# PMV and Travel Limits While on TD



## twilrecce (9 Apr 2012)

I live in Moncton NB and I have a 2 month tasking in Borden at CFSEME as a driver. What I'm trying to find out is if there are specific rules for taking a POMV instead of flying. the reason for this is Toronto and Trenton are near by where I have friends as well as having Grandparents in Sudbury. I was looking to take a vehicle up so I could visit. the only problem is the Mcpl who gave me the tasking thinks that there are new rules in place about POMV travel but he hasn't been able to get a concrete answer back yet. Any help is appreciated. 

Note the drive isn't what I'm worried about because I'd leave a few days early to travel and visit and I know and understand it is approximately 2000 km


----------



## MikeL (9 Apr 2012)

Have you talked to the clerks in your unit?  Or a POC at CFSEME to see if they will authorize POMV?


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2012)

Based on what i have seen from several units in the recent past, they will require you to take 4 days of leave to get there and 4 days of leave to get back (2000km / 500km days). That is, of course, if POMV travel is authorized.

Not being at work, i can't even begin to locate the relevant orders.


----------



## twilrecce (9 Apr 2012)

there not 100% either the Mcpl is following the direction to email Cfseme clerks and waiting. I'm just curious because I'm looking at upgrading to a newer vehicle and want to know if I should do it before or after summer. CDN Aviator thank you that alone is helpful. id probably do it in two just because I'm comfortable that way and spend the other 2 visiting


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2012)

Remember, i said "If approved". Meaning that the decision on MOT is not entirely up to you.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Apr 2012)

Read the CFTDI; it has all the information you require.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2012)

Its called Cost Comparision or something like that.  The gist of it is:

- if approved, (1) the Clks will find out how much it would cost to fly you up there, including taxi/shuttle from home/airport and airport/location.  That is the maximum you can 'get' for travel to place of duty and RTU.  (2) They will compare that to how much it would cost for you to take POWV (meals, 500Km/day travel, TDA for X days, kilometric rate, etc).  Its highly likely that the cost to drive will exceed the cost to fly you up.

- if you are approved and decided to go POMV, you will then have no more than the $ in the cost comparision "cheapest method" which should be (1) above.  If they can fly you up, pay for a lunch and taxi/shuttles for $450, that the max you can get for taking your POMV.

- for every 500km of travel, you will require 1 day of paid leave (includes Wknd, Stat, Ann or Short if you were lucky and got some to travel;  I have seen Short given before for this).  If your Report Day was a Sunday, you'd likely have to use 2 Ann Days, with Sat and Sun being Wknd.  You can travel 500km on your Report Day, provided your timing is the usual "1400/1600 hrs" which seems to be the norm.  If your trip is 1845km one way, or 1545km one way, that still will require 4 days paid Lve.  

Using the example of $450 max from the cost comparison, you will have $450 to pay for the trip there AND back.  That includes food, fuel, hotels, etc.  IIRC you sign a waiver stating you know all this and accept that you will take the hit for anything above/beyond the $450.

As you are probably talking about a CL B callout, you may find that CFSEME will not extend your contract to cover the travel (likely 6 more days of pay than if you flew) and your unit might not want to pay CL A days as well.  If you are on a CL B that is greater than 60 days, you may have to use the Ann Lve you'd recieve for travel, if they would even approve it.   If that was denied, the only other option might be LWOP (Leave Without Pay) and I can't comment on whether or not that is allowable for your situation.  

* the times I've went to Borden or rtn, I've travelled thru the border at Niagra Falls, thru NY State, Mass, the 10 minute drive thru NH   and thru Maine.  Nice drive, alittle shorter and you can get some shopping done in Maine if you feel the need.  The crossing in Holten puts you right at Woodstock.  There is also Calais/St Stephen, but I like the drive on the I-95 to Holten better myself.  Also, this route *might* put you under the 1500km mark from Moncton - Borden and save you 1 Ann Lve day each way; something worth looking into.


----------



## exgunnertdo (9 Apr 2012)

I don't have a lot of specific advice, just to point out that the OP is a reservist, likely on Class A from what I'm gathering from his profile, proceeding on Cl B.

The issue is further muddied by the fact that he can't take leave for the travel, and therefore it is a "liability" thing.  What is the member's status while driving?  Flying is easy, Cl B starts when he leaves his house to go to the airport.  Will someone authorize extra days of Cl B so he can drive (and then take leave)? Not likely.  Can he drive on his own time, unpaid, Cl A status?  Who can authorize that?

It's been a while since I've had to deal with it, but I've never seen a conclusive answer on how reservists are administered for situations like this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2012)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> I don't have a lot of specific advice, just to point out that the OP is a reservist, likely on Class A from what I'm gathering from his profile, proceeding on Cl B.
> 
> The issue is further muddied by the fact that he can't take leave for the travel, and therefore it is a "liability" thing.  What is the member's status while driving?  Flying is easy, Cl B starts when he leaves his house to go to the airport.  Will someone authorize extra days of Cl B so he can drive (and then take leave)? Not likely.  Can he drive on his own time, unpaid, Cl A status?  Who can authorize that?
> 
> It's been a while since I've had to deal with it, but I've never seen a conclusive answer on how reservists are administered for situations like this.



Assuming CFSEME won't extent Cl B dates to cover travel, Home Unit won't pay Cl A days, and LWOP isn't an option, the OP said if POMV approved, he would take 2 days to travel up, and 2 days to visit.  In theory, he could provide the "place he is visiting" as his travel start point to Borden.  Mbr would have to pay their own way to XXX, Ontario (place he was planning on visiting, provided it was within 500Km of Borden).  This is when the question of "how badly do I REALLY want my car on this Cl B" should be asked.

- mbr would state "I will be on XXX, Ontario on *date before CL B begins*.  It would have to be within 500kmm of Borden.
- on RFD/Cl B start date, mbr would then proceed to Borden.
- mbr would only receive kilometric rate for travel on CL B start date, TDA, and meals over actual travel time (not to exceed cost comparison $ amount).

The RTU trip, mbr should have Ann Lve days x 2 for every 30 days of CL B.  Rte Letter could be extended to cover Ann Lve not used*, which would cover off the 3 days travel @ 500km/day rule from Borden - Moncton.  

Its been awhile since I've had to deal with this kind of situation, but basically that is what happened when I ran into this once with a mbr proceeding on CL B to Borden and wanted their POMV (3 month callout).  

*assuming employing unit doesn't have a "Cl B ann leave shall be used before contract end date" policy.  IIRC, most units were getting away from the contract end date extension stuff and requiring all Ann Lve to be used before contract ended.  In this case, mbr would have to go LWOP on the rtn trip or "visit" XXX, Ontario again and pay for return trip out of pocket.


----------



## twilrecce (9 Apr 2012)

Thanks exgunner and eye in the sky as well as others. Realizing now how kerfuckity this whole mess could get. I'll be interested to see what the clerks come back with and will make sure to inform you all. Just out of curiosity is anyone else here a Class A guy who's been to CFSEME for a tasking. preferably a driver tasking. any idea what I'll be doing. I'm qualified A1 B1 C51 (soon C52) and T1.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2012)

Willy00005 said:
			
		

> any idea what I'll be doing.



Driving ?


----------



## twilrecce (9 Apr 2012)

:facepalm:
Sorry I really should be more specific and I deserved that. Anyways I mean more along the lines of like meal driving or transporting officers or is it completely dependant on what needs to be done vs Quals


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2012)

Willy00005 said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> Sorry I really should be more specific and I deserved that.



Its ok;  you are a *Channel 8*.   We know you guys are..."challenged".   >


----------



## twilrecce (9 Apr 2012)

8ch joke? definitely missed it if it was


----------



## startbutton (9 Apr 2012)

Willy00005 said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> Sorry I really should be more specific and I deserved that. Anyways I mean more along the lines of like meal driving or transporting officers or is it completely dependant on what needs to be done vs Quals


You pretty muched guessed it right, also what ever GD tasks come up.


----------



## Celticgirl (9 Apr 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Remember, i said "If approved". Meaning that the decision on MOT is not entirely up to you.



It is up to the fin code holder.  If authorized POMV, a waiver will be signed by the mbr and a cost comparison will be done by the clerks.  Depending on the reasons for and distance of POMV travel (how many days it will take), it may or may not be approved.  Prepare to be told "no" and please do not gripe at the messengers (i.e. the clerks), who have nothing to do with this decision whatsoever.  8)  

Be aware that when taking your POMV, if you are travelling a long way and need to stop at a hotel for a night, that will be at your own expense (so budget your cost comparison dollars wisely).  Per diem meals will be reimbursed for only what they would have been for air travel (usually one meal in each direction, most often two lunches are given unless this does not match up at all with normal air travel times from Pt A to Pt B).  You are still only getting one travel day in each direction.  Leave will need to be taken to cover the rest and you need to submit a leave pass for this time period...whether this is weekend, annual, short, or some combination (note: short leave needs to be approved by the CO and is NOT meant to be used for travel, but to reward the member for exceptional work or overtime work).  Any days you travel other than the two allotted travel days, you will not receive any meals or incidentals.  These are 'non-claimable' days.

At my unit, the mbrs have to seek out their own auth for POMV and get the TD req form signed before bringing it to us at the OR - the one exception to this being if the fin code is not ours.  If it's another unit's fin code, it will generally say right in the message what is and is not authorized so it is rare that further auth needs to be sought, anyway (exceptional circumstances only).


----------



## twilrecce (9 Apr 2012)

Roger CelticGirl thank you for clearing that up. so in other words its highly unlikely I will be ok'd to take a pomv without much of the cost falling on me. it's not dire that i take one it was more of a check to see if I could. I thank you all for your help. it is much appreciated. Now I have to find some friends with vehicles from the local area ;D


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2012)

Willy00005 said:
			
		

> its highly unlikely I will be ok'd to take a pomv without much of the cost falling on me.



You can't expect the Cf to foot the additional bill, just because you want to take your car.


----------



## twilrecce (9 Apr 2012)

I didn't expect it to be ok'd it was more of a luxury which would have been nice.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2012)

You've been given all the info and about every possible option or way.

Now, how bad to you want your car and how well do you get along with your CClk  > (is it still PO2 "R"?  If so, he's an ex-Infanteer so maybe he'll feel sorry for you).


----------



## Brasidas (9 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - for every 500km of travel, you will require 1 day of paid leave (includes Wknd, Stat, Ann or Short if you were lucky and got some to travel;  I have seen Short given before for this).  If your Report Day was a Sunday, you'd likely have to use 2 Ann Days, with Sat and Sun being Wknd.  You can travel 500km on your Report Day, provided your timing is the usual "1400/1600 hrs" which seems to be the norm.  If your trip is 1845km one way, or 1545km one way, that still will require 4 days paid Lve.





> Using the example of $450 max from the cost comparison, you will have $450 to pay for the trip there AND back.  That includes food, fuel, hotels, etc.  IIRC you sign a waiver stating you know all this and accept that you will take the hit for anything above/beyond the $450.
> 
> As you are probably talking about a CL B callout, you may find that CFSEME will not extend your contract to cover the travel (likely 6 more days of pay than if you flew) and your unit might not want to pay CL A days as well.  If you are on a CL B that is greater than 60 days, you may have to use the Ann Lve you'd recieve for travel, if they would even approve it.   If that was denied, the only other option might be LWOP (Leave Without Pay) and I can't comment on whether or not that is allowable for your situation.
> 
> * the times I've went to Borden or rtn, I've travelled thru the border at Niagra Falls, thru NY State, Mass, the 10 minute drive thru NH   and thru Maine.  Nice drive, alittle shorter and you can get some shopping done in Maine if you feel the need.  The crossing in Holten puts you right at Woodstock.  There is also Calais/St Stephen, but I like the drive on the I-95 to Holten better myself.  Also, this route *might* put you under the 1500km mark from Moncton - Borden and save you 1 Ann Lve day each way; something worth looking into.



I've never been on contract other than the day prior and the day after the tasking, and I've been on POMV across the country. I get the tasking or course, request POMV, get the cost comparison rigamarole with the amount the CF'll cover, and carry on. No extension of my class B contract, no mention of leave days.

If its a course with no annual that I can take for the duration, it's tacked on after the contract. If its not, my annual gets taken during the contract.


----------



## chrisf (9 Apr 2012)

Wasn't there an order on this exact subject that came out just last week?

Can't recall the exact details, I wasn't paying that much attention, will not be going on any taskings in the next few years, but the short of it was, they're not paying for POMV travel for class B taskings any more... if you don't want to fly, you're on your own dime to drive (Meaning they will no longer give you up to the equivilent cost of your ticket), and it still needs to be authorized by the CO.

Why, no idea, didn't cost the CF any extra the old way, but that's it.


----------



## twilrecce (9 Apr 2012)

Ahh ok so there is someone else who had heard of some new rules, ok cool. well like I said I promise to update you all


----------



## chrisf (9 Apr 2012)

I might have a written copy of it around somewhere...

I checked, I do not have a written copy... but it was very recent, I heard about it on the 12th... like I said, I wasn't paying that much attention, as it won't affect me for at least a few years, but the short of it they will no longer be providing you with any compensation for POMV travel... though if you want to travel up on your own dime, it still has to be authorized by your CO. As a class A member starting a class B contract, you should still be entitled to your travel day and meal claims on your travel day, but I believe that's it. 

Check with your clerks for full details.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2012)

Just curious, was it a CANFORGEN?  LFAAD?  CBI/CFTDI update?

Always like to update my UFI folder in my Favorites at work.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Apr 2012)

The CFTDI underwent a significant rewrite recently; it's worth taking a gander.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2012)

ack.  tks.

Just when you start to understand something...it changes.   ;D


----------



## Celticgirl (10 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The CFTDI underwent a significant rewrite recently; it's worth taking a gander.



Unfortunately, the CFTDI is no longer available online.  You have to email someone to request a copy of it.  We keep a physical copy in the OR as a reference along with any related Canforgens.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2012)

???

I'm looking at it right now on the DIN (DCBA site), the "Revised 01 Jan 2012" version.


----------



## Celticgirl (10 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> I'm looking at it right now on the DIN (DCBA site), the "Revised 01 Jan 2012" version.



Really?  Maybe it was just the old one that was no longer available then.  I will have a look at it when I am at work tomorrow.  Thanks!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2012)

Its a mere 96 pages  :blotto:, but taking a quick look thru it (did a *Find* for PMV), I am not seeing anything where it says a member can't use PMV.  

It does sat "may be auth" and "PMV - Driver " with subsections "Mbr is requested to use PMV" as well as "Mbr requests to Use PMV".  Obviously there is more to it than just that but....


----------



## chrisf (10 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Just curious, was it a CANFORGEN?  LFAAD?  CBI/CFTDI update?
> 
> Always like to update my UFI folder in my Favorites at work.



No idea, it was one of a list of administrative points read by our troop wo last week, like I said, I didn't pay that much attention, my civillian employer demands enough of my attention that I won't be going on any taskings for the next several years.

It may well have been confusion on the part of whoever originated it above him,  I just know what was read last week.

If I find myself on that end of town today, I'll drop in and see if I can find the reference.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Apr 2012)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Awesome.  It is so much easier having an online copy so that I can Ctrl-F to find what I need.    Sorting through that many pages by hand is time-consuming and frustrating.
> 
> As for POMV, yes, there is certainly more to it than that.  Generally, it is 'most economical means' so if, for example, someone is going on TD to Hfx from Greenwood, the most economical option is an MSE rental.  If the mbr wants to take POMV and they have auth to do so, they will get a cost comparison to the amount of the rental + fuel (as per Cost Factor Manual rate).  However, if they are flying out of Hfx to somewhere and IBBS is available from Greenwood to Hfx Airport, but they want to take POMV instead (and have auth to do so), they will not get anything - not even parking, even with a receipt - as it would not have cost the CF anything for the mbr to take IBBS.  Mbrs need to realize that if they take their own vehicle, they are not necessarily (in fact, almost always "not") going to get mileage + fuel + pkg.  Most of the time, they will get a CC to what it would have cost the CF for them to take the most economical transportation - and sometimes that is zero dollars.
> 
> I'm intrigued about the Class B changes mentioned above as well.  I have some research to do tomorrow!




You have left out the "quality of life" factor that may/could be included.  Will the member be required to rent a veh or use taxi and/or bus transportation while on a prolonged tasking to travel to and from place of employment and on time off for admin or recreation?  Not all taskings are to locations that are all singing and dancing when it comes to accommodations and close proximity to work or play.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2012)

Will someone please.........please........please, just answer the friggin' question that was asked, without all the hypotheticals and tangents. Please. :


----------



## bridges (10 Apr 2012)

I thought it was already answered by Celticgirl yesterday.  Here's what the CFTDI says:

Para 7.40(2):

(Member Requests To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 7.20(2), a member — including a member of the Reserve Force on Class “A” Reserve Service — who requests to use a PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority and who uses that PMV on duty travel is entitled to be reimbursed — for only the first day of travel to the destination and for only the first day of return travel from the destination — the following amounts:

(a) the lesser of,
(i) the kilometric rate for the direct road distance, and
(ii) as determined by a method established under the authority of the CDS, the cost of the more economical and practical mode of transportation; and

(b) if the member is required to purchase additional insurance to carry passengers for business purposes, the actual and reasonable expenses of that additional insurance.

...AND...

7.41(6)
(Paid Leave) If a member — who requests to use a PMV — has insufficient paid leave remaining for any travel in excess of the more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority , then the member shall not be authorized to use their PMV as requested.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> I thought it was already answered by Celticgirl yesterday.  Here's what the CFTDI says:
> 
> Para 7.40(2):
> 
> ...



Sorry. Missed it.

That's the problem when everyone decides to parse the question and start dragging out, what if's, when I went on course, MY clerk says, etc.

The real, and only needed, answer gets lost in all the clag.

Then we get someone asking it a week from now because they can't find it amongst all the pages of personal exploits and opinions on the subject.


----------



## bridges (10 Apr 2012)

That never happens...    ;D


----------



## dapaterson (10 Apr 2012)

Except this member is a Reservist, who is not currently on full-time service.  Thus, sub-para (9) applies:



> (9) (Class “A” Reserve Service) A member of the Reserve Force, who requests to use their PMV on duty travel, shall be placed on Class “A” Reserve Service on the first day of travel to or from a destination and shall not be authorized any subsequent Class “A” Reserve Service for any subsequent days of that duty travel to or from that location.



Thus, should this individual elect to take their PMV, they would be paid for the first travel day, but not for subsequent days, prior to their arrival.


----------



## bridges (10 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except this member is a Reservist, who is not currently on full-time service.  Thus, sub-para (9) applies:
> 
> Thus, should this individual elect to take their PMV, they would be paid for the first travel day, but not for subsequent days, prior to their arrival.



And their status and coverage in the remaining days is...  ?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Apr 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> And their status and coverage in the remaining days is...  ?



SOL?  The CFTDI doesn't say.


----------



## charlesm (10 Apr 2012)

My recommendation would be that a Class "B" start on a Friday if the report date is a Monday, normally it would be Saturday would be the travel day anyway. Then you have the ability to travel 1500 km when you include the weekend, before you have to travel on your own dime as a reservist. Weekends do count for leave. If you have to travel more than 1500km IE (Victoria to Borden) you travel on your own time before the Friday travel day.


----------



## bridges (10 Apr 2012)

charlesm said:
			
		

> My recommendation would be that a Class "B" start on a Friday if the report date is a Monday, normally it would be Saturday would be the travel day anyway. Then you have the ability to travel 1500 km when you include the weekend, before you have to travel on your own dime as a reservist. Weekends do count for leave. If you have to travel more than 1500km IE (Victoria to Borden) you travel on your own time before the Friday travel day.



That depends on a unit being willing to pay for the extra days, which most typically are not.   It would be ideal for the mbr though.

Also - if the mbr gets in a car crash on one of the days that's "their own time", it'd be good to know whether that's considered "duty travel" or not.   

Sorry recceguy, I tried.   We have most of the answer.   Somebody, somewhere, knows the rest.


----------



## DAA (10 Apr 2012)

There are two issues at play here.  One is the Class of Service (ie; A or B) and the other is the distance being travelled.  Every 500Km requires one day of paid leave.  Class A are not entitled to leave, therefore, they cannot utilize PMV if the distance exceeds 500 km, hence, even with a cost comparison in place, a person on Class A gets NOTHING.... (DCBA already provided clarification/direction on this one...).  The same holds true for Class B service.  The duration of which would need to be sufficient enough to "earn" leave which you would end up having to use if you travel PMV.  No leave = No PMV travel.  There is no need for a waiver of any kind, as the member is not being paid and are travelling on their own time at their own expense.

