Author Topic: Class "A" duty Status  (Read 2527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hotwire

  • Gun Plumer
  • Guest
  • *
  • 947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
Class "A" duty Status
« on: March 14, 2017, 01:56:32 »
So.. let's set the scenario... Class "A" reservist is on the way to a weekend exercise. Less then 1km from the place of duty they are involved in a head on collision for which they are 100% not at fault and cannot return to their regular full time employment or parading. This is directly attributable to their duty and training/service as directed and authorized by the CO.

The Chief clerk is denying the member of the reserve force compensation benefit.

Are reservist not covered under the "door to door" clause, where their on active duty while on direct route to their place of duty??

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • "Look, I don't know if shooting penguins will help the environment or not. But I do know that the decision shouldn't be in the hands of people who just wanna kill for fun."
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 231,337
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,321
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2017, 02:36:36 »
Just off the top of my head, on the way for training or weekend ex is not 'active'. That may throw a wrench into the way you're looking at things.
At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.
-P.J. O’Rouke-


DISCLAIMER - my opinion may cause manginal irritation.

Offline LunchMeat

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 611
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2017, 05:16:33 »
Just off the top of my head, on the way for training or weekend ex is not 'active'. That may throw a wrench into the way you're looking at things.

I've heard the exact opposite.

Reservists in transit for duty/training, both to and from, will be provided assistance/coverage.

We definitely need a definitive answer on this.
"The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” ~General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, USMC

Offline Hotwire

  • Gun Plumer
  • Guest
  • *
  • 947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2017, 08:44:21 »
I've heard the exact opposite.

Reservists in transit for duty/training, both to and from, will be provided assistance/coverage.

We definitely need a definitive answer on this.

That's the thing... The soldiers CoC believe the same. The "door to door" clause. As long as it was travel directly to your place of duty. A CF98 was done, and signed off by the PL WO and CO. VAC paperwork also started as well as medical appointments at the local base hospital. There, they imposed restrictions  "light duties" on the soldier. With direction to follow up later.

This isn't me, I'm reg f. But it's a situation I'm involved in. And no one seems to want to give any answers, and the QR&O's are not very clear on the subject. Kind of "open to interpretation" .

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 358,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,489
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2017, 08:59:47 »
QR&O 9.06:
Quote
9.06 - CLASS "A" RESERVE SERVICE

(1) A member of the Reserve Force is on Class "A" Reserve Service when the member is performing training or duty in circumstances other than those prescribed under articles 9.07 (Class "B" Reserve Service) and 9.08 (Class "C" Reserve Service).

(2) Class "A" Reserve Service includes proceeding to and returning from the place where the training or duty is performed, but not when that training or duty, including attendance at local parades, local demonstrations or local exercises, is performed at local headquarters.

(G)

Therefore, per 9.06(2), if they were proceeding to their local HQ, then they are not covered; if they were headed elsewhere, they would be covered.

However, the term "local headquarters" is not defined anywhere, which can lead to challenges.

That said, however, the chief clerk does not determine who is covered by RFC (or GECA for that matter).  If he/she is refusing to prepare & submit the paperwork, order them to do so; if they disobey the order, that's what volume II of the QR&Os is for.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Hotwire

  • Gun Plumer
  • Guest
  • *
  • 947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2017, 09:13:26 »
QR&O 9.06:
Therefore, per 9.06(2), if they were proceeding to their local HQ, then they are not covered; if they were headed elsewhere, they would be covered.

However, the term "local headquarters" is not defined anywhere, which can lead to challenges.

That said, however, the chief clerk does not determine who is covered by RFC (or GECA for that matter).  If he/she is refusing to prepare & submit the paperwork, order them to do so; if they disobey the order, that's what volume II of the QR&Os is for.

Thank you, this was my "assumption" as well. The members units Chief clerk is the one who seems to be dictating what is and is not covered. Although I am NOT sure if that clerk is 100% sure of the process. We will be contacting the Local JPSU for further insight today.

