother-pushes-rcmp-for-answers-about-daughter-s-death-1.2777381

You can blame the bean counters all you want, but they aren't the ones implementing this rule. It is the Command Structure. And yes, part of it is to discourage individuals from taking their POMVs, when it requires travelling a long distance.

I am 47 years old.  I don't need someone "in the Command Structure" to decide shit like that.  If someone is the age where they are thought responsible enough to vote in an election, they might also be capable of deciding if they want their damn car with them on a 2 or 3 month long TD.  THIS is the type of shit that drives me mental.  Its the Canadian Armed Forces, not the Canadian Adult Daycare ffs.  I can drive 500km/day on a posting from Comox to Greenwood and no one is 'concerned in the Command Structure' that, now, my entire family and myself aren't going to perish because of my assumed stupidity.  That's a lame argument IMO.

If it costs someone x number of annual days, they must ask themselves if the trade-off is worth it. Maybe instead of bitching you have to take annual days, you should be thanking the CoC and the policy makers for inserting an option that allows you to take your POMV at all.

I guess we should also be glad we don't need the COs approval to get married anymore either, right?  :

 

[Eye In The Sky]

perhaps you missed the part about DCBA? You know, the people that control this stuff.  Stop blaming ORs for passing on regulations and policy decisions that are given to us.  I am fed up with people always blaming ORs for things we have no control over and merely performing our duties.

DCBA has also made wrong decisions which have been overturned...

 

[Nfld Sapper]

My OR is not telling me I need to take Annual leave on the Sat and Sun only that I need to take 1 annual day on the Monday. My OR has been very good with my request to take my PMV I just figured I would do a bit of research to see if there was an option for me to get my original request for the Monday not to be an annual day.

My original question was that since my first travel day which is a duty day is on a weekend, if I could get the Monday not to require an annual day of leave.

Thanks everyone on the great number of replies to my question.

If your course starts on a Tuesday then your authorized travel day is the day before the course i.e. Monday.

 

[Sub_Guy]

  I am fed up with people always blaming ORs for things we have no control over and merely performing our duties.

It’s the inconsistencies that drive members crazy.

I recently returned from a week in Norway.  We were given an advance, but only enough to cover our accommodations.  The remainder of our trip was on our own dime (yes a few of us had our government travel card).  Some trips we get advances, others we don’t.  Where is it written that we can only get 80%?  I’ve never found the official reference, a few emails, word of mouth, but that’s it.  I know I don’t pay for 80% of a hotel room, or pay 80% of the restaurant bill..

Back in June I flew from Honolulu to Newark (non-stop), departed HNL at 1530, arrived in Halifax (via EWR) at lunch time (next day).  I tried to claim lunch.  Nope, couldn’t claim it, because the regulations stipulate that meals are based on departure time (it wasn’t lunch time in Hawaii).  I still had to drive to Greenwood after landing in Halifax, which made for an interesting drive.

There was no movement on the lunch claim, I got the “it’s the rules”, which I knew, but I thought I’d try.  I also know the rules state I am entitled to fly either business class or have a lay over on flights longer than 9 hours, do you think that was an option?  No ******* way.  I most certainly didn’t waive that option.

 

[Lumber]

I recently returned from a week in Norway.  We were given an advance, but only enough to cover our accommodations.  The remainder of our trip was on our own dime (yes a few of us had our government travel card).  Some trips we get advances, others we don’t.  Where is it written that we can only get 80%?  I’ve never found the official reference, a few emails, word of mouth, but that’s it.  I know I don’t pay for 80% of a hotel room, or pay 80% of the restaurant bill..

I can confirm that this is 100% pulled straight out of a clerk's ass. I had my clerk explain why he gives members 80%, and I actually agreed with it, but I may revisit that now and have him tell them that if they want more, they can have it.

Back in June I flew from Honolulu to Newark, departed HNL at 1530, arrived in Halifax at lunch time (next day).  I tried to claim lunch.  Nope, couldn’t claim it, because the regulations stipulate that meals are based on departure time (it wasn’t lunch time in Hawaii).  I still had to drive to Greenwood after landing in Halifax, which made for an interesting drive.

There was no movement on the lunch claim, I got the “it’s the rules”, which I knew, but I thought I’d try.  I also know the rules state I am entitled to fly either business class or have a lay over on flights longer than 9 hours, do you think that was an option?  No ******* way.  I most certainly didn’t waive that option.

Interesting.

We had a couple dozen naval reservists deploy to South Korea as part of the Naval Security Team proof of concept. When they came back, they had a long, flight from S. Korean to Victoria. Going through their claims (which were complicated as all hell), this is what their claims showed:

1. They received meals based on S. Korean time from their first flight in S. Korea to Seoul, and from Seoul to Vancouver;
2. This travel included travel over the international date line;
3. They had a short layover in Vancouver (1.5 hrs ish, I think) before their 25min flight to Victoria;
4. As their layover in Vancouver was over lunch period, they received a lunch meal, even though it wasn't "lunch time" in S. Korea. It was like, because they were back in Canada for a layover, the travel clock re-started, and the "time at place of departure" was thrown out the window.
5. The final result was that they received 2 back to back lunch claims. One for while they were in the-air on "S. Korean time", and the next for when they were in Vancouver on Canadian time.