Oh and the tasking authority cannot modify the period of service to include additional travel time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Assuming CFSEME won't extent Cl B dates to cover travel, Home Unit won't pay Cl A days, and LWOP isn't an option, the OP said if POMV approved, he would take 2 days to travel up, and 2 days to visit.  In theory, he could provide the "place he is visiting" as his travel start point to Borden.  Mbr would have to pay their own way to XXX, Ontario (place he was planning on visiting, provided it was within 500Km of Borden).  This is when the question of "how badly do I REALLY want my car on this Cl B" should be asked.
> 
> - mbr would state "I will be on XXX, Ontario on *date before CL B begins*.  It would have to be within 500kmm of Borden.
> - on RFD/Cl B start date, mbr would then proceed to Borden.
> ...



Aside from a few minor details on what meals mbr could claim IAW Celticgirl, this situation has worked before.  Mbr, before report date, is travelling as if they were a civie.  Memo submitted to OR indicating they will be in "location 500km from Borden" on day before RFD date.  OR attaches memo to travel claim.  No reimbursement before Cl B start date.

That is IF the Gaining unit will not authorize amended dates on Rte ltr to allow travel up, LWOP isn't auth, etc.  

The CF can't tell the mbr, who is not on Cl B yet and not on Cl A pay sheets "you aren't allowed to go to Ont before your RFD date, you have to sit home".   :

This has been done before.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Apr 2012)

And those admin games are all fine until the mbr gets injured while driving on the day or two before he's "officially" travelling.  Duty status means a lot when injured, particularly for a member of the Primary Reserve.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2012)

Yes.  This was done as it was the only option for the mbr to take PMV to Ont.  Its on mbr's on dime and risk, as it is not duty travel until the day their Cl B starts.  Choice for the mbr to make, as I said, how badly they want their rig with them.

As for coverage, that would fall under their insurance plan.

*editted to add, I don't say I agree with this, but it appears at this is what the CFTDI will force a Res mbr proceeding on Cl B more than 500Km home unit to decide on, take the risk and expense on.

Also, LWOP is not an option IAW Chap 8 of the CF Leave Policy Manual.  My bad.  Should know better to check before typing.


----------



## twilrecce (10 Apr 2012)

So that is why they said no POMV past 500 KM thanks for the reasoning. It makes sense now really. I may do the non class B travel yet as I hadn't thought of travelling in that manner


----------



## CountDC (13 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *assuming employing unit doesn't have a "Cl B ann leave shall be used before contract end date" policy.  IIRC, most units were getting away from the contract end date extension stuff and requiring all Ann Lve to be used before contract ended.  In this case, mbr would have to go LWOP on the rtn trip or "visit" XXX, Ontario again and pay for return trip out of pocket.



Good post - covers it nicely.  Just one point for the quoted part that was missed.  There is another option with no need to extend the callout to cover leave - they can simply approve his leave to correspond to the end date of his callout and send him packing on the applicable date - ie callout ends on Fri, he has 4 days leave so his last day there would be the Monday.

Do it as a notice of intent to travel pmc on your own time and risk and request DND reimburse the cost equivalant of a Hypothetical trip (cost comparison).  The claim can then be actioned by the clerks as if you had actually travelled via the Hypothetical trip.  Have done lots of claims that way and is really a simple method.  In fact the clerk can do the cost comparison and the claim at the same time (held pending your return and any adjustments that may be needed).  Never had a problem with it as there was no additional cost or risk.


----------



## DAA (13 Apr 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Do it as a notice of intent to travel pmc on your own time and risk and request DND reimburse the cost equivalant of a Hypothetical trip (cost comparison).  The claim can then be actioned by the clerks as if you had actually travelled via the Hypothetical trip.  Have done lots of claims that way and is really a simple method.  In fact the clerk can do the cost comparison and the claim at the same time (held pending your return and any adjustments that may be needed).  Never had a problem with it as there was no additional cost or risk.



I hope you are doing this based on the member being on "authorized leave" and "being paid" while travelling?  DCBA has been quite clear on this issue...if the member takes POMV and does not have sufficient leave to cover the period, they get NOTHING!!!  Even with a cost comparison.  They MUST travel via the preferred MOT.  If you want to see the email from DCBA. PM me and I will send it to you on DWAN.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2012)

Please I have to ask...what is the reasoning behind this.  Seriously.  All this stupid policy does is make life unnnecessarily crappy for a Reservist on Cl B away from home, who now will have no way to travel.  If it was going to cost $500 to fly the person, why not let them have $ to take their damn car like a normal adult?   :

DCBA has been wrong before, so is this clear in the relevant CBI/applic policy?


----------



## DAA (14 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Please I have to ask...what is the reasoning behind this.  Seriously.  All this stupid policy does is make life unnnecessarily crappy for a Reservist on Cl B away from home, who now will have no way to travel.  If it was going to cost $500 to fly the person, why not let them have $ to take their damn car like a normal adult?   :
> 
> DCBA has been wrong before, so is this clear in the relevant CBI/applic policy?



This has little to do with policy and oh so much more to do with "LIABILITY", which is what people don't seem to understand.  If you are being "reimbursed" for travel expenses, then you are considered to be "on duty" and when you are "ON DUTY", you have the full realm of medical and pension benefits backed by the Crown.  The policy is quite clear with regards to reimbursement of benefits as to when they apply.  But when you decide to step into a grey area thinking you are doing the member a favour (ie; back dating claims, cost comparisons, after the fact scenario's etc) you do so at the expense (ie; liability) of the member by reimbursing them.  If you are a Reserve F member injured "on duty" and can't work for the CF any more, think about what benefits (ie pension or medical) you would receive as opposed to being injured "off duty".   So if you take it upon yourself to reimburse him/her for their travel and god forbid something happens, then now DND is considered liable and you have some explaining to do...

Hence, the rationale as to why DCBA issued "guidance" on POMV Travel by Class A, B and C Reserve Force members.  Imagine telling Cpl Smith, "Don't worry, you can take your car, I will do a cost comparison before or after the fact and reimburse you what it would have cost had we flown you to your tasking".  Then Cpl Smith is involved in a car accident on the way to or from the tasking and his Class A or B Route Letter has not yet come into effect yet or he wasn't on or doesn't have approved leave.


PS - and if anyone isn't already aware, POMV Waivers MUST be signed by a Commissioned Officer......... <---------ooppsss, there is that "liability" issue again!


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Hence, the rationale as to why DCBA issued "guidance" on POMV Travel by Class A, B and C Reserve Force members.  Imagine telling Cpl Smith, "Don't worry, you can take your car, I will do a cost comparison before or after the fact and reimburse you what it would have cost had we flown you to your tasking".  Then Cpl Smith is involved in a car accident on the way to or from the tasking and his Class A or B Route Letter has not yet come into effect yet or he wasn't on or doesn't have approved leave.



So accidents only happen when the member is driving their own POMV; never a Bus crash, Train derailment, Ferry sinking, or aircraft falling uncontrolled from the skies?   >

No one should be travelling by any means as a Reservist without their Claim and a Route Letter.  

People who have no knowledge and think only in "Black and White", often in a very faulty manner, piss me off.


----------



## DAA (15 Apr 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No one should be travelling by any means as a Reservist without their Claim and a Route Letter.



My thoughts exactly.....


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Apr 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No one should be travelling by any means as a Reservist without their Claim and a Route Letter.



Yet I know of at least one unit that does.....


----------



## CountDC (17 Apr 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> I hope you are doing this based on the member being on "authorized leave" and "being paid" while travelling?  DCBA has been quite clear on this issue...if the member takes POMV and does not have sufficient leave to cover the period, they get NOTHING!!!  Even with a cost comparison.  They MUST travel via the preferred MOT.  If you want to see the email from DCBA. PM me and I will send it to you on DWAN.



yes it was always auth time and I have done it all the way back to the early 90's.  Nice to see DCBA has finally caught up with me. 


Scarey that units are still sending members without their paperwork and that the members are going without it.  I always stressed to the members to make sure they picked up their docs or they wouldn't get paid.  Never had a problem.  The problem was getting the claims out of them when they returned.  Had to chase them down and tell them it was worth money before they brought them in.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Apr 2012)

I don't understand the "if you elect to go PMV on your own dime, you won't get reimbursed anything".  For ease, let's use the OP situation.

- mbr is going on Cl B in Borden, resides in Moncton NB.
- Cl B won't be extended to cover travel to/from.  As a Reservist, mbr has no Ann Lve to take, can't go LWOP, unit not going to pay for Cl A to travel.
- mbr could travel to within 500kms of Borden prior to Report Date, on his own time and dime, a personal choice and not covered by CF in any way for non duty days.

Why, on the report date, is the mbr not auth to travel up to but not to exceed 500kms IAW policy, and have the travel covered under the Cost Comparison model?  If the member didn't travel on own dime and time, the CF would be paying for travel to airport, airport to place of duty, airline cost, plus meals during actual travel time, along with 1 x day TD allowance (IIRC).

As for the changes to years gone by, I can see why that was stopped.  Mbrs would be given auth to travel POMV half way across the country, getting paid and on TD the whole time, for CL B callouts.  

I don't understand why if you take your PMV now, on your own dime and time, why the last day you cannot be reimbursed reasonable expenses, with the mbr abiding by the "not to exceed 500km's/day" rule.  


*edit* this doesn't affect me personally, so I have no iron in the fire WRT to this.  I just think its alittle overboard/restrictive.  Having been on Cl B during summers away from home province, I certainly know how much a car can make a difference in your QOL.


----------



## bridges (17 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Why, on the report date, is the mbr not auth to travel up to but not to exceed 500kms IAW policy, and have the travel covered under the Cost Comparison model?  If the member didn't travel on own dime and time, the CF would be paying for travel to airport, airport to place of duty, airline cost, plus meals during actual travel time, along with 1 x day TD allowance (IIRC).



My thoughts exactly.   If the member happens to be in, say, Toronto the day before his Class B starts in Borden, surely the CF can't compel him to go home to NB and then fly to Toronto - ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Apr 2012)

No, they just don't reimburse ANYTHING IAW earlier posts, unless I read them wrong.


----------



## DAA (18 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't understand why if you take your PMV now, on your own dime and time, why the last day you cannot be reimbursed reasonable expenses, with the mbr abiding by the "not to exceed 500km's/day" rule.



First of all you need to determine what the "authorized" mode of travel is going to be.  If they don't have leave to burn inorder to use POMV, then POMV can't be an authorized MOT.  If you try and use a cost comparison under the scenario you mention above, you are by default placing them "on duty" for the entire period of travel time and not just the first and last day.

DCBA has a great Power Point training presentation that they use when they visits Bases and all the information on this subject is covered in it.  I totally understand the frustration on this but the ramifications go way beyond a few bucks in someone's pocket.  If you don't have and want a copy of the trg presentation, PM me and I can send it to you on DWAN.


----------



## Celticgirl (21 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't understand why if you take your PMV now, on your own dime and time, why the last day you cannot be reimbursed reasonable expenses, with the mbr abiding by the "not to exceed 500km's/day" rule.



It's been less than a year since I was working in a Res OR and I'm very surprised to find out that this is not authorized anymore for Reservists.  This was standard procedure when I was doing the Route Letters and TD Claims for our PRes mbrs (and for my own courses in Borden) - the first day of the B contract was the day before your course and also your travel day...after course you had paid leave (1 day for every 15 days on course) and a travel day.  If you opted to drive vice fly, you signed a PMV waiver (same as the Reg F mbrs do) and as you were on Class A prior to the day before course commencement, you could leave whenever you chose so long as you were still following that 500 km/day rule to which you agreed.  

The only difference I find now with the Reg F is the whole taking of paid leave prior to starting your course if you are driving (or want to fly up early and take time to visit family or whatever).    Not giving Reservists the option to take POMV unless they do so 100% at their own expense seems rather unfair, IMO.   A Cost Comparison to a return flight from say Halifax to Borden is usually around $800, which goes a long way towards gas, meals, and incidentals, and even an overnight (or two) each way in a hotel.   Even giving the mbr meals and incidentals for a day of travel would be 'something'.  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2012)

What it means is that it's going to be harder to get Reservists to take the tasking(s).

If I was to be asked to take a tasking, anywhere, for anything over a couple of weeks, my car would be going, or I wouldn't.

It's a Quality of Life issue and you can't expect a person to be cooped up somewhere like Meaford, Wainwright or Gagetown for two months without personal transportation.

Policy or not, it's bullshit.

My  :2c:


----------



## Journeyman (21 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Policy or not, it's bullshit.


Absolutely. RegF or Res.

I take a vehicle regardless, accepting the risk and cost, because it_ is_ a quality of life issue.


Having said that, I'm expecting the Navy's Martha Stewart to show up, clucking about policies being gospel......


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> First of all you need to determine what the "authorized" mode of travel is going to be.  If they don't have leave to burn inorder to use POMV, then POMV can't be an authorized MOT.  If you try and use a cost comparison under the scenario you mention above, you are by default placing them "on duty" for the entire period of travel time and not just the first and last day.
> 
> DCBA has a great Power Point training presentation that they use when they visits Bases and all the information on this subject is covered in it.  I totally understand the frustration on this but the ramifications go way beyond a few bucks in someone's pocket.  If you don't have and want a copy of the trg presentation, PM me and I can send it to you on DWAN.



I'd like to see the REFs not some DCBA powerpoint.  CBI, CFAO, something that is authortive.  MS Powerpoint doesn't exactly cover it, and DCBA isn't exactly an error-free organization.

So, lets remove the car from the equation.  I go to Ont before my tasking starts.  I am within 500km of the base, and Friend #1 drives me to the base.  Thats fine??  I wouldn't be reimbursed from Friends mileage, meals, etc?

I see you're completely sold on the "liability" thing, but I don't think any, or many, others are.


----------



## DAA (21 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's a Quality of Life issue and you can't expect a person to be cooped up somewhere like Meaford, Wainwright or Gagetown for two months without personal transportation.
> 
> Policy or not, it's bullshit.



I agree that it is a "quality of life issue" to a certain extent.  But it all boils down to "liability" and nothing more!!!  This has nothing and I mean absolutely nothing to do with money and reimbursing expenses nor entitlements.  If you reimburse a Reserve Force member for travel, then the member by default is considered to be "on duty", which means the Route Letter MUST cover the entire period, including the travelling time or estimated travelling time in the case where you use a Cost Comparison.  If the members Route Letter is not in effect and they are injured during travel they have no recourse against the Crown and if it is your signature on any of those forms, good luck to you because if it was me that was injured, I would be suing who ever told me I was covered......


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2012)

reference for this "liability" stuff please.


----------



## DAA (21 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd like to see the REFs not some DCBA powerpoint.  CBI, CFAO, something that is authortive.  MS Powerpoint doesn't exactly cover it, and DCBA isn't exactly an error-free organization.
> 
> So, lets remove the car from the equation.  I go to Ont before my tasking starts.  I am within 500km of the base, and Friend #1 drives me to the base.  Thats fine??  I wouldn't be reimbursed from Friends mileage, meals, etc?
> 
> I see you're completely sold on the "liability" thing, but I don't think any, or many, others are.



Sure, here you go......

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/index.php?sid=90&hl=1&lang=eng#tc-tm_2_6   - Travel status (déplacement) - occurs when an employee or traveller is on authorized government travel.

Hence, by reimbursing someone you place them in "Travel Status" which by DND standards now means they are "on duty" which now means they are FULLY covered...

Personally, I really don't care what anyone does but for myself, you won't find my signature on any claim that falls into this category.  If higher powers want to sign it, then that is there perogative...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2012)

OK, but...the 1st day of their contract, they ARE on duty.  SO...on duty, to travel, for 1 day.  So, if they are on duty and travelling on a Sunday, which they would be if they are flying, they should be reimbursed for travel on that day.

If not on Cl A or B the day before that, its not duty.  Its own dime and time.

I am not seeing where they can't be reimbursed the travel they do, if less the 500Km, their report date, in POMV.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2012)

I am looking for an actual DND/CF reference.  I don't even see DND/CF listed in this "group of unknown authority", National Joint Council ", but I don't see where they have anything to do with the CF/miltary, or any authority in the CF Mil Admin Law & Policy.

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?sid=31&lang=eng  No DND/CF listed in their "membership".


----------



## DAA (21 Apr 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am looking for an actual DND/CF reference.  I don't even see DND/CF listed in this "group of unknown authority", National Joint Council ", but I don't see where they have anything to do with the CF/miltary, or any authority in the CF Mil Admin Law & Policy.
> 
> http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?sid=31&lang=eng  No DND/CF listed in their "membership".



CFTDI's which govern our (ie; CF) travel benefits are derived from the TBS Travel Directive (Treasury Board) which is a mirror of the National Joint Council (NJC) Directives regarding Government of Canada travel. And seeing as DND is a part of the Canadian Government, we are all subject to the conditions listed in this publication.  If you compare CFTDI's to this document, you will see that they are identical.  The wording may be slightly different but the entitlements are the same.  The most recent rash of changes to our benefits are a direct result of the CFTDI's not conforming to NJC policy and everything is based on this publication.

As far as the liaibility issue is concerned, when I use that term, it falls into two contexts, you yourself personally for issuing an order and or giving "authorization" for something and secondly when in the case of this thread regarding POMV travel the potential for a "Claim Against the Crown"

Claims against the Crown fall under the "Crown Liability and Proceedings Act" ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-50/page-1.html ) , Treasury Board Policy on Claims and Ex-Gratia Payments ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=17068&section=text ) and DAOD 7004-1 ( http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/7000/7004-1-eng.asp ).

So in the performance of your "military duty" should you authorize someone a mode of travel which is contrary to directed and or accepted policy, you are acting outside of your area of authority and in the end....are on your own.

If your bored or want to see just what is going on south of the border, have a read at this one, it may be a better reference (I believe that "tort" law within the context of this article may not apply within Canada...  http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=gsulr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dmilitary%2520liability%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26ved%3D0CD0QFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalarchive.gsu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1320%2526context%253Dgsulr%26ei%3Dp2eTT6i_DKWM6QG3uaC8BA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHNfsk1FP31QoOkKEvR1LqljQUPaA#search=%22military%20liability%22


----------



## DAA (22 Apr 2012)

And one last stab at the cat regarding "Liability"..........

You sign a "POMV Waiver" for a reason! (ie; emphasise on WAIVER)   DND does not and will not order you to utilize POMV for Government Authorized Travel, they will, however, "authorize" you to utilize POMV but ONLY if you sign the waiver.  That "waiver" absolves DND of any responsibility and subsequent claims should anything happen.  If you want an eye opener, call your auto insurance company and ask them if you have coverage should you be involved in an accident while you are travelling on "Government Business" from your home to your tasking location?   You may very well be surprised with the answer.......


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2012)

I can understand all of that, except the part where "I am travelling on my own dime and time, except for the last day, where I am within 500km of my tasking location".  

But recognizing this is just  :deadhorse: I'll end with saying it appears to me as if this is done without any thoughts to QOL for the service member.  The TDIs could allow for reimbursed travel the day the Cl B starts, but they just don't.   :2c:


----------



## CountDC (23 Apr 2012)

The references are there, it is a DCBA presentation and email clarifying what the references already state and what he has passed on is correct.  The changes detailed are to bring things into allignment TB and the ones for TD are effective Feb 2011.  It does appear the concern is liability as on duty the crown is liable for any injuries which it may not be while on leave.  Disability pension comes into play.

I agree that it is a QOL issue.  I too agree with EIS that it would be good if they allowed the one day, 500 km, travel on the departure date.  Unfortunately DAA is correct the current policies do not allow for it.  Something else for the reserves to work on.

Did notice that it appears looking at the waiver that if the travel was less than 650 kms then the member could be auth PMV as the second day could be considered a work day vice travel. 

Haven't looked yet but how does leave play into this?  If the member is going for 90+ days he will earn 6 days leave.  Is the current policy that you have to wait for the 30 days in order to start to use the leave?  I know last year we were allowing the leave to be used prior but things do change.  It just seems to me that if the member can use the leave and the gaining unit would approve it then he may be able to utilize leave time to travel there same as any reg f or long term Cl B mbr.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Haven't looked yet but how does leave play into this?  If the member is going for 90+ days he will earn 6 days leave.  Is the current policy that you have to wait for the 30 days in order to start to use the leave?  I know last year we were allowing the leave to be used prior but things do change.  It just seems to me that if the member can use the leave and the gaining unit would approve it then he may be able to utilize leave time to travel there same as any reg f or long term Cl B mbr.