I will keep this thread updated.

Offline CampCricket

  • Guest
  • *
  • 280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2017, 17:33:39 »
You are covered. I was blocked by the chief clerk at my unit. She would not initiate the paperwork and when I did, she prevented the commanding officer from receiving it. Her reason was she felt that any action should come from base health services which is wrong - but her not knowing and my showing her the policy - challenged her "authority" so she blocked it and convinced my OC that I was being a problem and didn't know what I was talking about.

So you need to first try and escalate this through your chain of command to the CO. If the CO does not initiate the paperwork / do the investigating portion of the forms - send a complaint up to the military ombudsman.

The ombudsman went to bat for me and I got my RFC plus a case manager to ensure local health services looked after me because you are likely to be dicked around by them because you are class A and no matter what veterans tells them - they fixate on that and try to redirect you to civilian care - which can be a problem as if this leads to a medical release - paper trail problems will occur which will impact benefits you maybe entitled to from VAC.  I was so thankful for my military case manger. Things could have went so sideways without her. 

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 111,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,404
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2017, 20:05:07 »
You are covered.  . . .

The OP who provided the limited details of the scenario is not the individual involved in the accident.  The OP, according to his posts, is Reg Force.

Back when the Earth was cooling and I was the Adjt/DCO/CO (not all at the same time) of a reserve unit, there were a few incidents following which members requested RFC, including one which "may" be similar to the OP's scenario.  In that case the individual was involved in an accident on the way to the armoury.  As the incident had occurred prior to the scheduled reporting in time and he had not signed in, it was determined he was not on Class A service at the time of the accident and thus was not entitled to RFC.

On a tangential point, if RFC is processed for the member involved in this incident, he should be aware that the crown "may" make a claim against any settlement he receives from the other party to the accident or their (or his) insurance company.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 37,339
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,461
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2017, 21:46:37 »
However, the term "local headquarters" is not defined anywhere, which can lead to challenges.

"Local Headquarters" has been assumed, from what I've seen, to take on the same meaning as normal workplace, or place of duty. However, this could also include a "temporary workplace" inside the member's place of duty.

In any case, if the member wasn't heading to his home unit (armoury) for regular training and/or admin, then they should have been on Temporary Duty travel, in which case, he'd be travelling on duty, and he'd be covered, so long as he was taking the approved method of travel, as chosen by the approving authority.

No?
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 37,339
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,461
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2017, 21:53:07 »
You are covered. I was blocked by the chief clerk at my unit. She would not initiate the paperwork and when I did, she prevented the commanding officer from receiving it. Her reason was she felt that any action should come from base health services which is wrong - but her not knowing and my showing her the policy - challenged her "authority" so she blocked it and convinced my OC that I was being a problem and didn't know what I was talking about.

Jesus man, do you not have an Adj at your unit? If I found out my Chief Clerk was stonewalling legitimate paperwork, or going past me straight to the CO/DCO with something like this, I'd be having some serious words with him.

Also, and I don't mean to turn this into a Officer vs NCM debate, but in my 11 years in, in my opinion, for the most part, Officers are better at interpreting policy than NCMs (even Chief Clerks). Again, I'm not trying to take a dig at NCMs; it's not a matter of intelligence, just a matter of exposure. If anyone at the unit wants an understanding, interpretation, or official opinion on policy, it comes through me, not my Chief Clerk. Chief Clerks are great at applying policy, but they like to set-up little empires and don't like to move a lot.
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline runormal

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 24,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 467
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2017, 22:06:28 »
"Local Headquarters" has been assumed, from what I've seen, to take on the same meaning as normal workplace, or place of duty. However, this could also include a "temporary workplace" inside the member's place of duty.

In any case, if the member wasn't heading to his home unit (armoury) for regular training and/or admin, then they should have been on Temporary Duty travel, in which case, he'd be travelling on duty, and he'd be covered, so long as he was taking the approved method of travel, as chosen by the approving authority.

