Infidel-6 said:
Sorry Vern all I got here was Blah Blah Blah
What about boots that where personal due to chit etc?
I was not entitled to MkIII's, nor the issue Desert Boots due to my Chit -- I dont thinkt he supply system decided to bring extra Danner Desert Boots for me to theatre --- as such I would have been given a pair of boots I was not entitled to if my others where destroyed.
Of course you only got "Blah blah blah" out of it. That seems to be the norm when supply techs like me explain the LEGAL side of the house that governs us actually retaining OUR jobs and keeping us out of jail. It's not as easy as you'd all like it to be to just give you whatever you wish/want/hope for whenever you wish it to be so ... without risking our careers.
In your case above, we would buy you boots ... Been there. We've bought you two sets of boots to deploy with (Danners in your case) ... that makes you AUTHORIZED to wear them in-theatre and AUTHORIZED to have them replaced at Crown expense (and all legal IAW Treasury Board regulations). You destroy one pair, you have another to wear. I call Canada and have them buy you new Danners and have them shipped over IOR (HPR) --- you have another set within the week. It's been done.
Temp Issue -- I've had stuff go missing on a plane and been issued a SECOND (OMG dont let the treasury board know that common sence broke out) while waiting for my kit to marry uip with me.
It is in fact common sence to issue a temp set to a troop who's gear was destroyed --
Temp Issue -- yes and that is precisely what I am talking about. Regulations clearly state that personal kit that is of permanent issue type (ie your Tac Vest) is NOT authorized to be issued on a Temp Loan card, but must be issued onto your permanent docs. Tac Vests are a permanent issue now. Your stuff going missing on a plane because they LOST your luggage etc clearly falls into the "Stores
Loss and Damage Report" (ie MLR) category. So, yes ... common sense certainly DOES prevail here. YOU would have NO problem getting another TV issued onto your Clothing Docs should your kit happen to go astray on a flight -- "loss" being the operative word. I would duplicate issue you a secong TV IMMEDIATELY, and would file the MLR (Miscelaneous LOSS Report) that noted the reason why ... totally LEGAL and IAW Treasury Board Policy and Directives. Eventually your MLR would come back from the CO recommending Write-off action of your first TV (which is still on your charge at this point in time). I'd write it off and now you'd have one on your charge which is what you physically have. When I do that write-off, my service number is recorded into the system and it is I that gets to explain to the auditor why I performed that write-off of taxpayer property on your behalf. With that MLR for your LOSS, there is no issue at all -- I AM authorized to do so. It's all good and legal -- not fraudulent.
The scenario regarding the TVs left at home in Canada because a member CHOSE to disobey regulations that state your kit WILL accompany you into theatre does not fall into the same category at all. It's not lost, damaged or destroyed. So, the MLR is legally NOT applicable in the circumstances. I already stetd that I WOULD issue the second TV, but the member is GOING to write-up his MLR stating why
before that issue occurs. The member can choose to tell the truth on that MLR:
In section two, the member initiates by filling in:
"Explanation by member of loss, damage, or destruction that occured": (Truthful Version): "I disobeyed orders and left my issued kit in Canada. My gucci gear was destroyed, so now I need a duplicate over-entitlement issue made to my clothing docs so that I can do my job." (I have seen this one occur -- and I have witnessed the wrath that it wrought from his CoC, but he did get another TV issued as soon as I had the MLR!!)
OR
(Untruthful Version): "My TV was destroyed in incident XXXX. I need a replacement issued." (Given that -- the soldier had best not TELL me that he is LYING on this signed declaration that is making because you know where that leads ... and I've seen that occur too and the wrath is certainly no less).
Either way, he IS getting that second TV issued ... and either way he proceeds with it ... it's on HIS signature and declaration. In the untruthful scenario (if, as I said, he doesn't inform the Supply staff that he is outright lying on official paperwork) ... if it gets picked up by the Auditor --- it's his ass on the line for fraudulent paperwork -- not MY career. Simple enough?
Now, in your case, if we've re-issued and your MLR has been finalized to write-off the baggage lost TV ... and then Air Canada finds your bag and you get it back ... we then bring a TV back on charge to the QM acoount (reverse the write-off) and cross-refer to the original write-off that we did on it to substantiate why we are now "finding" one that wasn't on charge. That transaction by us is just as auditable and explainable to the AG as the write-off was ... and takes us Sup Techs just as much official paperwork too, but it doesn't affect you any.
because in fact -- it will take longer for the kit to be written off (a few TF1-06 pers here can explain their stories of kit they still did not have for their JNCO/ISCC whatever its called now - due to it being destoryed in Afghan - and the system had not yet replaced it 8+ months after) than it would take the troop to hop on the net to phone Darren or whomever to get a new vest mailed out to them - and have it in hand in Afghan.
I'd need more info to explain the above occurance to you. The policy is that kit that is lost, damaged or destroyed be replaced IMMEDIATELY upon the member reporting to the QM and stating such by filling in the top portion of the MLR. The troop should get the replacement kit right away. The MLR THEN makes it's way through the CoC for their action ... when they are done with their action, the CO then returns it to me (the QM Staff) and THEN write-off occurs. I have seen MLRs take quite a long time to be returned to us by the CoC (over a year in some cases --- especially if one is in-theatre and a roto etc is occuring), so that entiure time the member was holding "over-entitlement" on his clothing docs. That's fine because a copy of his MLR is kept on his doc file when it is initiated and the issue made by us until such time as the original is returned and the write-off occurs. Therefore, id buds docs (or my service number -- ie me -- ) be queried about the member holding above entitlement on his charge a copy of the MLR is there to explain my actions to the Auditor. That is LEGAL.
Frankly why one would want to bring a POS vest into theatre that they did not train with and had different muscle memory? So they could have an extra in case they got blown up? Frankly I dont know who many here have been in firefights or IED's - but in my experience when pers kit and pers weapons get holes in them the enduser tends not to have faired all the best either.
Also given the UAB weight issues -- why bring a 7lbs waste of space?
Just my 200 iraqi dinar
Because the kit is paid for by taxpayers. Therefore, it is governered by the laws of the land. I don't make those laws, and I don't necessarily agree with them ... but they are the laws that I get to work with ... if I want to keep enjoying my career.
I will go out of my way to assist ANY troop that needs it. If it is common sense then I will fight for that troop to have that kit and I will do my utmost to make it happen, but I will NOT break the law and put my career at risk for someone. I have written to NDHQ on behalf of members trying to get "common sense" kit for them that they were not entitled too amongst other actions, and usually --- my writing up of the common sense of the request has resulted in a "yes --- authorized" response from Ottawa. THAT response goes onto the clothing doc file when I make the issue to a non-entitled individual -- so the auditor can then talk to the "authorizer" if they have a problem with it.
But, that's where my assistance ends -- at that legal line. I won't cross over that willingly; I like my job. Now, you can think I'm an ass for thinking that way, but that's just the way it is.