Letting the Res mbr use leave "before it is earned" in days of svc is not likely something employing units like to do Z(not even sure its *legal*) being as they end up paying for those travel days.  Not sure what it is now, but the last year I was on a Cl B tasking, we had to use a min of 50% of our Ann Lve during the tasking.  I'd suspect with shrinking budgets and more fiscal restraint at all lvls, units would be directing all Ann Lve accumulated shall be burned before the end date of the Cl B.  Its an easy way to save $$.


----------



## CountDC (24 Apr 2012)

yes the leave would be used during the class b period as the travel days form part of the class period.  No extensions.

mbr normal travel date is Sun, report to work Mon.  The unit gave Mon as leave so now the mbr could use Sun and Mon as travel days and drive.  Coming back mbr travel date would be Sat, unit gives Fri as leave so now mbr is able to travel both days.  No additional expenses as they are still paying the mbr the same number of days, getting the same number of work days and travel was reimbursed the lesser of actual travel or normal MOT.

Early RTU was not an option as the mbr had to stay long enough to earn the leave for travel.

Somethings use to be so easy until people started screwing it for all.  I imagine units stopped approving the leave prior to avoid the hassle of an early rtu.  I can understand that for courses but on a call out they can simply refuse to RTU until they have earned the leave.


----------



## PMedMoe (24 Apr 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I can understand that for courses but on a call out they can simply refuse to RTU until they have earned the leave.



Really?  So what happens if a person gets into a serious accident resulting in physical injury?  Or gets a serious illness?  Then what?  Refuse RTU to make sure they earn their leave?

Seriously just can't believe I posted in a thread that has gone on two pages longer than it should have..........


----------



## CountDC (25 Apr 2012)

In the case of injury due to military activities they can be RTU'd if needed but their class b contract still completed so they will have earned the leave as is already done (or have they changed that one in the last year?).   For example - we had a case where a reserve member was down south and they had a sactioned activity day that included water skiing.  The member went, was injured, rtu'd and paid to the end of his "contracted" service period.  He also filed and was awarded compensation for the period he was unable to work Cl A at the unit or return to his civilian job.  We had another case where a member on course was injured, rtu'd to the unit and we employed her in the OR to the end of her employment period.  

Also if they are that injured/sick do you really think they will need the leave to drive back?  If they can do that then they don't need an rtu.

Injury and illness are a whole other kettle of fish that have a system in place to deal with them that includes compensation often determined by BOI/SI's and Request for Compensation.  In this case they could seek compensation for having their vehicle returned or have it done at their own expense.

If it is determined the injury is not covered by the military and they were really set on it then they could always do a recovery from pay same as when a reg f member uses up all their leave and then decides to retire.

Personally if it is a matter of one day I wouldn't worry about it but that is just me being mean and picking on the severely injured/sick.  ;D


----------



## Deleted member 89807 (4 May 2016)

Hi,

I requested to drive to Gagetown for my trades course (being accepted as a recruit bypass) and was wondering if I would be reimbursed for travel in a personal vehicle? I thought it would be good to have a vehicle since ill be spending some time on PAT Platoon first?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 May 2016)

You might (should?) get the 'cost comparison' amount;  if your RC determines they could get you there in a rusty wheelbarrow for $100, that's how much you might (should?) get if you are approved POMV.


----------



## mariomike (4 May 2016)

Gsc023 said:
			
		

> I requested to drive to Gagetown for my trades course (being accepted as a recruit bypass) and was wondering if I would be reimbursed for travel in a personal vehicle?



You may find this discussion of interest,

Looking to find out if I can take a POMV on a tasking and what the rules are
http://army.ca/forums/threads/105437.75.html
4 pages.

_As always,_  Recruiting is your most trusted source of information.


----------



## trooper142 (23 Aug 2017)

Good morning, 

I checked the forums for an answer, but couldn't find one, as my question refers to a new directive.

I was informed by my unit OR that travel via PMV while on TD was capped at 500$, but when asked for a reference, was unable to provide one. I informed them I saw nothing in the CF TDTI that indicated a change in policy, and was told it may have come from the TB.

Anyone able to provide some clarity on this? I find it a bit weird that the CF TDTI provide for the option for the member to use their PMV, providing certain conditions are met (enough leave to cover the travel time at 500 km a day, a cost comparison with commercial travel to the TD place etc) but they are effectively limiting the access to that option, as 500$ may not be enough to cover the actual costs associated with the travel, depending on where the TD is.

Any clarity would be great!


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2017)

<I hope pusser doens't beat me to this....>



			
				trooper142 said:
			
		

> Good morning,
> ...
> Any clarity would be great!



Your OR is wrong in someways, and right in others. There is a cap on PMV travel, in some cases, but the cap is kilometric distance, not a dollar value. I'll elaborate.

First, the CAF can't order you to drive your own vehicle; there are two way you can end up taking your own vehcile:

1. The CAF can request that you take your vehicle;
2. The CAF picks a different method of travel (train, plane, bus, etc), but YOU, the member, request to take your own vehicle instead.

In case #1, there is no cap at all. If the CO of your unit, who is the one who has ultimate authority to select the method of travel, decides that it is in the best interests of the CAF for your to take your vehicle, than he can request that you take your own vehicle. If you agree, then PMV becomes the "approved method of travel", and you will be reimbursed for the full cost of the travel. If it's a 1542km drive from Kingston to Halifax, for example, you will get 1542 kms x 0.555 cents/km (the Ontario kilometric rate) = $855.81.

In case #2, there _is_ a cap. If the CO of your unit decides that it is in the best interests of the CAF for you to fly, you can request to take your PMV instead. This request does not have to be approved, but if the CO approves it and allows you to take your PMV, then you will on be reimbursed for the 1st day of travel. Since CAF members are not supposed to drive more than 500km in a single day, then the most you will be reimbursed for is 500km x 0.555 cents/km = $277.5

*Note 1: This exampl is just one way travel. The same applies for return travel. In case #2, the total would be $555 (500km each way x 0.555cents/km)
**Note 2: Every province has a different "kilometric rate" which can be found in the National Join Council's Travel Directive Appendices. 0.555cent/km is the rate for travel originating in Ontario.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Aug 2017)

Just adding to what Lumber stated.

Effective July 1, 2017

The rates payable in cents per kilometre for the use of privately owned vehicles driven on authorized government business travel are shown below:

Province/Territory                   Cents/km(taxes included)
Alberta                                   45.5
British Columbia                     50.5
Manitoba                               47.5
New Brunswick                      50.5
Newfoundland and Labrador   55.5
Northwest Territories             59.5
Nova Scotia                          50.0
Nunavut                               58.5
Ontario                                55.5
Prince Edward Island            49.0
Quebec                               50.5
Saskatchewan                     46.5
Yukon                                 61.0

Note:

The kilometric rate payable when a Canadian registered vehicle is driven on government business travel in more than one province or in the USA shall be the rate applicable to the province or territory of registration of the vehicle.


----------



## captloadie (23 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> <I hope pusser doens't beat me to this....>
> 
> Your OR is wrong in someways, and right in others. There is a cap on PMV travel, in some cases, but the cap is kilometric distance, not a dollar value. I'll elaborate.
> 
> ...



One correction to scenario #2: the member would be reimbursed up to the cost comparison equivalent for the most economical means. If the most economical means is less then the kilometric rate, then that is what the member is reimbursed. For example, 4 individuals from Kingston are going on a 2 week course to Borden, and the CO authorizes a staff car or rental, but individual #3 wants to take his own vehicle so he can go home on the weekend, he would get only the meals for his travel day, and no kilometric rate because the most economical means is $0.


----------



## donaldk (5 Jun 2018)

Something that flew CAF wide amongst Snr HRAs today that I got my hands on:

TL;DR = essentially weekend travel proceeding to CL B employment as a Class A reservist is on your own accord and dime.  If you are a Class A reservist and are filling a CFTPO or other Class B/C opportunity and expected by your CoC to do weekend travel via POMV to get to it - you must make your objections known, *individually*, via email/memo/letter to your CO, to bring awareness to this issue.  The email thread below is true however the exact orgs were blanked out.  The only hope is TBS will eventually change their policy allowing DCBA to update CBI 209 down the road.  Morale of the story: if you take your POMV and not getting a cost move you are loosing out.

*** BELOW INTERPRETATION EFFECTIVE 1 AUG 17 ***

QUESTION 1 BY CO of major L3 to L2 Comptroller (J8):

1.       Good morning (L2 Comptroller/J8), as per our discussion, I would ask that you seek further input from DCBA wrt to their change in interpretation of the Weekend Travel Benefit (WTB) for Class A personnel.  This ruling will have a very significant effect on our ability to get future Class A Reserve support for incremental taskings for instructors, QS TP boards members and Administrative Investigations. 

2.       CFTPO tasks are an integral part of [my organization's] course incremental staffing plan.  These tasks are sometimes filled by Class A Reservist on Class B CFTPO task.  I do not understand the differentiation of a Class A member coming on a Class B tasking that involves an extended period of time TD as compared to a Reg Force member or a full time Class B Reservist coming on tasking.  All three types of military members should be given the same benefits will on TD completing a CFTPO tasking.  The reimbursement is a recognition of a member being away from their family and should be no different for a Class A member while on Class B tasking.  Furthermore, Class A personnel lose their entitlement to their commuting assistance benefit when accepting a Class B tasking, which implies they are now considered Class B for the duration of the Class B employment and should be afforded the same TD benefits. The Class A member is often helping fill a Reg force manning shortfall and not allowing them the same benefits could jeopardize the support we have had, and hope to continue to have, from the Class A Reserve community. 

3.       My unit has carried out two Board of Inquiries over the past 7 months, relying heavily upon Class A members accepting Class B tasks for up to six months at a time to fill Board positions that went unfilled by Reg Force CFTPO taskings.  These members were on TD and not within daily commuting distance of their home units or families.  Not providing the WDT benefit could jeopardize our ability to tap into this group  to fill these critical functions.


4.       The implementation of the revised interpretation below could have a devastating effect on [my organization's] future ability to fill CFTPO tasks in support of Training Establishments' courses and Administrative Investigations.  Request further consideration be given prior overturning a previous interpretation,  and if this new direction is up help, I would request a detailed explanation as to why there has been such a significant change in policy interpretation.



QUESTION 2 by L2 Comptroller/J8:




Just to clarify if a Class A member takes a Class B contract (outside their geo area) to instruct or to do a BOI, would they be entitled to “Reimbursement of weekend travel while on TD”? 

I believe they should be entitled because they are performing tasks outside of their normal duties.



It is extremely hard to fill these tasking and by not providing this benefit could definitely threaten our ability to use Reserve personnel to fill these positions [and our ability to fill a CAF wide training mandate impacting the CAF as a whole].



ANSWER by +DCBA 3 Clarifcations to L2 Comptroller/J8:



Ref:  CBI 209.31



Sorry for the delay.  This policy has been under much scrutiny and we also requested Legal advice.  DCBA 3 understands the dissatisfaction and the disparity of benefits and fully recognizes the need for change.  



However, we cannot change our interpretation of the current policy. 



To answer your question below:



If a Class A member takes a Class B contract (outside their geo area) and he/she is performing tasks outside of his/her normal duties (incremental tasking), he/she is not eligible to reimbursement for weekend travel based on the limitations at para 2 (c) (iii) of ref, as he/she is not already on a Class B contract and called out for an extended period of time for another purpose.



If a Class A member takes a Class B contract (outside their geo area) and he/she is performing tasks that are part of his/her normal duties(it is not an incremental tasking, like a CO when visiting units under his control, Audit WO when traveling to conduct audits etc), he/she may be reimbursed IAW para 1 of ref.



To breakdown the two entitlements in order to further assist you to remain in compliance with the Treasury Board approved policy:



1.       Reimbursement when performing tasks outside of normal duties (Para 2)

·         Who

o   Restrictive to members on full-time service

o   Regular Force, the Reserve Force on Class “C” Reserve Service or a member of the Reserve Force on Class “B” Reserve Service who, while on callout, is required to remain on callout and to perform tasks that are outside of their normal duties.  (2 (c) (iii))

§  To be clear - this only includes Reserve Force members who are on a Class B contract and then get “called out” for another purpose (incrementally) thus performing tasks outside of normal duties.  Reserve Force members (Class A) who fill incremental taskings and proceed on Class B service are not eligible under para 2

·         What

o   Reimbursement to travel on a weekend when performing tasks outside of normal duties (incremental tasks)

·         When

o   If authorized by the Commanding Officer to travel on a weekend, once every 30 days providing before beginning the travel the member has served at least eight days of actual duty at the temporary duty location and after completion of the travel there are at least eight days of actual duty remaining at the temporary duty location

·         Where

o   To the member’s normal place of duty or the place where their dependents are residing

·         How much

o   IAW CFTDTI



2.       Reimbursement when performing tasks that are part of their normal duties (Para 1)

·         Who

o   All members

·         What

o   Reimbursement to travel on a weekend when on temporary duty and performing tasks that are part of their normal duties (situations outside of incremental tasking billets) providing the member is not attending a course of training or instruction

·         When

o   Any time the member is authorized by their Commanding Officer to travel on a weekend and unless after completion of the travel, there are fewer than three days of actual duty remaining at the temporary duty location

·         Where

o   To the member’s normal place of duty or the place where their dependents are residing

·         How much

o   Shall not exceed the cost of maintaining the member at the temporary duty location



The policy in question is quite old and steps to modernize such old policies, for submission to Treasury Board, has begun; CBI 209 will be reviewed as soon as possible.  Unfortunately, a Treasury Board submission and its approval is not a fast process; policies are prioritized by the CoCs and even the GoC, and it can involve negotiations, policy comparisons, costing, and various levels of reviews (including legal). 

*** ABOVE INTERPRETATION EFFECTIVE 1 AUG 17 ***


----------



## kratz (6 Jun 2018)

Be careful jumping the gun on this one. 

Someone, has merged two concepts in their interpretation of the written Instructions:

CFTDI  - applies to all authorized TD travel, to and from your home.  For most government work (civilians, RegF, PRes ect...) So Class A reservist continue to be able be eligible to take their PMV on a TD tasking, including travel over on a Sat/Sun IAW CFTDI.


CBI 209.31 - restricts WTB to RegF and limited Cl B Personal. This is a different and separate benefit from actually transporting a member to/from a TD site. 

So no substantial changes from what had been occurring for years.


----------



## CountDC (6 Jun 2018)

and wrong.

Class A members are not eligible to take their PMV on TD if the travel is over the daily travel limit of 500kms as heavily discussed in another thread unless:

1. The employment period is long enough for them to earn leave to cover the additional travel days; and
2. The employing unit agrees to the mbr taking leave at the beginning and end of their employment to cover the additional travel days.

not even getting into the paid leave discussion again.  Feel free to look up the other thread if you want to get into all those details/arguments.


----------



## ballz (6 Jun 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> and wrong.
> 
> Class A members are not eligible to take their PMV on TD if the travel is over the daily travel limit of 500kms as heavily discussed in another thread unless:
> 
> ...



I sincerely hope the BS around POMVs (it's more than just the Class A stuff that's ridiculous on this issue) is near the top of this list of concerns being brought to the TB... but somehow I doubt it.


----------



## captloadie (7 Jun 2018)

/tangent
I'm curious on which specific BS on POMVs you would like changed? I agree that the Class A issue is a great dissatifier. 

The rules on Reg F/Class B members though has a specific reason. And it isn't a financial one (other than most cost effective means). It is about a member's safety, and treating members like adults. The CoC, by allowing a member to take their own vehicle, is accommodating a personal desire of the member. By forcing the member to be on some type of leave over and above the allotted travel day is the CoC doing its due diligence to ensure the member can take adequate time to get to their destination. We aren't babying people here, we are actually providing the member an opportunity to act like an adult. I won't dictate to a member he needs to take all 4 days to get to his course location for example. I'm giving them the flexibility of making an adult decision on what they can personally do the drive in, arriving safely and ready for course. I agree that it should matter what type of leave the member is on, as long as it is valid for that purpose.

/tangent


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2018)

With a 500km/day enforced limit?  That's being treated 'like an adult'?  I disagree.  

If I'm Cl A and starting a CL B on Base X, 800kms away on a Sunday which is also my travel day, how exactly can the CAF tell me where I can and can't drive my car on Fri and Sat?  Or, is this specifically WRT paid duty travel vice "what I do when I am not on the Queens Time"?


----------



## CountDC (8 Jun 2018)

ok I will play on that one.

They are not telling you what you can do, they are telling you what the military/government will cover you for.  If you decide to drive without authority then the military does not pay for your travel, you are on your own dime.  More importantly though is that if you have an accident while traveling on your own then you are not covered by the military or VAC.  If you are Reg F and get into an accident outside the one day travel/500kms then VAC may not cover you. Liability and benefits plays a part in this.  Claims are always done up to reflect the authorized form of travel which is usually CA.

I always inform people, I am not saying you can't, I am providing the information for you to make an educated decision knowing what will be claimable and the possible risks involved.  Like an adult you then decide what you are willing to give up and if the risk is worth it.


----------



## Lumber (8 Jun 2018)

There is a very easy solution for all Class-A members who want to drive their own vehicles to courses/taskings etc. It's dishonest, technically, but it works and you still get to keep your travel day as a paid travel day. Just figure it out and you're golden. 

As for RegF/Class-B, I agree with both EITS and captloadie. 

The rules are therefore your safety. If the tasking is 1500km away, and you have to be there tomorrow, then yes, techncailly you can drive there in 12hrs going 120kph the whole way, but is it safe?

Now, 500km a day? That's too little. How about 800km a day.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jun 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> ok I will play on that one.
> 
> They are not telling you what you can do, they are telling you what the military/government will cover you for.  If you decide to drive without authority then the military does not pay for your travel, you are on your own dime.  More importantly though is that if you have an accident while traveling on your own then you are not covered by the military or VAC.  If you are Reg F and get into an accident outside the one day travel/500kms then VAC may not cover you. Liability and benefits plays a part in this.  Claims are always done up to reflect the authorized form of travel which is usually CA.
> 
> I always inform people, I am not saying you can't, I am providing the information for you to make an educated decision knowing what will be claimable and the possible risks involved.  Like an adult you then decide what you are willing to give up and if the risk is worth it.



Really good points to draw attention to.  I know if it were me, and I was going 1000km away on a Cl B for 2-3 months, I'd take my car.  I recall my Cl B callout days with no vehicle...not fun.  Of course, yes, then the mbr is effectively "a civie" travelling back and forth.  I've seen compromise too.  I've also see some units say "you can't use your Special Leave days to travel".  And others have no problem with it as it is 'paid leave'.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The rules are therefore your safety. If the tasking is 1500km away, and you have to be there tomorrow, then yes, techncailly you can drive there in 12hrs going 120kph the whole way, but is it safe?
> 
> Now, 500km a day? That's too little. How about 800km a day.



800 sounds more adult-realistic to me and, IIRC, is about the amount professional trucker drivers are limited to a day.  

If I was posted from coast to coast, I'd have X days to travel.  No one AFAIK actually checks my file to ensure "I only drove 500km/day".


----------



## kratz (8 Jun 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 800 sounds more adult-realistic to me and, IIRC, is about the amount professional trucker drivers are limited to a day.
> 
> If I was posted from coast to coast, I'd have X days to travel.  No one AFAIK actually checks my file to ensure "I only drove 500km/day".



Not only safety, but some of these travel policies align with what the public service unions have negotiated.
While a private sector trucker may be limited to 800Km per day, how do the TB agreements bear on our current restrictions?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jun 2018)

No idea, but if that is part or the majority of the reason we became restricted 500 a day....well, I think the GoC needs to evaluate if the CAF and the public servants need to have the exact same parameters;  I think we do not.  We have different needs for different reasons (IMO).

Of course, reality and common sense doesn't have to play a part in the equation.   :tsktsk:


----------



## ballz (8 Jun 2018)

captloadie said:
			
		

> /tangent
> I'm curious on which specific BS on POMVs you would like changed? I agree that the Class A issue is a great dissatifier.
> 
> The rules on Reg F/Class B members though has a specific reason. And it isn't a financial one (other than most cost effective means). It is about a member's safety, and treating members like adults. The CoC, by allowing a member to take their own vehicle, is accommodating a personal desire of the member. By forcing the member to be on some type of leave over and above the allotted travel day is the CoC doing its due diligence to ensure the member can take adequate time to get to their destination. We aren't babying people here, we are actually providing the member an opportunity to act like an adult. I won't dictate to a member he needs to take all 4 days to get to his course location for example. I'm giving them the flexibility of making an adult decision on what they can personally do the drive in, arriving safely and ready for course. I agree that it should matter what type of leave the member is on, as long as it is valid for that purpose.
> ...