No?

I've got two "what if's" for you.

Senario 1 Unit x hosts a DVR WHL at their local armouries for the brigade and invites units y,z,a,b and c to attend. A member from unit Z drives a member from unit X and they get into an accident on the way. Would only the member from unit Z be covered?


Scenario 2
Unit X is hosting a Recruitment event at a local HighSchool. 2 hours before the events starts it is discovered that the second LSVW will not start that Cpl  Bloggins was going to drive. Ops calls Cpl Bloggins and tells the member to meet at the local HighSchool instead. On the way to the highschool the member gets in a collision. The member would not be on TD.

Would Cpl Bloggins be covered?

Offline Hotwire

  • Gun Plumer
  • Guest
  • *
  • 947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2017, 00:45:34 »
The OP who provided the limited details of the scenario is not the individual involved in the accident.  The OP, according to his posts, is Reg Force.

Back when the Earth was cooling and I was the Adjt/DCO/CO (not all at the same time) of a reserve unit, there were a few incidents following which members requested RFC, including one which "may" be similar to the OP's scenario.  In that case the individual was involved in an accident on the way to the armoury.  As the incident had occurred prior to the scheduled reporting in time and he had not signed in, it was determined he was not on Class A service at the time of the accident and thus was not entitled to RFC.

On a tangential point, if RFC is processed for the member involved in this incident, he should be aware that the crown "may" make a claim against any settlement he receives from the other party to the accident or their (or his) insurance company.

You are correct, I am not the member involved. I have 18 years of service as a reg force member, so this reserve force stuff is very hazy to me. And trust me, I have done a LOT of research, and things are not getting any easier. AS some policy contradicts others, or are unclear or rescinded.

Here is the story:

Cpl A was on her way to a Friday muster for the weekend exercise. She had all of her kit with her as per SOP. She was heading down a 4 lane divided highway, when someone crossed the grass median and collided with her head on. She was only 600m from her units armories. She was rushed to the hospital with injuries and in and out of consciousness. Her unit was notified, and the CSM and his driver immediatly came to the hospital. Within the next few days her OP's WO had her fill out and sign a CF98, along with statments from police and the CSM. The CO, CSM, OP's WO all indicated on the CF98 that it was directly attributed to duty.

Since then, The chief clerk has contradicted everything all 3 of her CoC has said, and has refused to initiate any medical paperwork. In one email she was told to apply for EI threw her full time employer. She has had appointments with the local base CDU, and was directed to contact VA and the JPSU. But to continue medical treatment via her family doctor. JPSU told her to contact VA right away.

See how confusing this is getting??

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 111,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,404
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2017, 02:42:47 »
Here is the story:

Cpl A was on her way to a Friday muster for the weekend exercise. She had all of her kit with her as per SOP. She was heading down a 4 lane divided highway, when someone crossed the grass median and collided with her head on. She was only 600m from her units armories. She was rushed to the hospital with injuries and in and out of consciousness. Her unit was notified, and the CSM and his driver immediatly came to the hospital. Within the next few days her OP's WO had her fill out and sign a CF98, along with statments from police and the CSM. The CO, CSM, OP's WO all indicated on the CF98 that it was directly attributed to duty.

Since then, The chief clerk has contradicted everything all 3 of her CoC has said, and has refused to initiate any medical paperwork. In one email she was told to apply for EI threw her full time employer. She has had appointments with the local base CDU, and was directed to contact VA and the JPSU. But to continue medical treatment via her family doctor. JPSU told her to contact VA right away.

See how confusing this is getting??

I'll preface my comments by saying that I am long retired, regulations have undoubtedly changed and the interpretation of same may have been modified since my time in the mob.

However, with your scenario taken at face value, at the moment I'm more in agreement with the interpretation of the Chief Clerk, however without further and complete information about the method said clerk is countermanding the wishes of her CO, I refrain from condemning her or suggesting she should be reprimanded.