 

[Sub_Guy]

I can confirm that this is 100% pulled straight out of a clerk's ***. I had my clerk explain why he gives members 80%, and I actually agreed with it, but I may revisit that now and have him tell them that if they want more, they can have it.

4. As their layover in Vancouver was over lunch period, they received a lunch meal, even though it wasn't "lunch time" in S. Korea. It was like, because they were back in Canada for a layover, the travel clock re-started, and the "time at place of departure" was thrown out the window.

80% claim, I’ve been told it’s to “protect” the members.  If the TD ends early, that sort of thing.  I appreciate being baby sat.  I am more than able to take care of my TD finances.  More often than not our TDs get extended anyway. 

For the layover bit, I find it interesting that they restarted the travel clock.  That shouldn’t have happened, although, it sounds like it worked out for the members.

 

[Pusser]

Actually, there is a lot of precedent for the 80% limit.  It probably started with the cash move trial back in the 1990s and forms part of the current IRP policy.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can also understand it.  I remember dealing with claims back in the 90s where members had drawn huge advances for long TDs that were suddenly cut short.  Some of the sailors were facing severe financial hardship because they suddenly had to pay back money they no longer had.  However, I don't think an 80% limit would have helped them anyway in this case. 

In most cases, the concept of a limit isn't too bad.  Our TD allowances are actually quite generous and people seldom need to spend $100/day on meals and incidentals.  However, this is not always the case.  Norway is a shining example of where TD allowances are actually simply adequate.  You can eat well on them, but there is little room for profit.

I recently had to travel across the Pacific and back and can attest to and sympathize with what it does to your body.  I have to say that I'm disappointed with an OR that would not exercise a little common sense and empathy with the member.  Policy is actually not that specific and there is some wiggle room for common sense.  I wonder whether the OR simply decided that since Claims-X has trouble understanding the International Date Line, then that must be the policy.  I look at it differently (and approve claims accordingly).  I simply look at the total number of days the member is away and get mostly concerned with when he walks out and then back into his/her home.  Then I simply make Claims-X reflect the number of meals for the period in between.  It's never going to boil down to more than a single meal, so why do people nitpick?

 

[Lumber]

...so why do people nitpick?

Because when it comes to applying financial and travel policy with 100% accuracy, some people are just very... pusser...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Isn't it our current master's view that "we are entitled to our entitlements"?

Couldn't resit.  ;D

After all, we are entitled  :RstTrky: and gravy!

 

[CountDC]

It’s the inconsistencies that drive members crazy.

I recently returned from a week in Norway.  We were given an advance, but only enough to cover our accommodations.  The remainder of our trip was on our own dime (yes a few of us had our government travel card).  Some trips we get advances, others we don’t.  Where is it written that we can only get 80%?  I’ve never found the official reference, a few emails, word of mouth, but that’s it.  I know I don’t pay for 80% of a hotel room, or pay 80% of the restaurant bill..

The official reference on claim advances can be found in the FAMS.  Only pub I have ever found it in and surprise - it doesn't say 80% anywhere.  Not that it matters as you mention having the government travel card.  The regulation there is that if you have the card then you are not supposed to be issued an advance.  You use the card for everything.  If it isn't high enough limit then you contact your card administrator who can action an increase for you.  I have done it several times for members travelling through various countries over a month long period.

Back in June I flew from Honolulu to Newark (non-stop), departed HNL at 1530, arrived in Halifax (via EWR) at lunch time (next day).  I tried to claim lunch.  Nope, couldn’t claim it, because the regulations stipulate that meals are based on departure time (it wasn’t lunch time in Hawaii).  I still had to drive to Greenwood after landing in Halifax, which made for an interesting drive.

got to admit bit confused.  HNL to Newark non-stop.  Where does Halifax and Greenwood fit in there?  Hopefully you did get the dinner and breakfast

There was no movement on the lunch claim, I got the “it’s the rules”, which I knew, but I thought I’d try.  I also know the rules state I am entitled to fly either business class or have a lay over on flights longer than 9 hours, do you think that was an option?  No ******* way.  I most certainly didn’t waive that option.

Yep - seen this several times and always point out CFTDI 8.30(2) states "a.in respect of a flight or series of flights in which the total travelling time - from takeoff at the first airport to landing at the last airport - is nine or more hours without an overnight stay during those hours, entitled both to travel in business class and to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses for that travel.  Based on your info if I was booking the flight and there was no direction issued otherwise you would have been booked business class.  Have done it, was questioned and sent them this regulation.  Didn't hear anymore on it.

 

[CountDC]

I recently had to travel across the Pacific and back and can attest to and sympathize with what it does to your body.  I have to say that I'm disappointed with an OR that would not exercise a little common sense and empathy with the member.  Policy is actually not that specific and there is some wiggle room for common sense.  I wonder whether the OR simply decided that since Claims-X has trouble understanding the International Date Line, then that must be the policy.  I look at it differently (and approve claims accordingly).  I simply look at the total number of days the member is away and get mostly concerned with when he walks out and then back into his/her home.  Then I simply make Claims-X reflect the number of meals for the period in between.  It's never going to boil down to more than a single meal, so why do people nitpick?

It is in the CFTDI's and there isn't really any wiggle room.  People are picky because as someone signing sect 34 on a claim it is our responsibility to be.   

 

[Sub_Guy]

I travelled from Greenwood to Honolulu.  PMV to YHZ, YHZ-EWR, EWR-HNL direct (same route on the return).