I've driven across Canada three times. The first two times, I drove 16 hours a day. The third time, I drove about 10. Good to know I'm not adult enough. You are certainly the first human I've come across that thinks telling a grown man/woman how many hours he can drive in a day - particularly limiting it to five hours (but I don't care if you're telling him he can't drive for 16 hours, the point stands) - is "treating people like an adult" and "not babysitting" them.

If I'm on annual leave, or weekend leave for that matter, and I want to drive in circles on the Anthony Henday for 20 hrs, that's none of DND's  business. If I'm on annual leave, or weekend leave, and want to drive to from Edmonton to Borden, that's none of DND's business. So this policy is particularly awful because it's very clear that you are on leave and therefore it's not duty-travel / injuries and are not service-related but yet you must take enough leave to do so as if you were 1. being paid to do this and 2. covered in the event of injury. That is literally trying to suck and blow at the same time. Either I'm on leave and it's none of DND's business, or I'm not on leave and you can tell me I can only drive 500km. Not both.

This policy is literally a punitive measure applied to those who are being sent on TD for often times months at a time. Not only that, but then they literally save money on the backs of the member who is getting screwed by reimbursing him *less* than if he flew.

Find me any other job that asks their employee to go to some craphole in nowhereville for 3 months and tells them "if you want to take your car at your own expense, I will reimburse you less money and by the way, forfeit some of your leave for helping me out." and then go to the recruiting/retention thread and think about it for a bit. Most of our compensation & benefits is based off of public service... in the public service they literally ask the employee "do you want to fly or drive" and then when they say "drive," they get reimbursed the high-rate, the hotels, etc etc etc.

The policy should be re-written to something that _does_ treat members like adults, such as "if member elects to drive, they will be provided one duty travel day and reimbursed the cost of the Commanding Officer's selected mode of transportation. The member will be required to make all other arrangements necessary, including use of annual leave if required."



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 800 sounds more adult-realistic to me and, IIRC, is about the amount professional trucker drivers are limited to a day.



My cousin is a trucker and told me he is limited to 13 hours a day behind the wheel. I don't know how much that varies across provinces or if it does at all.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jun 2018)

Just as comparisons...  On the Hornet, you can have a crew duty day of 14 hours and CO can extend to 16 hours.  Furthermore, I can fly an 8-hour combat mission (and I have on 3 occasions) and up to 10 hours a day for transits.

Yet, I can't drive for more than 5 hours on a highway?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jun 2018)

Yup; we are 18 hour crew day max at the crew commander level, CO can authorize a 24 hour crew day.  We fly straight across the ocean from this continent to "others" non-stop and that is no issue.  I've been on crews that have done 12+hour missions.

Drive more than 5 hours straight?  Unpossible!  Unsafe!   rly:


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (9 Jun 2018)

Sadly the people who makes these policies can’t think outside the box, nor think about operational reasons. Making policies that follow “common sense” or “in the best interest” of the member is not part of their mandate. 

Rant off


----------



## captloadie (11 Jun 2018)

Ballz - I'm still not really sure what point you are trying to make. What does it matter if you drove straight across Canada in so many hours so many times. Good for you. You made an adult decision on what you could do safely. Congratulations. And it doesn't matter what they do on civvy street, other than for individuals like you who continue to put forward the argument that its so much better than the CAF. 

The crew day scenario for flying, much like comparing what professional drivers are allowed to do, isn't valid as a straight across comparison. Max and EITS, after those 12 or 16 hour days, how many times have you had to get up and do it all again the next day for more than 2 days straight? I know the crew day rules as well, and unless there is an operational imperative, know there are mandatory rest periods R days. It isn't supposed to happen that you fly two straight 12-14 hour crew days, and then be in class the next morning at 0800 wide awake and ready to learn (yes, it probably has happened, but it isn't the norm).

Professional drivers, especially long haul drivers, do it for a living. Their bodies have adjusted to the job, and they are mentally and physically adapted to long days behind the wheel. Even then though, they suffer from fatigue, and if you Google it, there aren't many days go by that some semi hasn't been in an accident due to fatigue. They also aren't making money unless they are on the road. Capt Dumas or Cpl Bloggins who sits behind a desk or works on the shop floor for 8 hours a day and then heads home can't be expected to be able to pull 2 or 3 long days behind the wheel and then show up for class ready to go. But if they choose to, well that's a personal choice.

Is the limit of 500km too little? Probably. But what should the limit be? And do we need to be careful that we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot, because all of a sudden the Move entitlements change? How long before someone says that if you can drive 800km for non move related travel, you can do the same when moving (although I can travel a lot farther in a day without a wife, 3 kids the dog and a everything else I'm dragging along).


----------



## CountDC (11 Jun 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Really good points to draw attention to.  I know if it were me, and I was going 1000km away on a Cl B for 2-3 months, I'd take my car.  I recall my Cl B callout days with no vehicle...not fun.  Of course, yes, then the mbr is effectively "a civie" travelling back and forth.  I've seen compromise too.  I've also see some units say "you can't use your Special Leave days to travel".  And others have no problem with it as it is 'paid leave'.



I don't blame anyone for taking their vehicles if they can.  A few months in Borden would be horrible without one.

The wording of the leave and the various interpretations need work.  Instead of using the term paid leave and then trying to impose annual leave just doesn't make sense.  If it was meant to be annual then say that.  Special Reloc leave though is clear in the LPM to be taken at location and is to give you time to organize everything for when you are away.  That one I agree with but don't see an issue with weekend and short if the CO wants to give it.  I still get paid when I take short leave.

As for other things I see.

One part that I always find amazing is how often people aim at the CAF for all these policies that are first put out by TB, appear in the NJC and then expanded further in the CAF to meet our needs (again approved by TB).  NJC 3.3.11 (c) has the same daily restriction.  The change for DND is that you can do 150kms along with a full day works vice NJC 250kms, most likely to protect the members as I don't see how that would be saving the military any money.  Again don't see anyone stopping you from making the choice, all of this is to protect the members as a restriction on what the chain of command can impose or expect from their members rather than have some of the stuff that happened in the past along with protecting the crown from liability.

Remember the CAF does not tell you to drive your car, you are asking permission to do it so yes the CAF and the government does have the right to put restrictions in there.  Saving a few dollars driving is not the only factor.  Liability - the member that decides to drive 1000kms, has an accident due to fatigue, runs to lawyers and lawsuit filed.  Injured someone else?  Again CAF expected to cover them too. Even without the lawsuits the member spends months unable to perform their duties.  That is a loss to the crown.  Yep, we are all investments by the crown, they have spent time and money training us to do certain duties and when we can't it is a loss.

At the end of the day, if you want to ignore policies put into place to protect everyone and choose to do something else feel free to do so.  Seems unreasonable to me to expect your employer to cover you though.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Jun 2018)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The crew day scenario for flying, much like comparing what professional drivers are allowed to do, isn't valid as a straight across comparison. Max and EITS, after those 12 or 16 hour days, how many times have you had to get up and do it all again the next day for more than 2 days straight? I know the crew day rules as well, and unless there is an operational imperative, know there are mandatory rest periods R days. It isn't supposed to happen that you fly two straight 12-14 hour crew days, and then be in class the next morning at 0800 wide awake and ready to learn (yes, it probably has happened, but it isn't the norm).



I have regular 12 hours crew day with the minimum 12 hours crew rest and a lot of them consecutively.  Not abnormal...

I recently flew 16 hours in 46 hours with the minimum crew rest between crew days.  No issues or abnormal fatigue.


----------



## ballz (11 Jun 2018)

:facepalm:  :facepalm:


			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> What does it matter if you drove straight across Canada in so many hours so many times. Good for you. You made an adult decision on what you could do safely. Congratulations.


An adult decision that I cannot make in the CAF because people, such as yourself, are advocating I be babysat when I am on my own time, and my own dime, and forced to take 7 days of leave for what is a 2-day drive (Edmonton to Borden, for example). That is why it is relevant.

And, of course, you are doing an about-face. First your argument insinuated that by not taking all the days, the member was not being adult-like.



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> And it doesn't matter what they do on civvy street, other than for individuals like you who continue to put forward the argument that its so much better than the CAF.



Uh huh. Who do we compete with for labour if not the private labour market? And how are the standards of other organizations not relevant? Are you going to pull the "on deployment" argument next?



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> Professional drivers, especially long haul drivers, do it for a living. Their bodies have adjusted to the job, and they are mentally and physically adapted to long days behind the wheel. Even then though, they suffer from fatigue, and if you Google it, there aren't many days go by that some semi hasn't been in an accident due to fatigue. They also aren't making money unless they are on the road.



I didn't realize all those long hours of slouching in a chair, drinking coffee, staring straight forward, did not adequately prepare me for perils of driving. Are you safe to drive home after an 8-hour shift behind a computer?



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> Capt Dumas or Cpl Bloggins who sits behind a desk or works on the shop floor for 8 hours a day and then heads home can't be expected to be able to pull 2 or 3 long days behind the wheel and then show up for class ready to go.



We're not talking about Capt Dumas or Cpl Bloggins being expected to do this, are we? You're mixing up when the member is told to drive a POMV or a rental car, and when the member is asking to take their POMV because it's for their own benefit.



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> But if they choose to, well that's a personal choice.



No, it's not. The personal choice part has been taken out because we're trying to babysit.



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> Ballz - I'm still not really sure what point you are trying to make.p.



There's two very clear points.

1. I am an adult. I can drive as far as I want when I'm on my own time and my own dime and it's none of the DND's business.

2. You can't suck and blow at the same time. If you're going to say "members are on leave for their travel" then you can't, at the same time say "but they can only drive 500km." Well, the DND clearly can suck and blow at the same time but that's why it's a waste of $20 billion a year.



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> Is the limit of 500km too little? Probably. But what should the limit be?



If I'm on leave, there is no and should not be a limit. Easy enough.



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> And do we need to be careful that we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot, because all of a sudden the Move entitlements change? How long before someone says that if you can drive 800km for non move related travel, you can do the same when moving (although I can travel a lot farther in a day without a wife, 3 kids the dog and a everything else I'm dragging along).



The 500km/day thing is insanely generous and I wish it would be changed to 800km / 8 hrs a day. If someone is so weak they can't drive for more than 500km / 5hrs a day without becoming a safety hazard, what exactly can they do? Clearly this is something that was negotiated by a bunch of unionized employees and it needlessly costs the taxpayers. But here's the rub, in practice, public servants are simply asked "what do you want to do, fly or drive?" and the approving authority picks the method requested. They don't play the nickle and dime game that we do. So the public servants don't have to have this gripe, one because they get to choose and two because they don't get sent to isolated crapholes for months at a time.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> That one I agree with but don't see an issue with weekend and short if the CO wants to give it.  I still get paid when I take short leave.



That interpretation of "paid leave" seems to be isolated so far. Thank God. Whoever is going down that road should get a smack.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> One part that I always find amazing is how often people aim at the CAF for all these policies that are first put out by TB



The original comment I made was directly in relation to the email that stated that DCBA is addressing x,y,z, issues with the TB.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Again don't see anyone stopping you from making the choice, all of this is to protect the members as a restriction on what the chain of command can impose or expect from their members rather than have some of the stuff that happened in the past along with protecting the crown from liability.



People seem to be unable to differentiate between when the CoC tells you to take POMV / rental, and when you are asking to do. It's reasonable to put limits on the CoC for when they are forcing people to drive... it's not reasonable to put these kind of limits on someone _**when they are on their own leave, driving on their own time and dime*.*_

Plus, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if I get in an accident in the first 100km. The Crown would still be subject to a lawsuit if I was on duty. If I wasn't on duty (i.e. annual leave), then no, they wouldn't be. My law textbook is on the other side of the country but it's basic tort law, vicarious liability.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Remember the CAF does not tell you to drive your car, you are asking permission to do it so yes the CAF and the government does have the right to put restrictions in there.



No, they don't. If permission being granted is contingent on me *using my own leave, using my own money, etc* then no, they don't. I have to ask permission for all annual leave that I take. In no circumstance does the CAF have a right to tell how many KMs a day I can drive. Even if the CFTDI they don't go as far as to tell you that. They just say "the member must take paid leave based on a formula." It doesn't even mention only driving 500km a day.

It is literally just making you forfeit compensation (yes, annual leave is compensation). No driving rules attached. It is literally the same thing as saying "the member will forfeit one day's pay per day based on the kilometres travelled / 500km."



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, if you want to ignore policies put into place to protect everyone and choose to do something else feel free to do so.



We don't have an option to opt-out using the leave. And there is no policy, not even the one that says you have to take annual leave based on 500km/day, that says you are limited to driving 500km/day.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Seems unreasonable to me to expect your employer to cover you though.



Okay, wtf are you even talking about? Where is anyone suggesting if we drive on our annual leave we think it ought to be covered as a service-related injury? And let's be clear, you are *not* going to be "covered" if you do choose to drive 500km day *while on annual leave.*

I would like to be able to take my annual leave and drive as far as I wish without the DND being involved... just like every other day of annual / weekend leave I take that's not attached to a claim. If I drive in circles for 20 hours on the Anthony Henday on a day of weekend leave and get in an accident I don't expect it to be a service-related injury, and I don't expect it to be on any other day of annual leave. Not a very outlandish idea.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Jun 2018)

To be fair, with young kids, 500 km can easily turn into 8+ hours...


----------



## Quirky (12 Jun 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Just as comparisons...  On the Hornet, you can have a crew duty day of 14 hours and CO can extend to 16 hours.  Furthermore, I can fly an 8-hour combat mission (and I have on 3 occasions) and up to 10 hours a day for transits.
> 
> Yet, I can't drive for more than 5 hours on a highway?



How many of those flying hours are actually flying - HOTAS? Those heading, course and ATC switches get worked the most. I know after 6 hours of driving I’m pushing it unless the seats are extremely comfortable.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Jun 2018)

Doing CAS in theater? Lots of hands-on flying and focus on sensors/other aircraft/tanking/airspace/targets and weapons employment.  If I am using the autopilot, it's to free some of my capacity to mission tasks (and because the aircraft flies itself doesn't mean everything is done for you - the autopilot doesn't look over your formation, make sure you stay in the airspace, employ weapons, track targets or tank for you...

 How much experience do you have flying a Hornet?


----------



## Furniture (12 Jun 2018)

I've driven across the country several times now for postings and courses, and have to see an issue being raised by my CoC for driving more than 500km in a day. Routinely I drive 8-10 hour days based on the location of towns with reasonable hotels. I`ve also never resented taking a few days of leave in exchange for the drive either, it gave me extra time at home or on location to get situated before the course/tasking began.

The main benefit of the 500km a day planning model is it encourages people to make smart driving choices. Most of us have likely done a 16+ hour driving day in the past, but they are generally unsafe and shouldn`t be encouraged as the norm when traveling. Working a 16 hour day for operational reasons isn`t the same as driving a 16 hour day because you didn`t want to use leave or spend money.


----------



## Quirky (12 Jun 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Doing CAS in theater? Lots of hands-on flying and focus on sensors/other aircraft/tanking/airspace/targets and weapons employment.  If I am using the autopilot, it's to free some of my capacity to mission tasks (and because the aircraft flies itself doesn't mean everything is done for you - the autopilot doesn't look over your formation, make sure you stay in the airspace, employ weapons, track targets or tank for you...
> 
> How much experience do you have flying a Hornet?



I have my 5 hour patch and I’m quite proud of it but would prefer to keep both feet on the ground. From my “vast” experience in that fish bowl I can say it does fly itself rather nicely. Doing the other things while flying is a different matter. It’s like driving 10 hours from Calgary to Winnipeg vs Calgary to Vancouver. You can pretty much zone out through the prairies while driving into the mountains requires more attention.


----------



## Lumber (12 Jun 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> 1. I am an adult. I can drive as far as I want when I'm on my own time and my own dime and it's none of the DND's business.
> 
> 2. You can't suck and blow at the same time. If you're going to say "members are on leave for their travel" then you can't, at the same time say "but they can only drive 500km." Well, the DND clearly can suck and blow at the same time but that's why it's a waste of $20 billion a year.



I'm number my points but they don't correspond directly to your numbers points above.

1. You cannot be ordered to take POMV. Period. If your chain of command wants you to take POMV, and you say no, it's up to them to find an alternative method (including rental).

2. This is a fine line, but it's an important distinction: if you chose to take POMV vice the preferred method of travel, then you "shall take one day’s paid leave, after the first day, for every 500 kilometres travelled." 

Notice that it doesn't say "you must only drive 500km per day". Obviously, this implies that you should be driving only 500km per day, but the CAF isn't ordering you to. You're on leave, so do what you want, but the CAF is forcing you to take ample time to make safe decisions. 

3. Weekend leave is considered paid leave, so long as you are actually getting paid (sorry, Class-A reservists, in most cases, although I have found a loophole). I fought this battle all the way up to DMCA and won. Of course the way this organization works, I'm sure that next week a different analyst at DMCA will provide the exact opposite answer to someone else...


----------



## ballz (12 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> 1. You cannot be ordered to take POMV. Period. If your chain of command wants you to take POMV, and you say no, it's up to them to find an alternative method (including rental).



I’m aware of this. I’ve went against my pedantic nature and deliberately ignored the nuance as that fact has no impact on the discussion and I am trying to respond to 100 other points right now. You are “asked” to take POMV or told to take a rental, in either case, the CoC is limited to having you drive 500km/day for the purpose of restraining the CoC from bag-driving a member.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> 2. This is a fine line, but it's an important distinction: if you chose to take POMV vice the preferred method of travel, then you "shall take one day’s paid leave, after the first day, for every 500 kilometres travelled."
> 
> Notice that it doesn't say "you must only drive 500km per day". Obviously, this implies that you should be driving only 500km per day, but the CAF isn't ordering you to. You're on leave, so do what you want, but the CAF is forcing you to take ample time to make safe decisions.



I’ve already pointed this out. The principle remains the same, and the principle is “you are not an adult capable of making adult decisions, and therefore we can tell you how many days you need to drive.” The fact that they do not explicitly say “you can only drive 500km a day,” IMO, indicates they were probably told by a JAG that they couldn’t, so they just re-worded it to a roundabout manner (which is probably even more irritating). In this case, you are literally being told to forfeit compensation regardless. It’s nonsensical.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> 3. Weekend leave is considered paid leave, so long as you are actually getting paid (sorry, Class-A reservists, in most cases, although I have found a loophole). I fought this battle all the way up to DMCA and won. Of course the way this organization works, I'm sure that next week a different analyst at DMCA will provide the exact opposite answer to someone else...



Glad you won, whether it’s a poor policy applied correctly or a poor policy applied incorrectly, it’s still a poor policy. That only softens the blow (although I believe there are still places applying the policy that poorly). Regardless, even with weekends there are still cases where you are going to end up choosing between forfeiting annual leave or a reduced quality of life on your tasking. Edmonton to Borden, 7 days of leave req’d to go one-way. In 2 RCR we had guys getting boned all the time for taskings, we supported them as best we could but the CO can only give out 2 short and that's really the only flexibility he has to try and soften the blow of what is a piss poor policy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s weigh what we’ve discussed so far…

Positive aspects of this policy
1. “You can take the extra leave days and spend them at home, getting ready for your tasking if the 2 days of special weren’t enough.” This is not a result of this this policy… you could always request to take your own annual for this purpose if you so choose. So, value added? Nil.

2. “The crown’s liability is reduced.” This is false. If you are on duty and have only travelled 100km and get in an accident, the Crown is still vicariously liable. If you are not on duty, the Crown's liability is unchanged. So, value added? Nil.

3. “It “protects” the member.” No, it doesn’t. If the member is on annual leave and gets in an accident after driving only 100km, he’s not going to be successful in a VAC claim. You are asleep at the wheel if you think otherwise. Re: The very upsetting story of Capt Kim Fawcett… if the Crown fought 3 times against her now, then you and I are hooped if we get in an accident while on annual leave. So, value added? Nil.

Negative aspects of this policy

1. Members are treated as though they are not adults and can’t be allowed to decide for themselves how many days they need to drive any given distance.

2. Members choose between forfeiting compensation and proceeding on long taskings in crapholes with no vehicle (Reduced quality of life, increased expenses). In either case, the member is negatively affected.

3. Compared to civilian work, this policy results in worse compensation/expense reimbursement. Retention/morale negatively affected.

Pretty clear that the sum of all parts of this policy is a negative overall effect, given that this policy results in *no* positives and definitely some negatives, in some cases some very strong negatives.