My thought process:

The applicable CBI
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-210-misc-entitlements-grants.page#sec-72
Quote
210.72 - Reserve Force - Compensation During A Period Of Injury, Disease Or Illness

210.72(1) (Definition) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this instruction:

active participation
 means that the member can or has returned to paid Reserve service, inclusive of Vocational Rehabilitation, that is outside the scope of the medical treatment plan perscribed for the period of injury, disease or illness identified at paragraph (2) to this instruction.

attributable to military service
 means the injury, disease or illness must have arisen out of or be directly connected with military service
. This meaning shall also be used when considering the aggravation of an existing injury, disease or illness.

Example

(A) While most injuries that occur while on duty are attributable to military service, the one does not necessarily follow the other. For instance, if a member was injured while on duty as a direct result of improper conduct, it should not be considered attributable to military service:
a.Disobedience of a lawful command
b.Negligent operation of personal or CF equipment
c.Brawling
d.Substance abuse.

(B) On the other hand, an injury might occur while not on duty but the circumstances make it attributable. For instance, if a member suffered an injury, disease or illness while not on duty but as a result of the dangerous condition of military quarters, it could be considered attributable to service. Other examples include:

(i)    Fire
(ii)   Gallery explosion
(iii)  Gas leak
(iv)  Slippery walk ways at CF facilities (e.g., ice on walkways, grease on cafeteria floor)
(v)   Structural failure (e.g., faulty wooden steps, ceiling)
(vi)  General safety violations (stacked filing cabinets, chairs, tables, etc.)

210.72(2) (Entitlement) Subject to paragraphs (7), (8 ), (9) and (10), an officer or non-commissioned member of the Reserve Force who, while on Class A, B or C Reserve Service, suffers any injury, disease or illness which is attributable to military service and this injury, disease or illness continues beyond the period of service during which it occurred, is entitled:

(a)  while the member remains in hospital, an amount equivalent to the rate of pay established for the member's rank for the class of Reserve Service the member was serving at the time the member suffered the injury, disease or illness; and

(b)  while the member continues to receive treatment but does not remain in hospital, to compensation as provided in subparagraph (a) and, where applicable, an amount equivalent to Separation Expense at the rate determined in CBI 209.997 (Separation Expense), except that the amount equivalent to Separation Expense is not payable for any period during which the member actually resides with their family.

for such period as the Minister may decide, but that period shall not extend beyond the date of release or the date on which treatment for the injury, disease, or illness is completed, thus enabling the member to resume active participation with the Reserve Force or to resume the occupation the member held at the time the injury, disease or illness occurred or to seek civilian employment, whichever occurs first.

210.72(3) (Injury, Disease or Illness not attributable to military service) Subject to paragraphs (7), (8 ), (9) and (10), an officer or non-commissioned member of the Reserve Force who, while on Class A, B or C Reserve Service, suffers any injury, diesease or illness not attributable to military service and not as a result of the member's misconduct or imprudence, is entitled:

(a)  until the termination of the member's period of service or until the date the member is returned home, whichever first occurs, to pay and allowances, payable by the employing unit, at the rates and under the conditions prescribed for the member's rank in the CBI; and

(b)  after the termination of the member's period of service and while the member's condition does not permit the member to be sent home, and where quarters and rations are not provided, to an amount equivalent to the applicable rate of Separation Expense established in CBI 209.997 (Separation Expense).

210.72(4) (Deemed Class A Service) Subject to paragraphs (7), (8 ), (9) and (10), an officer or non-commissioned member of the Reserve Force who suffers any injury, disease or illness while participating in a Commanding Officer approved CF Exercise Prescription (Expres), or Land Forces Command Physical Fitness Standard (LFCPFS) prescribed activity, as part of an authorized fitness program, is deemed to be on Class A Reserve Service for the sole purpose of compensation under this instruction.