			
				Furniture said:
			
		

> I've driven across the country several times now for postings and courses, and have to see an issue being raised by my CoC for driving more than 500km in a day.



That’s because they can’t tell you not to drive more than 500km in a day, and yet you are forced to take the leave away. See: sucking and blowing at the same time.



			
				Furniture said:
			
		

> I`ve also never resented taking a few days of leave in exchange for the drive either, it gave me extra time at home or on location to get situated before the course/tasking began.



That’s as great for you as it is irrelevant. You have the option of requesting annual leave prior to your 2x special without this policy. Why should everyone else be forced to take annual leave they don’t need to take?



			
				Furniture said:
			
		

> The main benefit of the 500km a day planning model is it encourages people to make smart driving choices. Most of us have likely done a 16+ hour driving day in the past, but they are generally unsafe and shouldn`t be encouraged as the norm when traveling. Working a 16 hour day for operational reasons isn`t the same as driving a 16 hour day because you didn`t want to use leave or spend money.



Are you my mom and dad? If that’s “the main benefit,” then thank you, because that is ******* *weak.*

People going on tasks for 5-6 months at a time shouldn’t be forced to choose between forfeiting compensation or a reduced quality of life / added expenses on the other end. Thanks though, next time the troops need help deciding what should go in their bagged lunch I’ll refer them to you.

What is “safe” and “worth it” is a judgement call. Last time I checked, every member of the CAF over the age of 18 is considered a competent adult and don’t need mom and dad to determine that for them. They can vote, they can sign on for unlimited liability, they can operate fighter jets, they can decide for themselves what is "safe" enough or what is "worth it."


----------



## ballz (12 Jun 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> To be fair, with young kids, 500 km can easily turn into 8+ hours...



Thank you, I forgot to address this.

Yes, 100%, it can. The CFIRP and the CFTDI are two completely different policies. We can easily accommodate both. And, even if we couldn't, we could fix it within the CFIRP on its own because we already give extra benefits / compensation / etc to people with dependents for certain things.

So yes, is it reasonable for someone with 3 young kids to need 500km/day. Absolutely. Does that mean members proceeding on a TD tasking should have to give up annual leave in exchange for taking their vehicle? I don't see how the two are related.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jun 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I have my 5 hour patch and I’m quite proud of it but would prefer to keep both feet on the ground. From my “vast” experience in that fish bowl I can say it does fly itself rather nicely. Doing the other things while flying is a different matter. It’s like driving 10 hours from Calgary to Winnipeg vs Calgary to Vancouver. You can pretty much zone out through the prairies while driving into the mountains requires more attention.



Except, in the Prairies you aren't sitting at 10,000 feet altitude.  Flying at high altitude in a pressurized cabin isn't ground level.  Sitting at 10,000 altitude has its own effect after X/XX hours.

Flying and driving don't compare 'apples to apples'.


----------



## CountDC (12 Jun 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> No, it's not. The personal choice part has been taken out because we're trying to babysit.



Not completely - you still have a choice.  Drive your car without the approval to do so.  Nothing stopping you from doing that other than if you want to be claim your travel expenses.  I have a few members that have opted to do that.  You can also choice to take the required leave and drive as long as you want.   



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> But here's the rub, in practice, public servants are simply asked "what do you want to do, fly or drive?" and the approving authority picks the method requested. They don't play the nickle and dime game that we do. So the public servants don't have to have this gripe, one because they get to choose and two because they don't get sent to isolated crapholes for months at a time.


NJC does state they are restricted to 500kms a day.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> That interpretation of "paid leave" seems to be isolated so far. Thank God. Whoever is going down that road should get a smack.


DCBA around 2014/2015 I believe it was.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> People seem to be unable to differentiate between when the CoC tells you to take POMV / rental, and when you are asking to do. [/b][/i]


Telling you to take POMV is not an option.  They can ask and if you agree leave is not required.  Rental car they can tell but again leave is not required.  Both options would have them covering all your travel expenses including meals, hotels, mileage/rental cost.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Plus, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if I get in an accident in the first 100km. The Crown would still be subject to a lawsuit if I was on duty. If I wasn't on duty (i.e. annual leave), then no, they wouldn't be. My law textbook is on the other side of the country but it's basic tort law, vicarious liability.


had to look back and yes I could have worded that better.  The point was if they didn't have the 500km limit for your travel day which you are on duty for and you decided to drive 1000km.  



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> We don't have an option to opt-out using the leave.


We do have an option.  Travel by other means such as CA and forfeit travel expenses are both other options.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Okay, wtf are you even talking about? Where is anyone suggesting if we drive on our annual leave we think it ought to be covered.


Perhaps you missed this part or took it to mean I only see things in this board:  As for other things I see.

"they can decide for themselves what is "safe" enough or what is "worth it."

Yet despite all these regulations, policies and chains of command telling us all this we still have people getting injured in ways that shouldn't happen, equipment broken and kit lost because they decided they knew better what was safe and worth it.


----------



## ballz (12 Jun 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Not completely - you still have a choice.  Drive your car without the approval to do so.  Nothing stopping you from doing that other than if you want to be claim your travel expenses.  I have a few members that have opted to do that.  You can also choice to take the required leave and drive as long as you want.



Uh huh. And that is sadly what many are resorting to. What an excellent mentality, just great leadership. Great "look after your people" instincts. Instead of fixing a shitty policy, just tell people to pick the lesser of the available evils and suck it up. And the lesser evil is "no support" option. Pretty sad when the "no support" option is better than the support currently offered under the policy. Why waste time writing a policy that doesn't frig the member we are about to send on a 5-6 month tasking.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> NJC does state they are restricted to 500kms a day.



_*In practice,*_ their supervisor asks them what they want to do, and selects that as the preferred method.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> The point was if they didn't have the 500km limit for your travel day which you are on duty for and you decided to drive 1000km.



I'm not debating the travel day. If I'm on duty, I'll only drive 200km if the CoC decides to be that silly. No skin off my back.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Yet despite all these regulations, policies and chains of command telling us all this we still have people getting injured in ways that shouldn't happen, equipment broken and kit lost because they decided they knew better what was safe and worth it.



I spent five years in 2 RCR with more people driving back and forth to Petawawa/Meaford/others than I could possibly count. I had to have been there for literally over 1000 people going to Petawawa and back. I do no recall a single accident, certainly no grievous injuries. The CAF is a huge organization, will they happen? For sure they will. But are you really going to advocate treating everyone like a damn infant to avoid a risk that is essentially negligible. That's a babysitting mentality, full stop.

I can't help but think some people in this thread have clearly spent so long in the institution they're not capable of objectively criticizing it, and instead naturally revert to defending it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Jun 2018)

How about this to circumvent the problem:

-Sgt X has a TD to Y
-Sgt will be on leave (weekend leave) within 500 km of Y the Sunday preceding
-Sgt X claims the one day he is entitled through a cost comparison.

In practice: Sgt X drives to within 500 km of Y to he there sometimes on the Sunday and keeps driving to Y.


----------



## Lumber (13 Jun 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How about this to circumvent the problem:
> 
> -Sgt X has a TD to Y
> -Sgt will be on leave (weekend leave) within 500 km of Y the Sunday preceding
> ...



Yea that would work, this is one of the ways that the Class-A members get around the policy.

POMV travel from my unit to Halifax requires 4 days of travel. But, we can't tell a Class-A member what they can and can't do when they aren't on contract. So, if the Class-A tell sme that personal circumstance will result in them being in Fredericton the day before their course, and they would like us to arrange travel from there to Halifax(using POMV), who am I to argue? I don't ask why you're in Fredericton or what you're doing ther, but it's within 1 day's travel, so fill your boots.

Supersonic Max, cases that I don't think this would work, however, would be for extremely long distances.

If a soldier of mine was going from Edmonton to Borden for a 3 months course, and they didn't want to take annual leave, but said to me that between Friday night when they finish work, and Sunday morning, they will have travelled by POMV 2800km of the 3300km distance, and therefore would then be within 500km, I just can't see it as a safe decision to sign off on that plan. I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket.  :2c:


----------



## ballz (13 Jun 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How about this to circumvent the problem:
> 
> -Sgt X has a TD to Y
> -Sgt will be on leave (weekend leave) within 500 km of Y the Sunday preceding
> ...



In theory, this "works." In practice, is the Commanding Officer of every unit going to start doing this? Is Pte / Cpl / MCpl etc going to have the conversation we are now having, and appeal for reason, etc. I'm a Captain and while I intend to go this route soon, I already know I'll be hitting obstacles because people don't understand policy / don't think outside the box / apparently might agree with the babysitting aspect. (I'm also sure I'll run into the "well, I won't approve your weekend leave pass to be outside the local area."). How many lower ranks are going to have that fight?

If the policy is such that we need to circumvent it to come to some form of rational answer, it's a bad policy. If people are choosing "no support" over the support offered, that's probably some pretty shitty support.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Yea that would work, this is one of the ways that the Class-A members get around the policy.
> 
> POMV travel from my unit to Halifax requires 4 days of travel. But, we can't tell a Class-A member what they can and can't do when they aren't on contract. So, if the Class-A tell sme that personal circumstance will result in them being in Fredericton the day before their course, and they would like us to arrange travel from there to Halifax(using POMV), who am I to argue? I don't ask why you're in Fredericton or what you're doing ther, but it's within 1 day's travel, so fill your boots.
> 
> ...



That would require allowing the Chain of Command to use its discretion. Not only does the policy babysit everyone, it also points to a severe lack of trust in the judgement of COs.

If a soldier of mine was going from Edmonton to Borden and reporting on Monday, I'd probably support them getting a short day or two so they have adequate time after the 2x special to do the drive... 3 days is plenty of time to go 3300km. If not short, then annual... but I wouldn't demand they take 5 annual as the policy does (1 travel, 1 weekend, 5 annual) because that's just ridiculous. We may disagree slightly on use of short, etc, but that's a judgement call for a CO to make.... not TB / DCBA.

There is no reason the Crown can't allow for this and also "here's the $500 it costs to fly you there as well, since we would have had to pay that anyway."


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Jun 2018)

Agreed on all points Ballz.



> t also points to a severe lack of trust in the judgement of COs.



This is true in many aspect of our policies and is a broader problem.  Policies need some vagueness to them to allow COs to cater to different situations.

In the PMV case, it'd be a CoC's call to ensure their members' plan is safe and sound, and apply the policy with some discretions.  I really dislike policies that not only tell you what to do but also how to do it...


----------



## CountDC (14 Jun 2018)

Understand  things look really different from the various view points.  I have seen it where a little reserve group of about 20 felt that all the regulations coming out were aimed specifically at them.   One thing some don't realize is that TB is not writing policy for the CAF.  It is writing for every federal government employee in every department.  No idea what current figures are but at one point it was around 200 departments and over 400k employees.  CAF does not have the right to expand or give benefits to its members, if it does want to give something it must negotiate with TB and give up something that of course someone else would complain about so we mostly follow the NJC.

As for CofC and flexibility although I often wish there was more I am sure there are enough on here that can testify to various abuses over the years from those CofC that did have the flexibility.  Off the top, CO's (LCols) ordering their staff to book them first/business class when they were not entitled to it and advised of it, FTUC staff  at reserve units issued outlandish work schedules, refusing leave all year and then telling the members as they had not used it they lost it as leave is a privilege not an entitlement, do it or I will have you fired from your class b (doesn't work too well when the person is actually reg f), you will drive 700 kms to deliver this, return the next day for the parade night and no we don't care that there is snow in the mountains.  Some of these I have seen within the last 4 years (yeah, after the CFTDI was released and they were briefed a few times on the mileage restriction).  

The rules are tighter but not totally unworkable.  Yes I miss the days of "hypothetical trip" claims and wish we could still do them as it was a lot easier than the cost comparison/leave crap but as it is my job to play within (or at least on the edge) of the rules I do it while complaining.  There are some thing's that I wish more would complain about to the right people and even redress but so far haven't seen it happen in my area despite my attempts.  Instead all I see is people complaining to and blaming the clerks as if they are the policy writer.  Personally don't know any clerks that like these changes as it just made the job harder.  Like a clerk would write a policy that all travel must be approved by the CO prior to travel.  I for one was quite happy to approve it rather than bothering the CO that should have more important things to deal with.  Sure the odd exceptional case but most claims are standard.

Lumbar:  " I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket."

Of course if they decided to drive anyway there really isn't anything anyone could do other than not give them their mileage and meals on the claim.  I did give them flack for not cancelling the flight prior so that we were reimbursed instead of getting a credit that may not get used (they were linked to the name at the time).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jun 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> In theory, this "works." In practice, is the Commanding Officer of every unit going to start doing this? Is Pte / Cpl / MCpl etc going to have the conversation we are now having, and appeal for reason, etc. I'm a Captain and while I intend to go this route soon, I already know I'll be hitting obstacles because people don't understand policy / don't think outside the box / apparently might agree with the babysitting aspect. (I'm also sure I'll run into the "well, I won't approve your weekend leave pass to be outside the local area."). How many lower ranks are going to have that fight?



What leave pass for normal weekend leave?  My entire Wing...they're not used because the CFLPM states they are not required.  Can/does the CAF tell me I am only allowed to travel 500km/day on a normal Saturday off?  Or, if I put in for 2 wknd/1 ann leave day to travel "A to B and rtn", no one even considers how far I am driving because it is non-duty travel.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Jun 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What leave pass for normal weekend leave?  My entire Wing...they're not used because the CFLPM states they are not required.  Can/does the CAF tell me I am only allowed to travel 500km/day on a normal Saturday off?  Or, if I put in for 2 wknd/1 ann leave day to travel "A to B and rtn", no one even considers how far I am driving because it is non-duty travel.



For my CoC a weekend leave pass is only needed for staff if they leave the province, students on the other hand need one if the go further than Fredericton-Moncton-Saint John area.


----------



## CountDC (15 Jun 2018)

This is from the CPM CFTDI faq Last revised 3/19/2018, this is for members requesting to travel PMV.  Thinking this may be the part that is creating the annual leave issue as in the example used it would take some.  Can't cover 8 days with short and weekend. :

I am currently posted to Vancouver, can I take my PMV if I need to go to Borden on course even if they are 4,296 Km apart?

Maybe. You will need to sign both the CFTDTI Annex A Member Request To Use PMV Acknowledgment of Limitations for the PMV Waiver and the DGCB/DCBA cost comparison worksheet when your intent is to request use of your PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation. You will be entitled to only the first day of travel to the destination (500 kilometres) and only for the first day of return travel (500 kilometres) kilometric rate for the direct road and this would include any distance traveled by ferry. You will also be required to utilize sufficient paid leave for each additional day of travel over 500 kilometres (duty travel day). In the interest of safe driving, you are required to take 8 paid leave days each way, in addition to the one day of duty travel each way. If you
don't have sufficient annual leave remaining, the CO has no choice but to deny PMV travel, in favour of the most economical and practical method of transportation (in this case, commercial air travel). PMV is not considered the most economical and practical method of transportation, except where the CO requests the use of PMV, IAW the CFTDTI.

NOTE: The Crown accepts no responsibility or liability to the member for, the loss of or damage to a PMV on duty travel and deductible insurance payments in respect of a PMV used on duty travel. As such, a member cannot be ordered and is never obliged to use a PMV for duty travel.

and for reservist:

I am a reservist on Class A service serving in Halifax and am going on TD to Borden and wish to take my PMV in lieu of the more economical and practical mode of transportation. Am I permitted to utilize my PMV in this case?

No. Not in this scenario based on distance to the location of TD. The preferred method of travel would be commercial air travel, and you would arrive and return within a few hours to your destination, hence one day duty travel each way. As kilometric travel is more than 500 km, a member requires paid leave during the non-duty travel days. Class A members are on duty status for the duration of their tasking, and that would be covered when travelling via the most economical and practical mode of transportation. Since paid leave is not factored in the structure of Class A Reserve service, reimbursement for the use of PMV is not authorized. If a Class A member still wishes to use their PMV for travel to the duty destination, there is no requirement to request a waiver of entitlements as there is no entitlement in lieu of the approving authority’s selected mode of transportation. You are choosing to travel at personal expense.

Had one case that was kind of the reverse of starting/ending TD at an alternate point.  Class A mbr was travelling just within the limit for TD but had indicated as he was given a day off after his arrival he planned to go and visit his mother approximately 120 kms away.  The clerk didn't want to do the claim as it was now over the daily limit.  I had to step in and pointed out that what he did on his td was not our concern, it was between him and his supervisor.  If they gave him a day off after he arrived then he could go wherever he wanted. He checked in on schedule, got dismissed and went on his way.


----------



## ballz (15 Jun 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What leave pass for normal weekend leave?  My entire Wing...they're not used because the CFLPM states they are not required.  Can/does the CAF tell me I am only allowed to travel 500km/day on a normal Saturday off?  Or, if I put in for 2 wknd/1 ann leave day to travel "A to B and rtn", no one even considers how far I am driving because it is non-duty travel.



Would really prefer if we didn't turn yet another thread into a argument about whether or not a weekend leave pass is required or not. I agree with you on weekend leave passes as was clear in the thread specifically about that topic, but the reality is, it is an obstacle I would run into, and so will most other people.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> CAF does not have the right to expand or give benefits to its members, if it does want to give something it must negotiate with TB and give up something that of course someone else would complain about so we mostly follow the NJC.



The change I am proposing would not cost the taxpayer's an extra dime, so I'm not convinced it would need "negotiating."

I'll also point out that the original comment that started this was...


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope the BS around POMVs (it's more than just the Class A stuff that's ridiculous on this issue) is near the top of this *list of concerns being brought to the TB*... but somehow I doubt it.



So I'm not sure why you're talking about how the CAF can't expand / change the benefits. I am simply remarking that I hope DCBA is bringing this issue up on our behalf to the TB. I am fully aware that CAF doesn't get to write its own policy.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> As for CofC and flexibility although I often wish there was more I am sure there are enough on here that can testify to various abuses over the years from those CofC that did have the flexibility.  Off the top, CO's (LCols) ordering their staff to book them first/business class when they were not entitled to it and advised of it, FTUC staff  at reserve units issued outlandish work schedules, refusing leave all year and then telling the members as they had not used it they lost it as leave is a privilege not an entitlement, do it or I will have you fired from your class b (doesn't work too well when the person is actually reg f), you will drive 700 kms to deliver this, return the next day for the parade night and no we don't care that there is snow in the mountains.  Some of these I have seen within the last 4 years (yeah, after the CFTDI was released and they were briefed a few times on the mileage restriction).



Almost all of those are issues of accountability (not policy flexibility) which the CAF is terrible at and I could start a whole other thread about that issue. But I don't see how that applies to this particular problem. There is no way to abuse the policy wording I am suggesting, it can only help the member. If the CO tried to screw someone around, the member can just withdraw their request to take their own POMV. 



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Lumbar:  " I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket."
> 
> Of course if they decided to drive anyway there really isn't anything anyone could do other than not give them their mileage and meals on the claim.  I did give them flack for not cancelling the flight prior so that we were reimbursed instead of getting a credit that may not get used (they were linked to the name at the time).



If they don't show up to where they are supposed to be, at the time they are supposed to be there, they're AWOL. Plus they would have disobeyed a lawful command. There are remedial measures available as well. There is plenty that can be done to deal with this, this goes back to the accountability issue. Obviously this happened to you, did you recommend any of these things?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jun 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> Would really prefer if we didn't turn yet another thread into a argument about whether or not a weekend leave pass is required or not. I agree with you on weekend leave passes as was clear in the thread specifically about that topic, but the reality is, it is an obstacle I would run into, and so will most other people.



The more important part of my point was intended around the "can the CAF tell me how far I can drive on a normal weekend off or during Annual Leave?  

The answer is no, of course, because it is non-duty travel.  Any injuries, etc are not related to duty.  So why is it different if I am travelling from Point A to Point B and using Annual Leave days??  If I am on Ann Leave I am not on duty travel, and that is what this fuckin stupid policy basically ends up doing;  telling the mbr what they can do on their own time.

End of the day, its a shitty policy that has yet to be defended well to justify it.


----------



## ballz (17 Jun 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The more important part of my point was intended around the "can the CAF tell me how far I can drive on a normal weekend off or during Annual Leave?
> 
> The answer is no, of course, because it is non-duty travel.  Any injuries, etc are not related to duty.  So why is it different if I am travelling from Point A to Point B and using Annual Leave days??  If I am on Ann Leave I am not on duty travel, and that is what this ****** stupid policy basically ends up doing;  telling the mbr what they can do on their own time.
> 
> End of the day, its a shitty policy that has yet to be defended well to justify it.



Ah sorry then... Yes, as I said, the policy is literally trying to suck and blow at the same time. "You're on your own time and your own dime, but you must take enough of your own time, using your own dime, as would be req'd if you were on duty.... but you're free to use the leave however you want instead of driving, aren't we generous?"

The effect is that you're basically forfeiting heaps of compensation in return for "500km*mileage rate."


----------



## Lumber (17 Jun 2018)

It seems stupid, but the CAF doesn't want to be liable if you get  in an accident for driving for too long a one time, and I fully understand that and reall don't have an issue with it.

Now, should it be 500km per day? No, I think 800km is more reasonable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It seems stupid, but the CAF doesn't want to be liable if you get  in an accident for driving for too long a one time, and I fully understand that and reall don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Now, should it be 500km per day? No, I think 800km is more reasonable.



Groovy.  Now, explain to me how this DOESN'T apply to leave such as Annual, Special or Short.  Does the CAF not 'want to be liable" then too?  Because, if I am on Ann Leave as part of travel from my normal place of duty to TD/AP on course, etc...I'm still...on Annual Leave, let's say.  If I am on leave, I am not on duty.  if I am not on duty, how can the CAF be liable?

Let's just face it here;  it is a stupid policy that needs to be challenged and removed.


----------



## ballz (17 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It seems stupid, but the CAF doesn't want to be liable if you get  in an accident for driving for too long a one time, and I fully understand that and reall don't have an issue with it.



And if I am on annual leave, they are not liable. So you don't have an issue with a policy that screws the member based on a completely false idea that it somehow absolves the CAF of liability that they never had to worry about to begin with?

It seems stupid because it is stupid, and it's just blatantly not true. Next we'll be trying to tell members they can't travel from Fredericton to Ottawa for the long weekend without 5 days of leave because they need two days to get there and two days to get back "or else the CAF will be liable if you get in an accident on your way home." "We're not saying you need to drive it over 2 days by the way, just that you need to take a minimum of 5 days of leave for the trip. We're reasonable like that."



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Now, should it be 500km per day? No, I think 800km is more reasonable.



1000km would be "reasonable" if it weren't unreasonable to treat CAF members like kids and their COs like teen-aged babysitters with no ability to actually use any kind of discretion.


----------



## Lumber (17 Jun 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> And if I am on annual leave, they are not liable. So you don't have an issue with a policy that screws the member based on a completely false idea that it somehow absolves the CAF of liability that they never had t 7o worry about to begin with?



This has nothing to do with annual slave or the annual leave policy. This is about travel policy. The CAF isn't dodging liability for each individual trip, they are dodging liability for the entire travel policy. 

If we instead had a policy that allowed CO's the discretion to order their members to travel whatever distance they wanted, you would undoubtedly, eventually, end up with numerous cases of CO's abusing their authority and order ing members to drive unreasonable distances. You'd have accidents, you'd have lawsuits.

The only way the CAF can absolve themselves of this potential liability is they have to take away that authority from the CO. Problem is, the only way to do THAT is to take away the ability of EVERYONE to make that judgment call.

Further,  your example of travel from Fredericton to Ottawa is flawed, or at least, it's like you're stating facts that make my argument, not your own. If ever a member was required by tasking/cftpo to be in Ottawa for the weekend, they would provide them with a method of travel appropriate to the circumstance. If for whatever reason they felt pomv was appropriate, or, If the member requested to use it, they would need to ensure he has at least 2(3?) days to make the drive.

Why would the CAF either order, request, or allow the member the ability to drive an unsafe distance, when CAL is an option. The safe driving distance for every person is different, and the CAF isn't going to allow each member to "declare" THEIR safe driving stance, so a standard must be set. It's set at 500. Which is dumb.

#MakePMV800Again


----------



## ballz (17 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If we instead had a policy that allowed CO's the discretion to order their members to travel whatever distance they wanted, you would undoubtedly, eventually, end up with numerous cases of CO's abusing their authority and order ing members to drive unreasonable distances. You'd have accidents, you'd have lawsuits.



Are we even having the same conversation? We're talking about when a member requests to use their POMV, and you're talking about when the CO selects POMV as the preferred method.

The issue you are describing is *not relevant* to the case when a member is asking to drive his POMV *during his (insert type here) leave.*

We are *not* talking about lifting the restriction placed upon the CoC when they select POMV or rental as the preferred mode if travel. I agree 800km in this case would be more reasonable than 500km, but that's not what we're even discussing.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> The only way the CAF can absolve themselves of this potential liability is they have to take away that authority from the CO.



I'll say it again, the CAF is not liable for a member travelling while they are on leave.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Further,  your example of travel from Fredericton to Ottawa is flawed, or at least, it's like you're stating facts that make my argument, not your own. If ever a member was required by tasking/cftpo to be in Ottawa for the weekend, they would provide them with a method of travel appropriate to the circumstance. If for whatever reason they felt pomv was appropriate, or, If the member requested to use it, they would need to ensure he has at least 2(3?) days to make the drive.



You're really not tracking the example put forth. I'm not talking about a tasking. I'm talking about if a member wants to travel to Ottawa for, I dunno, a Senators game on Saturday night. It's a long weekend. He plans to drive on Friday, and drive on Sunday.

If the CAF can tell a member they need to take 7 leave days to drive from Edmonton to Borden for a tasking "or else the CAF could be liable for an accident that you get into while you are on leave," the next logical step is that the CAF can tell people they can't drive Fredericton to Ottawa on a long weekend without taking 5 days leave (2 days travel, 1 day leisure, 2 days travel) "or else the CAF could be liable for an accident that you get into while you are on leave." That is literally the same logic, and it's based on a BS reason.*

Demanding that a member who is a requesting to use POMV take 7 days of leave to drive from Edmonton to Borden for a tasking is no different then demanding a member who wants to go to Ottawa for a Sens game take 5 days of leave "or else the CAF will be liable." 

*Its simply not true. The CAF is not going to be liable for a member that gets in an accident while on leave. So it would be just great if you would stop repeating that falsehood.


----------



## Furniture (17 Jun 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> Demanding that a member who is a requesting to use POMV take 7 days of leave to drive from Edmonton to Borden for a tasking is no different then demanding a member who wants to go to Ottawa for a Sens game take 5 days of leave "or else the CAF will be liable."



It is different though, if you decide that after driving from Gagetown to Quebec city that you are too tired to continue to Ottawa for the game it's not the CAF's problem. Get back to work on time on Monday, and the CAF couldn't care less about whether or not you saw the Sens lose live or on TV. If you fail to arrive on time for a tasking or course because you failed to plan properly and take enough time it is the CAF's problem. Either the work you were required to do isn't getting done, or the course training billet is wasted on a late/no show student. Therefore it's in the CAF's interest to ensure you have enough time to make the journey in a safe timeframe.


----------



## ballz (17 Jun 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> It is different though, if you decide that after driving from Gagetown to Quebec city that you are too tired to continue to Ottawa for the game it's not the CAF's problem. Get back to work on time on Monday, and the CAF couldn't care less about whether or not you saw the Sens lose live or on TV. If you fail to arrive on time for a tasking or course because you failed to plan properly and take enough time it is the CAF's problem. Either the work you were required to do isn't getting done, or the course training billet is wasted on a late/no show student. Therefore it's in the CAF's interest to ensure you have enough time to make the journey in a safe timeframe.



You can make the exact same argument for getting back from the Sens game for work at 0800 on Monday morning... and your tasks on Monday morning could be to fly a plane, command a combat team in a live fire level 5 range, or be a Course O / staff / candidate on any number of in-house courses run at your unit or another local unit... 

So no, it is absolutely not different.


----------



## Furniture (18 Jun 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> You can make the exact same argument for getting back from the Sens game for work at 0800 on Monday morning... and your tasks on Monday morning could be to fly a plane, command a combat team in a live fire level 5 range, or be a Course O / staff / candidate on any number of in-house courses run at your unit or another local unit...
> 
> So no, it is absolutely not different.



It is different, because the CAF didn't tell you you need to be in Ottawa at 1900 Saturday and back in Gagetown at 0800 Monday morning. When you ask permission to not travel commercial to attend a course/task the CAF is still telling you to be somewhere at a specific time. That makes it the CAF's business how you manage to accomplish that travel (itinerary), and it makes it their business to make sure you have enough time to do it. 

Should the distance be longer than 500km? I think so. Should it be a free for all with people driving across the continent in three days? I don't think so, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to let me know why it's not only possible but safe and cost effective...


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Jun 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> It is different, because the CAF didn't tell you you need to be in Ottawa at 1900 Saturday and back in Gagetown at 0800 Monday morning. When you ask permission to not travel commercial to attend a course/task the CAF is still telling you to be somewhere at a specific time. That makes it the CAF's business how you manage to accomplish that travel (itinerary), and it makes it their business to make sure you have enough time to do it.
> 
> Should the distance be longer than 500km? I think so. Should it be a free for all with people driving across the continent in three days? I don't think so, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to let me know why it's not only possible but safe and cost effective...



We have COs.  They are selected to be in those positions.  They are generally pretty smart.  Let them decide for their people.


----------



## Furniture (18 Jun 2018)

That works until two COs on the same base decide their members need to take different amounts of leave to go to the same place. Lets pretend I'm back on WIN and my buddy is on CAL, we are both headed to Winnipeg for course. My CO decides I can make the drive safely in three days so I get a day of short, my buddy's CO decides that five days are needed because of unpredictable mountain weather. Now one member has to take annual to make the same drive the other member doesn't need annual for. Are both COs being reasonable? It could be argued that they both are, but now one member is at a disadvantage compared to the other. 

Edit to Add: I'm not for the 500km limit, it's too short in my opinion. I just don't see the CAF abandoning the maximum distance idea, maybe extending it to 800km or more but not getting rid of it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Jun 2018)

I Believe you would find that, first of all, no CO in Esquimalt would let you do that journey in 3 days. I suspect four would be the minimum, because you have a ferry crossing and the mountains. If, however, you had two different CO's requiring a different number of days of travel, and both were reasonable based on the factors each consider of importance, then that would be life, and not a "disadvantage" to one or the other member so affected. After all, they elected to travel by PMC instead of CAF provided transportation, so they have to live with the consequences of their own decision. 

P.S.: I suspect you would find that, for something like that, the number of days accorded would be pretty similar from one CO to the other in the fleet. You would be amazed at the various types of "problems" we CO's discuss among ourselves to try and arrive at similar solutions and a unified approach in the fleet instead of each making our own guesses. 

P.P.S.: Ships are NOT on a Base - they don't belong to CFB Esquimalt. Just a small nuance, though your example would work with various lodger units.  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Jun 2018)

I wonder what the CAF administration would do if they looked back into the records at the short leave I granted to members of the squadron to take their PMC on TD...naughty CO...I'll feel 'sorta bad' about it tonight while I have a wee dram after dinner.

OGBD, I fully agree with you here:


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If, however, you had two different CO's requiring a different number of days of travel, and both were reasonable based on the factors each consider of importance, then that would be life, and not a "disadvantage" to one or the other member so affected. After all, they elected to travel by PMC instead of CAF provided transportation, so they have to live with the consequences of their own decision.


:nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2018)

The problem is that dodges like short leave work for full time members, but not so much for part time members.


----------



## Furniture (18 Jun 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I Believe you would find that, first of all, no CO in Esquimalt would let you do that journey in 3 days. I suspect four would be the minimum, because you have a ferry crossing and the mountains. If, however, you had two different CO's requiring a different number of days of travel, and both were reasonable based on the factors each consider of importance, then that would be life, and not a "disadvantage" to one or the other member so affected. After all, they elected to travel by PMC instead of CAF provided transportation, so they have to live with the consequences of their own decision.
> 
> P.S.: I suspect you would find that, for something like that, the number of days accorded would be pretty similar from one CO to the other in the fleet. You would be amazed at the various types of "problems" we CO's discuss among ourselves to try and arrive at similar solutions and a unified approach in the fleet instead of each making our own guesses.
> 
> P.P.S.: Ships are NOT on a Base - they don't belong to CFB Esquimalt. Just a small nuance, though your example would work with various lodger units.  ;D



Agreed on all points, it was simply a scenario to point out that even a system at CO's discretion would lead to complaints and "unfairness" and a whole thread on army.ca to sort out a better way.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Jun 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The problem is that dodges like short leave work for full time members, but not so much for part time members.



...until component alignment occurs...   :waiting:


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2018)

I think that is scheduled for the same day that DND's OPCMA becomes 4.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Jun 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think that is scheduled for the same day that DND's OPCMA becomes 4.



I laughed at that...my boss was wondering what's so funny...I said, "DND, OPMCA, 4 - discuss..."

He laughed too...  ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Feb 2019)

I searched the forum and could not find an answer to my question.

Let’s say someone is ordered on TD, the most practical and economical mean of transportation is CAL.  Member requests to use PMV instead and is authorized.  Member uses 3 days of leave as it is required and understands the cost comparison.  Member signs Annex A of the CFTDIs.  Member proceeds on TD and travels to TD destination in one day.   Member comes back and files his claim truthfullly.

Our OR says he broke rules and are looking at us, his CoC, to take actions.  I disagree in that nothing in the TDIs saying he has to travel no more than 500 km per day, just that the CoC needs to provide him the time to do so (in this case, using paid leave).

References are CFTDIs Annex A and para 7.41(2).

Am I missing something?  I doubt we can order someone how to manage his time during leave.


----------



## ballz (15 Feb 2019)

You're 100% correct. This is the kind of the stupidity that is the natural result of a very very stupid policy. I know we already had a heated debate on another area of the site about the merits of babysitting members by making them take enough leave so as to allow for sufficient time for *cough* walking *cough* sorry, enough time for driving.

Unfortunately, when you write a policy to try and force that effect onto people even though you can't actually tell them what to do on their leave, there are naturally those who extend the logic and try to make that rule.

Noteworthy, it's this kind of "extrapolating" that leads to further stupidity. A good example is DCBA's stance that since you can only drive 500km on a duty day, then if you are taking your PMV you must only be allowed to claim 500km for mileage even if cost comparison is for $1500. There is currently a grievance awaiting a decision from the Final Authority but the Grievance Committee agreed that it is pretty black and white in the policy that you get paid the cheaper of the mileage or the cost comparison figure... not some DCBA made-up figure based on an extrapolation of logic from a completely different situation (being requested to use your PMV) and only allowed to drive 500km.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Feb 2019)

You are not missing anything, SuperSonicMax. That's why, IMHO, paper pushers don't belong in the CoC  - only ops people. And ultimately, deciding to do or not to do something disciplinary or administrative against a member is left to non-admin/logistics types, i.e. the Chain of Command. 

I remember many years ago a friend of mine asking her unit (HMCS HUNTER, then under a CO who was logistics and an XO who was NCS) to be exempt week night training because she was going to university in Montreal - but wanted to be there for her unit on week ends. She was HUNTER's only qualified MARS officer at the time. Her unit said no, and indicated they didn't really need qualified MARS officer (in a Naval reserve Unit!!!). We were more than happy to take her on to our unit as a transferee (HMCS DONNACONA) even though we already had lots qualified of MARS types. Was her original unit served by such a decision?

Sorry here: Beef of mine against putting support personnel in command positions. They just don't get the difference between a rule and an order.

/RANT OFF


----------



## Lumber (16 Feb 2019)

Pretty much agree with everything that has been said, but I'll elaborate a bit.

The requirement to take leave is really only there to absolve DND of any liability. Were we to authorize someone to drive pmv, knowing full well they would have to drive 28hrs straight to make it to the TD destination on time, we'd be hooped if they got in an accident on the way.

The leave just let's us wash our hands of their decision. You cannot order the person to actually  drive a certain amount while on leave. All we can do is order them to take leave in the first place, and order them to report for duty at a specif place and time.

Go tell your OR to suck eggs and whole you're at it, tell them to stop asking people  for proof of cohabitation when they apply for common law status.


----------



## Lumber (8 Jul 2019)

Here you go you miserable bastards (sic), you get to have your cake.

I can't say I agree with a complete lifting of this restriction, but I'm happy to see they at least open up the books and did something with the regulation.



> *CANFORGEN 098/19 CMP 056/19 031506Z JUL 19*
> 
> TEMPORARY DUTY (TD) - MBR USE OF PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE (PMV)
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (8 Jul 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Here you go you miserable bastards (sic), you get to have your cake.
> 
> I can't say I agree with a complete lifting of this restriction, but I'm happy to see they at least open up the books and did something with the regulation.



That's not "having our cake and eating it too," that's referring to the absolutely silly interpretation DCBA *made up* that if you chose to drive your own vehicle, instead of getting the equivalent cost of the cheaper option (i.e. a flight) you got 500km x the high-rate and that was it... even if the flight (cheaper) option would have cost $1000, you were limited to $250. They arbitrarily limited the reimbursement to 500km x high-rate, with zero authority to do so.

They did not lift the BS restriction of having to forfeit annual on a 500km/day basis.


Comd Canadian Army recently reached out to DCBA regarding the requrement to take annual leave at a rate of 500km/day when travelling by cost-comparison. The Army was asking for the creation of another type of special leave, so that someone on long taskings (60 days was the example) could take a cost comparison and be granted special leave instead of having to use annual. The answer from DCBA was, as is the DCBA way, absolutely ridiculous. Their statement was (paraphrased) "if the member's convenience is so adversely affected that it warrants asking Treasury Board to create a new time of paid leave, then it's important enough that the Approving Authority request the member to take his PMV instead so that he receives the required number of travel days."

While I'm glad someone finally acknowledged the approving authority has the ability to do this, DCBA completely overlooks the fact that using their solution there is an extra $8000 in incremental costs for a member to drive from Edmonton to Gagetown and back for a tasking, and units simply can't bear that cost nor can the Crown when you multiply it by the thousands of taskings. However, with the creation of special leave to accommodate member's going on long taskings, the member could have 1) not been penalized by taking annual leave and 2) there would have been no incremental costs to the Crown. Good thing all these people get paid gigantic salaries to overlook something as significant as an extra $8000/task.


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Jul 2019)

Question for someone with access to the DWAN; if I take my PMV on a TD trip, can I still claim gas for the usage while on site for two weeks?  Shouldn't be too much, so normally tack that kind of thing in with the daily incidentals that you get, but curious. So for example fill up on arrival would be included in mileage rate, but curious if I filled up before I left, if I could claim gas for what I used on site. 

 Will be working in Waterloo in an out of the way location, so the alternate is take the train and get a rental for the duration, so it's kind of cost neutral for either option for the two week mark, and PMV is cheaper for the GoC for longer than that.  From experience, know that doesn't matter if it saves the GoC money if it's not in the policy, so probably won't bother to even submit the gas claim, but sometimes these things get flagged as something you could have claimed and slows down the process of getting it settled (again, from experience).


----------



## Ostrozac (8 Jul 2019)

If the most economical option is that you are already getting a train ticket and a rental car, why would you even want to take your own POMV? With the default option your gas on site is guaranteed to be paid, and you put zero miles on your own vehicle. Or are you hauling a lot of gear that you don’t want to take on VIA One?

Edited to actually try to answer your question — I took a look at the CFTDI and I can’t find any way to reimburse local mileage on a POMV during TD, it seems to imply that you should drive there and back in your POMV but use and claim a taxi for local travel.


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Jul 2019)

That makes all kinds of sense to park my car and Uber.  Unless I find an AirBNB close by, it's about a 20 minute drive from the hotel, so probably double the cost of a rental. :nod: :

Planning on dropping my daughter off at the grandparents at the visit, and taking some time off afterwards to visit family, so PMV makes more sense, but otherwise would have gone with the train and rental.  It's a nice ride down on the train and faster than driving, once you include traffic. Last time hit some crazy traffic starting in Kingston and took me almost 9 hours in total.


----------



## CountDC (12 Jul 2019)

answer I got was maybe to the gas.

7.20 General
1.(No Entitlement) There is no entitlement for a member to be reimbursed any expenses for travel to and from their permanent workplace on a daily basis. 
2.(Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode - or combination of modes - of transportation on duty travel after consideration of all of the following: a.the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel; 
b.the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation — in the duty travel area; 
c.forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel; 
d.the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services; 
e.the CF’s operational needs; 
f.an intermediate sedan is the standard rental vehicle across government; 
g.the member’s safety and convenience; 
h.the amount of baggage or supplies that the member is required to transport; and 
i.any other factor that is immediately relevant to the duty travel requirement. 

7.42 Taxis, buses, etc

Subject to paragraph 7.20(2) (Selection), a member who uses a taxi, bus, or other local transportation on duty travel is entitled to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable travel expenses and gratuities.