. . . . .

There are two specific elements in a claim.  Whether the individual was on "duty" (i.e. actually authorized to be on Class A service at the time of the accident) and whether the injuries sustained in the accident is attributable to military service.  My past experience was that weekend exercises in the Mo' were scheduled so that individuals were not authorized to sign in until a specific time (to keep Friday in the half day pay rate).  If the soldier in question was in an accident prior to signing in, then she was not on Class A reserve service at the time.  If her COC changed the circumstances of her pay to accommodate the difficulties she encountered, then they are probably wonderful gentlemen.  Wonderful gentlemen, yes, but liars all the same and should be charged for falsifying documents.

As to it being attributable to military service, unless things have changed since I last conducted an SI involving a member in an accident which occurred while commuting to/from work (and that was what your scenario involved), such accidents are not usually attributable to military service.  Your time to and from work is your time and what results during that time is not due to military orders.  While I wasn't able to find anything specific as a reference, this grievance was "somewhat, sorta" close.
https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2014-093.html
Quote
The grievor was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving her child to daycare before proceeding to her workplace. Upon completion of a summary investigation (SI), the Director of Casualty Support and Administration (DCSA) ultimately concluded that the grievor was not on duty at the time of the accident, contrary to the SI finding, and that her injuries were not attributable to military service.

Now if her CO is adamant that she was on duty and her injuries were attributable to military service (in other words does not accept the interpretation of the Chief Clerk) then it is his prerogative, indeed his duty to order that the processing of the claim proceed.  However, he should have already received input from a legal officer who should have been immediately (within 48 hrs, anyway) notified IAW DAOD 7004-1 of the circumstances of the accident and the potentiality of a claim by the crown.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 37,339
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,461
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2017, 09:07:58 »
IAW CF Temporary Duty Travel Instructions:

Quote
2.02 — DEFINITIONS — CFTDTI

“temporary duty (TD)” means:
(a) an attachment — for less than 181 days — outside a member’s place of duty and includes duty travel for the purposes of that attachment; or
(b) a duty performed — for less than 181 days — at a temporary workplace and includes duty travel for the purposes of that duty. (service temporaire (ST))

“temporary workplace” means a location — inside a place of duty — at which a member performs duty but does not include the member’s permanent workplace. (lieu de travail temporaire)



3.01 — APPLICATION

(2) (Reserve Force) Subject to CFTDTI 3.02 (No Application), the CFTDTI apply to a member of the Reserve Force who is, after 31 January 2011:

(a) on Class “A”, “B”, or “C” Reserve Service;

(b) either,:
(i) on an attached posting — not on TD — to an establishment position identified in a database designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff;
(ii) on TD — not on an attached posting — away from their permanent workplace; or
(iii) in respect of CFTDTI Chapter 5 (Travel Within Place of Duty) only, ordered by an approving authority to work — or to be immediately available for work during — irregular hours inside the member’s place of duty; and


So, if the member was proceeding to a temporary workplace (i.e. the field) then the travel to the temporary workplace would be considered Temporary Duty travel, and she would be covered.

However,

Temporary Duty travel must be approved in advance, and it can only be approved by an appropriate Approving Authority. For travel within 100km, that can be the RC Manager, for all other travel, only the CO can approve such travel. Now, the Approving Authority doesn't just "approve" the travel, they:

Quote
(2) (Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode — or combination of modes — of transportation on duty travel

An approving authority cannot select a personal vehicle as the approved method of travel; they can only "request" that a member use their own vehicle, if for whatever reason the CO thinks that's the most appropriate method. However,
Quote
(4) (Refusal of request) A member cannot be ordered and is never obliged to use a PMV for duty travel.

If the approving authority selects a different mode of transportation (say, he organizes a bus to drive everyone to the Range), and the member requests to use their personal vehicle, then a cost comparison can be drawn up, and the member can be permitted to take their personal vehicle on duty travel (although they won't get the full kilometric rate). The key thing is, this has to be done in advance!

However, if the Approving Authority selects one method of travel (say a bus), and the member decides to drive themselves in their own car without receiving permission in advance, then they would not be considered to have been on duty while traveling, because they did not utilize.

So, what this boils down to in this situation is:

1. What was the approved method of travel selected by the approving authority for the members of your unit to proceed to this temporary workplace?;
2. Did the member request in advance to use PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation?
3. Was any or all of this arranged in advance?

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 190,009
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,325
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2017, 10:41:52 »
1. I think QR&O 9.07 applies.

2. The CO needs to initiate an SI. There needs to be a clear determination between being on duty and a military nexus.

3. You need a new Chief Clerk. Someone needs to say "You will forward the paperwork and let the experts decide. End of discussion."

4. See if you can reach out to someone at DCSM for some unofficial advice.

5. You need a new clerk.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 6,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 261
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2017, 11:33:33 »
I'm not an expert on reserves, however... the chief clerk has no say in this. It's VAC who will determine what the member is eligible for or not.

The member should submit his CF98 and keep a copy.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 869,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,989
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2017, 14:51:22 »
The issue could be that if the member is getting medical treatment for a duty-related injury, they're entitled to sign paysheets to cover that time. The CC in this case is likely not allowing the member to be paid for the medical treatment.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 6,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 261
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2017, 15:23:22 »
The issue could be that if the member is getting medical treatment for a duty-related injury, they're entitled to sign paysheets to cover that time. The CC in this case is likely not allowing the member to be paid for the medical treatment.

I could see that. We have redress of grievance for just such reasons.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 190,009
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,325
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2017, 16:15:44 »
The issue could be that if the member is getting medical treatment for a duty-related injury, they're entitled to sign paysheets to cover that time. The CC in this case is likely not allowing the member to be paid for the medical treatment.

The Chief Clerk is not the arbiter of who gets paid. That falls to the CO, and in this case, the regulations are  crystal clear.

Has either of the member's OC or RSM gone directly to the CO? I am challenged to understand how this situation has persisted.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 16:18:39 by ModlrMike »
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Flavus101

  • Member
  • ****
  • 12,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 210
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2017, 16:27:06 »
I also am very confused why this is still in limbo...

It is absolutely ridiculous that situations like this even occur. I think that there needs to be a sit-down with the relevant people all in the same room so that all the details can be properly aired and a decision reached. This bullshit does absolutely nothing to help the injured member and tarnishes the CAF.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Let me check my Giveashitometer. Nope, nothing.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 172,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,238
    • Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators - AES OP
Re: Class "A" duty Status
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2017, 16:58:12 »
There are a few things about this, centered around the C Clerk.

- the unit has a 'full time staff'.  My experience is the Adjt, usually the RSS O, runs the show when the Cl A CofC isn't around and communicates regularly with the CO for decisions that he/she can't look after.

- if the CO doesn't find clear answers, has anyone went to the Bde HQ G1, etc for guidance?

- RSS types usually reported (informally?) to the Reg Force folks at the Bde for career management stuff when I was at the CBG HQ; if there was a Reg F RSS WO/Sgt at a cbt arms unit, they were tied formally, or informally, to the Bde G3.  There was also a Superintendent Clerk (was a Reg F MWO) at the Bde HQ.  If the C Clerk is not playing nice in the sandbox, the Adjt could also make formal/informal inquiries to that person as well, for their professional opinion on the conduct/actions of the C Clerk.

Last comment, if the chief clerk is being an idiot and not following orders, are we that scared of ourselves now we are reluctant to take disciplinary/admin action against a mbr, Reg or Res, who clearly is demonstrating conduct and/or performance deficiencies?  Why just fire the tool (if they are being a tool), only to hand them over to the next unit who then has to deal with them?  If its broke...fix it.
Pilot, RADAR, turn right, heading...3-6-5.