So that could be a matter of the approving authority, prior to going on the trip, determines that utilizing your car would be more reasonable than taking the bus. Perhaps you have a lot of material that you need to transfer with you (but then that would be a basis for utilizing PMV on request of the CAF).


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> if I take my PMV on a TD trip, can I still claim gas for the usage while on site for two weeks?



I did TD in Toronto where I was allowed to claim mileage from my hotel to the workplace (and return) daily.  It was definitely more efficient than the bus.  Not to mention, I picked up a coworker at his hotel en route.


----------



## CountDC (12 Jul 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I did TD in Toronto where I was allowed to claim mileage from my hotel to the workplace (and return) daily.  It was definitely *more efficient than the bus*.  Not to mention, I picked up a coworker at his hotel en route.



Don't belief that all, TTC is truly the best in the world.   :rofl:


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Jul 2019)

Thanks for the ref; don't need to really bring much, but the site is outside of town, not on a bus route and no where near to any lodgings, so some kind of car is required. Would definitely have a rental car if I took the train down, as it'd cost as much for the day as one way on a taxi/uber.

Driving is kind of a no brainer, but was more curious as I don't want to even be bothered with the hassle of trying to claim that with a PMV, as the daily TD allowances will be more than enough to include some gas.

Long story, but this whole TD approval is tenuous anyway, so just happy if they pay the accommodations and I don't need to do two moves (or two years of IR) when I can get 90% of the PG done via distance learning with a few months total of on site time for some thesis experiment work.

Cheers


----------



## Pusser (15 Jul 2019)

The key question is whether you need a car to conduct your duties at the TD location.  If you do, there is a way to do that:

1)  Rent a car from home and drive that to the TD location.  That's the simplest option and all your gas receipts can be paid.  

2)  Travel via POMV and claim mileage from home to TD location and back on a cost comparison basis.  Then while on location, claim daily mileage for use of your POMV while on task.  The daily mileage should NOT be included in the cost comparison. 

3)  Use your POMV for travel to and from the TD location, but then rent a car for daily use on task.


----------



## Pusser (15 Jul 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Sorry here: Beef of mine against putting support personnel in command positions. They just don't get the difference between a rule and an order.



I actually take serious offence to that.  Idiocy is not confined to one Branch or another.  I have seen "operators" make some colossally stupid decisions over the years that I have then had to clean up in order to keep them out of jail.  I am fully aware of the difference between rules and orders and I'm pretty good at navigating around them to achieve the mission.  Just as I will fault an operator for running roughshod over the regulations because they are inconvenient, I will also fault a loggie for not trying to find a way to do it properly.


----------



## ballz (15 Jul 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The key question is whether you need a car to conduct your duties at the TD location.  If you do, there is a way to do that:
> 
> 1)  Rent a car from home and drive that to the TD location.  That's the simplest option and all your gas receipts can be paid.
> 
> ...



Why did you necessitate "on a cost comparison." If the member is going to need a vehicle on location, and the Chain of Command doesn't want to pay a rental fee / daily taxis, then they should be requesting the member to take his PMV and he should get the high-rate.


----------



## Pusser (16 Jul 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Why did you necessitate "on a cost comparison." If the member is going to need a vehicle on location, and the Chain of Command doesn't want to pay a rental fee / daily taxis, then they should be requesting the member to take his PMV and he should get the high-rate.



The cost comparison is for the travel by POMV to and from the TD location.  That still has to be done.  The policy is quite clear that travel has to be by the most economical means.  A cost comparison is required to determine his maximum reimbursement for travel from home to the TD location.  Daily transportation at the TD location is a separate piece of this and the OP has already stated that he would be allowed to travel by other means and rent a car when he gets there.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Jul 2019)

A CO cannot order someone to use PMV but if someone agrees to using his/her PMV and the CoC agrees it is the “most practical and economical” mean?  I have done that before.


----------



## ballz (16 Jul 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The cost comparison is for the travel by POMV to and from the TD location.  That still has to be done.  The policy is quite clear that travel has to be by the most economical means.



That’s entirely incorrect and it’s a myth I’ve been trying to dispel for quite a while now. This is something that has been pushed by RMS Clerks (now HRAs and FSAs) / 1 type officers (Adjutants, G1 / A1 / N1 / J1 types, etc…. variously backgrounds depending on element) and has been absolutely poor advice to Commanders, causing us to screw members many times over.

The policy is quite clear that the approving authority determines the appropriate mode of travel based a long list of factors, cost only being one of them (actually, only *half* of one of them, as it's "relative cost *and efficiency*"). The arcs are actually very very very wide open for the approving authority to use his judgement.

CFTDTIs 5.20(2), 6.20(2), and 7.20(2)


> (2) (Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode — or combination of modes — of transportation on duty travel after consideration of all of the following:
> 
> (a) the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;
> 
> ...




If the approving authority determines, given those factors, that the best method is for the method to take their own vehicle at the high-rate, then he *should* request the member to take their POMV and if the member agrees, there is *no* cost-comparison done as the member gets high-rate, the hotels, the meals, etc.

The approving authority does not have the option to ask the member to take their vehicle on a cost-comparison. The purpose of the cost-comparison is if the member decides to request to use their POMV *rather than* the method selected by the approving authority. However, that analysis needs to have been done first, because if the member *ought to have been asked to take his POMV* then he should never have had to make the decision to ask to take his vehicle and take a cost comparison.

Another nuanced point of contention, a cost-comparison is not in any way meant to calculate the most economical means. A cost-comparison is a tool to calculate an amount that a member is entitled to. That may sound like splitting hairs, but it’s not. For example, the cost comparison limits rentals to 2 days on either end but won’t allow you to include fees for returning it to a third location. It also doesn’t allow you to factor in GMT or other mechanisms that might be available to you. It is purely hypothetical for the purpose of calculating an amount to pay a member who has requested to take his vehicle and that’s it. It only comes into play *after* the mode of travel has been selected, and then the member subsequently asks to take their POMV instead.

And there was recently a letter sent out by the Commander Canadian Army to his L2 Comds, which references a letter from DCBA, which also reiterates what I've pointed out above.


----------



## ballz (16 Jul 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> A CO cannot order someone to use PMV but if someone agrees to using his/her PMV and the CoC agrees it is the “most practical and economical” mean?  I have done that before.



If they decide it's the best method given the circumstances outlined above, they request you to take it, and then if you agree to that request, you get the high-rate of mileage, meals, hotels (if req'd), etc. No cost-comparison.


----------



## Pusser (17 Jul 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> That’s entirely incorrect and it’s a myth I’ve been trying to dispel for quite a while now. This is something that has been pushed by RMS Clerks (now HRAs and FSAs) / 1 type officers (Adjutants, G1 / A1 / N1 / J1 types, etc…. variously backgrounds depending on element) and has been absolutely poor advice to Commanders, causing us to screw members many times over.



We're actually saying the same thing (so I'm not incorrect). You just went into more detail.  "Most economical" is not the same as "cheapest."  Being economical includes all of the factors you mentioned.  Economy is not just about money.  It includes, efficiency, practicality, etc.  Unfortunately, you are correct that far too many folks (sadly in positions to approve this sort of thing) only consider actual dollar amounts vice all the other factors.


----------



## CountDC (17 Jul 2019)

Very true that too often our RMS and now HRA/FSA along with many others continue to focus way too much on the dollars instead of factoring everything in.  While RSS it was not uncommon to have someone mention having a Class A Cpl drive a mbr to the task rather than paying the member PMV because it would be cheaper (their thought was no cost as the mbr wouldn't be claiming the mileage).  I would then do a cost comparison that included pay for the Cpl, gas for the vehicle, meals if applicable.  That usually quickly changed the picture of paying someone $50 to take their own vehicle. The odd occasion it didn't I would then bring up that someone had to find a Cpl to drive, considering recent record for random items this was a task in itself and how much were they paying for someone to go through the unit in an attempt to find someone.  If that didn't end it the final straw was that the unit was now paying at least $200 to save another unit $50.  Yep, the RC Manager for the course or task wasn't paying our driver and gas bill.

Rental vehicles shouldn't have a drop off fee if booked for DND business.


----------



## ballz (17 Jul 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> We're actually saying the same thing (so I'm not incorrect). You just went into more detail.  "Most economical" is not the same as "cheapest."  Being economical includes all of the factors you mentioned.  Economy is not just about money.  It includes, efficiency, practicality, etc.  Unfortunately, you are correct that far too many folks (sadly in positions to approve this sort of thing) only consider actual dollar amounts vice all the other factors.



You stated "The cost comparison is for the travel by POMV to and from the TD location.  That still has to be done." That is incorrect. I agree with your definition of economical (although most using that term are referring to cost only, and yes I assumed you were too since you are stating that a cost comparison must be done regardless), but that statement is incorrect, and particularly relevant. Doing that cost-comparison when it's not required can short the member money (particularly before the latest update to the cost comparison when it was limited to 500km each way), cost him/her annual leave, and a host of other benefits. If it is the most economical (using your definition... which I agree with but confuses a lot of people), there is no cost comparison required. The member gets the high-rate, all the travel days req'd, meals, accommodations, etc, the whole nine yards.

I actually don't believe it's the fault of the people approving these things. Well, not entirely. CO's have zero training on this and their only experience is getting their own claims done. If they are told, which they are by the many many many people who are supposed to be their expert advisors, that a cost comparison is required any time the member travels via POMV, then they sign it a cost-comparison and then the member gets whatever is dictated by the cost-comparison. Yes, the CO is responsible for everything but if every CO is making the same mistake, there's a bigger issue.


----------



## ballz (17 Jul 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Very true that too often our RMS and now HRA/FSA along with many others continue to focus way too much on the dollars instead of factoring everything in.



That's what they've been trained to do. I explained the difference to my FSAs, showed them the analysis I wanted them to put into it before recommending a mode of travel, they got it and then moved forward with it and all was good. If every HRA / FSA is making this mistake across the CAF, it's the institution that's at fault.

*Note, this is all ignoring the fact that FSAs should not be initiating claims.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Rental vehicles shouldn't have a drop off fee if booked for DND business.



That may be true (wasn't tracking that) but is somewhat irrelevant to the point. I'll give a better example.... the task is 3 weeks long and there is nowhere to drop off the rental vehicle, so you'd keep it for the whole 3 weeks costing, say $1000..... the cost-comparison, as it is purely hypothetical, does not allow for that consideration. It's based on having a rental car for 2 days there and 2 days back, totaling to $200, even though that was never an actual option.


----------



## ballz (17 Jul 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> While RSS it was not uncommon to have someone mention having a Class A Cpl drive a mbr to the task rather than paying the member PMV because it would be cheaper (their thought was no cost as the mbr wouldn't be claiming the mileage).



The Reg Force does this as well, and it's also in many ways wrong. Yes, it is incrementally cheaper on your budget, but time is not free and that kind of thinking wastes valuable time. Just one Corporal's 8-10 hours day may not seem like a big waste of time, but multiply it across the entire force...


----------



## Pusser (18 Jul 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> You stated "The cost comparison is for the travel by POMV to and from the TD location.  That still has to be done." That is incorrect. I agree with your definition of economical (although most using that term are referring to cost only, and yes I assumed you were too since you are stating that a cost comparison must be done regardless), but that statement is incorrect, and particularly relevant. Doing that cost-comparison when it's not required can short the member money (particularly before the latest update to the cost comparison when it was limited to 500km each way), cost him/her annual leave, and a host of other benefits. If it is the most economical (using your definition... which I agree with but confuses a lot of people), there is no cost comparison required. The member gets the high-rate, all the travel days req'd, meals, accommodations, etc, the whole nine yards.
> 
> I actually don't believe it's the fault of the people approving these things. Well, not entirely. CO's have zero training on this and their only experience is getting their own claims done. If they are told, which they are by the many many many people who are supposed to be their expert advisors, that a cost comparison is required any time the member travels via POMV, then they sign it a cost-comparison and then the member gets whatever is dictated by the cost-comparison. Yes, the CO is responsible for everything but if every CO is making the same mistake, there's a bigger issue.



We're going to have to agree to disagree.  Although we both recognize that there are a number of factors involved in making the decision, the fact remains that cost is a factor.  It may only be one factor, but it is still a factor.  No member should ever be out of pocket for doing their job, but neither is it reasonable to expect the Crown to pay extra for a member's convenience or desire.  For a variety of reasons, commercial transportation can often be cheaper than POMV travel.  If that is the case, then if the member chooses POMV, their reimbursement should reasonably be limited to what the commercial transportation would have cost.  In fact, CANFORGEN 098/19 says exactly that:

2. AS PER REF B, WHEN A CAF MBR REQUESTS AND IS AUTHORIZED TO USE PMV RATHER THAN THE MORE ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, THE MBR IS ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED THE LESSER OF: 

A. THE HIGHER KILOMETRIC RATE FOR COMPLETE DIRECT ROAD DISTANCE TO AND FROM THE TD LOCATION, AND 

B THE COST OF THE MORE ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL MODE OF TRANSPORTATION


Without doing the cost comparison, how are you going to know?


----------



## Lumber (18 Jul 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Without doing the cost comparison, how are you going to know?



Because there is a difference between doing a cost comparison, and doing a "cost comparison". 

What I mean is this: it is make prudent financial and business sense to do up a rough cost comparison in order to determine what the relative costs of different modes of transportation. You takes those numbers and lumbs them in with all the other factors listed in the TDTIs, and decide upon the method of travel. In THIS process, there are no formal rules. You can do your cost comparison using an excel spreadsheet or a cocktail napkin. You can use google flights or HRG. 

On the other hand, when an approving authority selects a method of travel that is NOT pomv, and the member elects to take pomv anyway, then there is an OFFICIAL "cost comparison" sheet that must be filled out. That sheet has particular rules surrounding it, and once it is filled out and signed, then it becomes "locked in" and the member can't receive anymore than what was included in the cost comparison worksheet.

So, if I'm supposed to be flying to Quebec city from Halifax for a conference, but I want to take some leave and drive there, my CoC might do up a "rough" cost comparison and see if driving is actually a suitable method of travel. They would not be using the cost comparison work sheet for this purpose. If, however, they determine that driving does not make sense (based on ALL the factors), and I want to drive anyway, then they would whip out the formal cost comparison work sheet, and I'd only be eligible to receive the amount calculated on that worksheet, no matter the actual costs.


----------



## Pusser (18 Jul 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Because there is a difference between doing a cost comparison, and doing a "cost comparison".
> 
> What I mean is this: it is make prudent financial and business sense to do up a rough cost comparison in order to determine what the relative costs of different modes of transportation. You takes those numbers and lumbs them in with all the other factors listed in the TDTIs, and decide upon the method of travel. In THIS process, there are no formal rules. You can do your cost comparison using an excel spreadsheet or a cocktail napkin. You can use google flights or HRG.
> 
> ...



Except that there is no "official" cost comparison worksheet.  The one everybody uses was made up by somebody at DCBA (or they endorsed it).  Hence CANFORGEN 098/19, which essentially tells DCBA (again) to stop enforcing what they THINK should be policy, vice actual policy...


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Jul 2019)

So question on CANFORGEN 098/19; it lifts the 500 km limit, but the CFTDI still says you won't be expected to drive more than 500 km a day, and the annex you sign says you are on annual leave for the drive, and you are only reimbursed for the first day of travel. 

Does that not still effectively limit the reimbursement to 500km each way?  Also, if the options are drive down in a rental vs drive down in a PMV, am I suddenly taking leave for the trip down if I take my PMV for anything after 500km?  I think it says the first day of travel and return is duty, which seems reasonable but not going to take a day of annual and split my travel into two days for a 560 km one way trip.

Think I will ditch my plan for taking a PMV and some in area leave after the trip, and just do it on my own time later.  CAF seems to excel at making straightforward things complicated.  Looks like I'll be taking the train down to Union Station in Toronto and driving from there.

Here's the excerpt from Annex A of the CFTDI;


2. I hereby acknowledge the reimbursement of the transportation and traveling expenses, in accordance with ref will be limited to the cost of the most economical and practical method of travel as per the cost comparison worksheet attached. I further understand that I will be permitted to travel by PMV on TD or Att Posting provided I have sufficient leave to enable this trip to be made safely. Utilizing the daily kilometrage maximum of one calendar day of paid leave for each 500 km traveled. The day of departure to the TD location and the first day of the return journey will be considered as duty. One additional day is required if the distance traveled on the last day is more than 150 km but less than 500 km.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Jul 2019)

The CFTDI doesn't actually set a limit of 500km. What I read is that in order to calculate how much leave you need to make the journey, each day is capped at 500km. I've made longer daily drives without issue.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2019)

Only the CAF could complicate something as simple as taking your own car vs a bus/plane/taxi.


----------



## CountDC (19 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> . One additional day is required if the distance traveled on the last day is more than 150 km but less than 500 km.



You get the full mileage or the approved MOT, which ever is cheaper on the cost comparison.  The limitation is that the unit cannot tell you to drive over 500 kms, you can choose to drive as far as you want.

For a trip of 560 km you don't need a leave pass.  Per the part you posted it has to exceed 650 kms before the leave becomes an issue.


----------



## ballz (19 Jul 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Because there is a difference between doing a cost comparison, and doing a "cost comparison".



Yes, which is why everybody needs to stop using the term "cost comparison" which refer to a specific, official, instrument with a specific purpose (which is ironically not for comparing costs... they could have saved a lot of BS by calling it "POMV (Member's Request) Amount Calculator" which is what it is). It bleeds into stuff because we start using the words "cost comparison" every time some kind of cost estimate needs to get done, such as SLTA for disembarkation leave, and then people start literally trying to calculate SLTA based on the CFTDTI cost comparison sheet.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> We're going to have to agree to disagree.  Although we both recognize that there are a number of factors involved in making the decision, the fact remains that cost is a factor.  It may only be one factor, but it is still a factor.  No member should ever be out of pocket for doing their job, but neither is it reasonable to expect the Crown to pay extra for a member's convenience or desire.  For a variety of reasons, commercial transportation can often be cheaper than POMV travel.  If that is the case, then if the member chooses POMV, their reimbursement should reasonably be limited to what the commercial transportation would have cost.  In fact, CANFORGEN 098/19 says exactly that:
> 
> 2. AS PER REF B, WHEN A CAF MBR REQUESTS AND IS AUTHORIZED TO USE PMV RATHER THAN THE MORE ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, THE MBR IS ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED THE LESSER OF:
> 
> ...



You've made the mistake I stated earlier, skipping the analysis and determining whether or not the member should be requested to take their POMV as the bet mode of travel. You are citing from "POMV (Member Requests" automatically because a POMV is involved, without realizing there are two different POMV options. One is requesting the member to take it, the other is the member requesting to take it. They are administered differently and the benefits are different. The former does NOT require a cost comparison because you've already done the analysis (including costs) and determined it was the best method, the latter requires the cost comparison because you determined something else was better but the member wants to take their POMV anyway.

See attached flow chart.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Except that there is no "official" cost comparison worksheet.  The one everybody uses was made up by somebody at DCBA (or they endorsed it).  Hence CANFORGEN 098/19, which essentially tells DCBA (again) to stop enforcing what they THINK should be policy, vice actual policy...



Yes there is. IAW CFTDTIs, the TB authorizes the CDS to determine a method in which the member can waive their benefits (transportation, meals, accommodations, etc.) and travel via POMV at their request instead. CDS delegated that to DGCB and the method they determined was the official cost comparison sheet. The grievance was won because DCBA *modified* the official cost-comparison *without the authority to do so* when they imposed the 500km limit in each direction.

Ref CFTDTI 7.41 para 3


> 3.(Cost Comparison) The cost comparison required under paragraph 7.40(2)(a)(ii) shall be calculated in a manner determined by and on a form issued by the DGCB.



Note. Para 7.40(2)(a)(ii) is when a member requests to use their POMV.... it is *not* when a member is requested to use their POMV.


----------



## ballz (19 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> So question on CANFORGEN 098/19; it lifts the 500 km limit, but the CFTDI still says you won't be expected to drive more than 500 km a day, and the annex you sign says you are on annual leave for the drive, and you are only reimbursed for the first day of travel.
> 
> Does that not still effectively limit the reimbursement to 500km each way?



No. This exactly what DCBA's mistake was and why they put the 500km limit each way, and exactly what the Grievance Authority stated was clearly wrong. That's taking a separate part of the policy and applying it where it does not exist / does not belong. You calculate the amount in the official cost-comparison an whatever number it spits out, that's what you get reimbursed. No further thought needs to be applied.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Also, if the options are drive down in a rental vs drive down in a PMV, am I suddenly taking leave for the trip down if I take my PMV for anything after 500km?  I think it says the first day of travel and return is duty, which seems reasonable but not going to take a day of annual and split my travel into two days for a 560 km one way trip.



It has always been the case that if you request to use your POMV instead of the method selected by the approving authority, that you would only receive 1 travel day each way and require some form of leave to cover off the remaining days req'd (based on 500km/day, the last day being up to 650km). It's asinine but that part hasn't changed.

If you're taking a rental, it's because that's the method picked by the approving authority, so that doesn't apply. If it's a 1000km trip, you get 2x travel days.


----------



## Pusser (22 Jul 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Yes, which is why everybody needs to stop using the term "cost comparison" which refer to a specific, official, instrument with a specific purpose (which is ironically not for comparing costs... they could have saved a lot of BS by calling it "POMV (Member's Request) Amount Calculator" which is what it is). It bleeds into stuff because we start using the words "cost comparison" every time some kind of cost estimate needs to get done, such as SLTA for disembarkation leave, and then people start literally trying to calculate SLTA based on the CFTDTI cost comparison sheet.
> 
> You've made the mistake I stated earlier, skipping the analysis and determining whether or not the member should be requested to take their POMV as the bet mode of travel. You are citing from "POMV (Member Requests" automatically because a POMV is involved, without realizing there are two different POMV options. One is requesting the member to take it, the other is the member requesting to take it. They are administered differently and the benefits are different. The former does NOT require a cost comparison because you've already done the analysis (including costs) and determined it was the best method, the latter requires the cost comparison because you determined something else was better but the member wants to take their POMV anyway.
> 
> ...



Although perhaps poorly named, we're stuck with the term "cost comparison."

I was nor referring in any way to a circumstance where the CO requests a member to use POMV.  That is pretty straightforward - member is reimbursed 100% of total road distance PLUS meals for the time it takes, PLUS any required accommodations en route.  I have only been talking about cases where the member requests to take their POMV.

It doesn't matter what DCBA tries to call it, their Cost Comparison Worksheet is NOT an official form.  It's an Excel spreadsheet that somebody made up.  Without a CF/DND form number, it's not an official form.  Any OR could modify it or design their own as long as it accomplishes the same thing.  They could even call it a "POMV Request (Member Request) Amount Calculator" if they want to.


----------



## ballz (22 Jul 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter what DCBA tries to call it, their Cost Comparison Worksheet is NOT an official form.  It's an Excel spreadsheet that somebody made up.  Without a CF/DND form number, it's not an official form.  Any OR could modify it or design their own as long as it accomplishes the same thing.  They could even call it a "POMV Request (Member Request) Amount Calculator" if they want to.



The fact that it is not an "official" form is so irrelevant I can't even believe you are making that argument. That cost-comparison sheet, whether its on excel, the forms catalog, or a napkin, is the "manner determined by and on a form issued by the DGCB" as per CFTDTI 7.41 para 3. Making it an "official" form so its available on the forms catalog instead of posted on DCBA's website is a good approach but not at all necessary. Otherwise what you're saying is DGCB has literally failed to complete this task for 4+ years now, simply because it didn't get the cost-comparison sheet made into an "official" form. It's a bit ludicrous.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> I was nor referring in any way to a circumstance where the CO requests a member to use POMV.  That is pretty straightforward - member is reimbursed 100% of total road distance PLUS meals for the time it takes, PLUS any required accommodations en route.  I have only been talking about cases where the member requests to take their POMV.



Which brings us back to the original question. Why did you necessitate the cost-comparison? 

Without knowing the distances involved, the time of the task, etc., I can't know for sure... but it appears to me that Navy Pete's scenario _could be_ a great of example of when the CO should be requesting the member to take their POMV, rather than paying for 2x 20m taxi rides per day for the entire task.

And the problem is, and the reason I'm all over this... is _the CO probably doesn't even realize that's an option_ and so isn't considering that option. Or, more accurately..... the clerk that's doing the staff work on this doesn't realize that's an option, and the CO is just signing whatever is put in front of him.


----------



## Lumber (22 Jul 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> And the problem is, and the reason I'm all over this... is _the CO probably doesn't even realize that's an option_ and so isn't considering that option. Or, more accurately..... the clerk that's doing the staff work on this doesn't realize that's an option, and the CO is just signing whatever is put in front of him.



I agree with everything you've said ballz, and I'll even go a step further and say the reverse is somewhat true. I've worked with clerks who are so set in there ways thta they don't even know who the "approving authority" is and don't realize there are more options than the cheapest option, or whatever method their particular claims office has been using for the past few years.


----------



## CountDC (16 Dec 2019)

let's add more fun to this one.

CFTDTI's 7.41-driver-administration

9.(Class A Reserve Service) A member of the Reserve Force, who requests to use their PMV on duty travel, shall be placed on Class A Reserve Service on the first day of travel to or from a destination and shall not be authorized any subsequent Class A Reserve Service for any subsequent days of that duty travel to or from that location 

As I am sure everyone knows DCBA has pushed that a Class A Reserve can not be authorized PMV higher than the 500km limit unless they will earn enough leave while on TD and the hiring unit authorizes it.   Reading this section of the CFTDTI I disagree.  Seems straight forward enough to me, put on Class A day one and then no more pay until the start of the task/TD.  For example mbrs TD is 1500kms and course starts 4 May ends 15 Jul.  Class A 1 May (day one of travel) nothing 2 and 3 May, Class B pay starts 4 May.  Course ends 15 Jul along with Class B pay, Class A 16 Jul and all done.  When the mbr actually travels don't care as long as he is there to start 4 May.  

Perhaps someone here can help with this one.  I recall before where a factor in granting a member transportation expenses home for a break while on TD was allowed if it was determined that it was cost effective.  Believe it had to do with showing that the transportation back and forth was comparable to expenses paid if mbr stayed at the TD location.   This holiday block leave is a perfect example - pay mbrs tpt home vice meals and incidentals at TD location.  Maybe just me having a bad day but can't find it anywhere.


----------



## ballz (16 Dec 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> As I am sure everyone knows DCBA has pushed that a Class A Reserve can not be authorized PMV higher than the 500km limit unless they will earn enough leave while on TD and the hiring unit authorizes it. Reading this section of the CFTDTI I disagree.  Seems straight forward enough to me, put on Class A day one and then no more pay until the start of the task/TD.  For example mbrs TD is 1500kms and course starts 4 May ends 15 Jul.  Class A 1 May (day one of travel) nothing 2 and 3 May, Class B pay starts 4 May.  Course ends 15 Jul along with Class B pay, Class A 16 Jul and all done.  When the mbr actually travels don't care as long as he is there to start 4 May.



I agree with you. Unfortunately there's a few people that have grown roots in DCBA that are utterly incompetent, and if you show them in black and white that the sky is blue, they will someone conclude that's actually yellow, and only a grievance can solve it.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone here can help with this one.  I recall before where a factor in granting a member transportation expenses home for a break while on TD was allowed if it was determined that it was cost effective.  Believe it had to do with showing that the transportation back and forth was comparable to expenses paid if mbr stayed at the TD location.   This holiday block leave is a perfect example - pay mbrs tpt home vice meals and incidentals at TD location.  Maybe just me having a bad day but can't find it anywhere.



I believe you are talking about CBI 209.31 - Reimbursement for Weekend Travel While on Temporary Duty. A slightly tangled benefit as well, and a rarely used one, that's worth a discussion.


----------



## CountDC (17 Dec 2019)

I thought the same CBI but doesn't have that in there and even worse is not applicable to members attending a course.  We give them 3 weeks off, expect them to stay in place, close the mess and then pay them per diem or make them pay their own costs to go home and save us the money.  

Maybe it was a local policy that I am recalling that is no longer applicable.  Makes sense to send them home for a few hundred dollars and reimburse rather than pay 3 weeks of per diem (rats and incids) at over $1500.


----------



## captloadie (17 Dec 2019)

Would this require removing them form TD for the period that they are on leave and at home? If that is the case, there is likely an argument that the administration required to do that (creating split taskings, multiple claims, etc) is more costly (in time and money) than one is saving by paying the travel costs.

That said, maybe it is time to look at improving the benefits members receive in instances like this, especially for brand new recruits ab initio training.


----------



## CountDC (17 Dec 2019)

that was the beauty of the policy I am looking for.  Didn't need to split the task and the CO at the school authorizes the trip home based on cost savings. The claim itself in our case only takes a couple minutes as it is transport and maybe a meal each way for a couple people.  Seen it so many times and now that I need it of course can't find lol.


----------



## ballz (17 Dec 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> We give them 3 weeks off, expect them to stay in place, close the mess and then pay them per diem or make them pay their own costs to go home and save us the money.



Are these PRes or Reg Force? When you say we "give" them 3 weeks off, I assume you mean their Christmas block leave?


----------



## CountDC (18 Dec 2019)

both pres and reg f although the pres mbrs are the biggest issue as all the policies seem to exclude them from everything I could come up with.  3 weeks is the block leave period during which we have closed the mess, rations not available so if they stayed we would have to cover meals per diem on a claim.  

we is used in context of the establishment.


----------



## ballz (18 Dec 2019)

I don't see why a benefit needs to exist to facilitate this, the CO has all the authority he needs to make this call. He has travel EIA, whichever column of the DOA matrix that is, which allows him to authorize the travel on the public's dime for legitimate purposes.

These guys can simply do ITAs, justification "cost savings," and the CO signs it. Their leave passes can cover the period in between the travel days, and since they are in the same location as their F&E, they are no longer entitled to meals/incidentals while they are there taking their leave. So their task hasn't ended meaning the CFTPO doesn't need to get split (not that that is a big deal either).

I would certainly not be telling people, "we'll provide you zero support to travel home so you can utilize your Christmas block leave with your family... but if you choose to travel home on your own dime, saving the Crown money at your own expense.... thanks."


----------



## captloadie (19 Dec 2019)

While within his authorities, is it within the CO's budget? Training establishments tend to have very limited budgets, that are tied to specific courses. A course of 25-50 students all claiming travel to go home would be a significant hit to a budget. Most training establishments would probably insist that this be a centrally funded line item.

Reference paying for meal entitlements because the mess is closed, if the member is on leave (likely forced on leave due to block leave policy), is the CAF mandated to feed these individuals at crown expense?


----------



## CountDC (19 Dec 2019)

Right, no training establishment is going to cover it out of their budget considering it is not their budget that is impacted, R&Q is a recoverable charged to someone else.

if the mbr is here on TD while on school shut down periods they still have a meal entitlement whether it is a weekend, holiday or leave.  If they go somewhere else then there is an impact.  It would be so easy to write the directive that mbrs travel home and back would be covered simply by stating 2 periods of TD - Start training to XMas Block start,  End XMas Block to End of training.  It was done in the past but now for some reason doesn't happen.


----------



## ballz (19 Dec 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Right, no training establishment is going to cover it out of their budget considering it is not their budget that is impacted, R&Q is a recoverable charged to someone else.



I guess we use a different funding model out here, because 3 CDTC for example pays for the travel and also the R&Q charges for the candidates they train. So for them, the math would be easy.... Incidentals + R&Q for 21 days is approximately $1200 per person. Easy decision and involves no one else to save $1200 on incidentals/R&Q charges and pay for a round-trip home so people can spend their xmas leave with their family.

If you're saying that the Base has some influence on this, because they want to collect R&Q, your CO should show some leadership and tell the Base to go pound sand, because that Base Comd should be f**king ashamed of themselves. But I'm not sure that's what you are saying.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> It would be so easy to write the directive that mbrs travel home and back would be covered simply by stating 2 periods of TD - Start training to XMas Block start,  End XMas Block to End of training.  It was done in the past but now for some reason doesn't happen.



Sounds like something that can be controlled internally. I suspect the school ops creates it's own CFTPO brick and writes the CFTPO messages?


Maybe it's because of a different funding model, I am just not understanding what the constraint is.


----------



## CountDC (8 Jan 2020)

Although you have misunderstood you have given me a piece that I was missing that I will blame on the holiday wrap ups.  I can contact who ever is funding their costs here and get their approval for a round trip during the holidays vice charging them for R&Q. 

3 CDTC does have a different funding model as you are provided the budget for the students, we are not.

No base, the school which does not have funds to pay for such a thing.  It's not a matter of the base or school wanting to collect R&Q, quarters are collected regardless as the rooms remain for the members with all their kit still in it.  Rations are not collected even if the member stays as the kitchen is closed, the member would have to purchase meals and be reimbursed per diem rates.  It is a matter that naturally the member will opt to return home and I would like to be able to cover their travel expenses for them in the easiest method possible.  In order to accomplish this I have to be able to provide the travel approving authority with regulations showing it to be valid as everyone is all over proper approvals and policy compliances.  LTA is an option for most mbrs but there are a few that falls outside and slips through the cracks for it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Feb 2020)

Quick question for a sanity check; finally going on the extended TD trip that was looking at last summer for 4 weeks.  It's in support of a PGT experiment and funded by the sponsor, so generally happy about it, but deliberately left off a bunch of stuff on the claim to get it down to a pretty minimum cost (ie on 'annual leave' on the weekends while visiting family, taking PMV instead of a rental, staying in AirBNB etc).

Got the section 32 and the cost comparison they used was for the trip to and from only (in this case, as train to and from) against the mileage. That's about $300 vs the $500 on the round trip mileage, but ignores the cost of a rental for four weeks plus gas, taxi etc.

On one hand, really happy to get this funding, as I was prepared to pay it out of pocket (which I agreed I would do if the TD funding fell through before starting; long story but was always a possibility), but also kind of annoyed at being nickle and dimed.

Going to ask a simple question for a reference on this one, but not going to put a lot of effort into fighting it, as I'll come out ahead overall, but kind of wanted to vent and see if I'm being unreasonable.

Should know better by now then to try and save GoC any money by doing something different, but also glad I'll have a vehicle with snow tires. Was unable to get a rental in December with any, and it was pretty hairy driving around in a snowstorm.

In general, probably spent more than $10k+ of salary time on getting less then $1k worth of materials for the experiments sorted out (via donations from companies R&D division to the university), and will probably waste more after. Really inefficient, but still quicker then trying to jump through official hoops.

Lesson learned; instead of taking a DL option for PG that requires some minimal lab work, do two full cost moves, and don't try and do an experiment that's actually useful and relevant to the CAF. Could be almost done by now if I had just jumped on the ongoing experimental work and be finishing my thesis up, instead of just starting the experiment.


----------



## QM (6 Feb 2020)

Navy_Pete, small point here, but I don't think we are allowed to use AirBnB's. A guy in my unit had to eat the cost of an Air BNB he used on TD because there is supposedly a CANFORGEN denying us that option. Sorry that I don't have better details or a reference, but if you plan to use and claim them, it may be worth looking into, to ensure you haven't been given bad advice. Happy travels!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Feb 2020)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> Navy_Pete, small point here, but I don't think we are allowed to use AirBnB's. A guy in my unit had to eat the cost of an Air BNB he used on TD because there is supposedly a CANFORGEN denying us that option. Sorry that I don't have better details or a reference, but if you plan to use and claim them, it may be worth looking into, to ensure you haven't been given bad advice. Happy travels!



Unless there is something more recent

https://www.cfla-alfc.org/canforgens/canforgen-047-19/


> CANFORGEN 047/19 – USE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS
> 
> REFS: A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT INSTRUCTIONS, CHAPTER 208
> B. CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM
> ...


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Feb 2020)

The AirBNB is an option at the National Joint Council travel directive of what acceptable accomodation is defined as is pretty broad; excerpt and the link below.  Have used it a few times in the past for TD and the cost is just capped at whatever the local rate is. NJC actually specifically encourages non-hotel accomodations over 30 day stays, so things like AirBNB is probably the easiest way to do that (having previously had the joy of being on IR for 18 months).

Aside from being cheaper, where I'm at able to get a much better location and usually can find a suite/kitchenette, so it's a win for everyone.

There is actually a CANFORGEN that specifically allows it as well; not sure why there is a caveat when there isn't one on the NJC directive, but my particular TD went through several layer of travel approvals and the section 32 already, so not too worried about it. Not really sure what kind of hypothetical would result in someone having to pay it back, but anyway, included that ref and excerpt as well FYSA. If you read the NJC, the requirement to use the gov directory of hotels includes the caveat that it's normally done on a GoC travel card, but that requires the employee's consent(see 1.61). I don't have one, and don't want one, so bit of a bit of circular BS to force people to use the NJC on their own credit card, so would call that an easy grievance to bounce up if that was their logic.

In any case, my actual TD claim is a few thousand less then it could be after some intentional cost cuttings on my end when I submitted it, so bit annoyed to get dinged for $200 for a 4 week trip because someone doesn't consider on site travel requirements in the cost comparison.



Refs:
https://www.cfla-alfc.org/canforgens/canforgen-047-19/

CANFORGEN 047/19 – USE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS

REFS: A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT INSTRUCTIONS, CHAPTER 208
B. CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM
C. CANADIAN FORCES TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL INSTRUCTIONS
D. DCBA 3 001/19 281950Z FEB 19
E. DCBA 3 002/19 281944Z FEB 19

    AS PART OF ONGOING EFFORTS TO MODERNIZE AND STREAMLINE THE ADMINISTRATION OF CAF TRAVEL AND RELOCATION POLICIES AND PROCESSES, I AM PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE NEW GUIDELINES WITH REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS SUCH AS UBER AND AIRBNB. CAF MBRS WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS, IN LOCATIONS WHERE THEY ARE NOW LEGAL/REGULATED, IAW REFS WHILE ON TD,OR DURING RELOCATION
    WITH REGARD TO TD, USE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES MAY BE REIMBURSED AS A MODE OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION. ADDITIONALLY, ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS MAY BE SELECTED BY THE APPROVING AUTHORITY IF NONE OF THE ACCOMMODATIONS LISTED IN THE ACCOMMODATION AND CAR RENTAL DIRECTORY (ACRD) ARE AVAILABLE.
    WITH REGARD TO RELOCATIONS, RIDE SHARING SERVICES ARE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE EXPENSES WHEN USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPTIONS. ADDITIONALLY CAF MBRS MAY BE REIMBURSED ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION BOOKING EXPENSES UP TO THE RATES ESTABLISHED IN THE ACRD BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOTEL/MOTEL ROOMS THEIR FAMILY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO
    THESE NEW GUIDELINES TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, AND MODERN PRACTICES WITHIN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY. THEY AIM TO ENSURE THAT CLAIMS ARE ADMINISTERED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF REFS A, B, AND C, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY RECOGNIZING CHANGING PRACTICES WITHIN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY. DETAILED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES (REFS D AND E) CAN BE FOUND AT THE FOL LINK: HTTP://CMP-CPM.MIL.CA/EN/BENEFITS/BENEFITS-GENERIC.PAGE

****************
NJC directive Part III

https://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/d10/v238/s644/en#s644-tc-tm_3_1

3.3.1 Accommodation

The standard for accommodation is a single room, in a safe environment, conveniently located and comfortably equipped.

A variety of options for accommodation are available for travel. Generally these include hotels, motels, corporate residences, apartments, private non-commercial accommodation, and government and institutional accommodation.

In accordance with 1.6.1, government hotel directories shall be used for the selection of accommodation where properties are listed therein for the travel location. Where properties for a particular location are not listed, or are listed but not available for the travel period, the directories shall be used to help determine the cost of accommodation by comparing costs in similar nearby locations.


----------



## Nkachur (14 Aug 2020)

Just to let everyone know, I recently submitted and was granted redress on the class "a" interpretation of the policy of POMV at member request of the CFTDTI. The director general has agreed that "class a" members are not required to have leave and are allowed to travel over 500 km. We are waiting for DCBA to acknowledge but if members would like to submit grievance, i might be able to help.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Aug 2020)

Rather than generate more documents that might bog down the system, wouldn't it be better to wait until a policy change is announced?


----------



## Nkachur (14 Aug 2020)

Unfortunately that might increase the time that DCBA takes to make an announcement. With only one redress on the topic it is only my word that this issue is systemic. I have been told that additional redress will bring the issue to the top of the pile.


----------



## ballz (14 Aug 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Rather than generate more documents that might bog down the system, wouldn't it be better to wait until a policy change is announced?



What makes you think one will be announced? 

Decisions by the DGCB (the IA for this) are not published and it's Protected B info so technically shouldn't be distributed. We had one happen last year for which I was provided a copy of with consent of the member. We sent an "inquiry" (ie. a prompt) to DCBA 3 as to when they would be updating the AIG that had caused the grievance. DCBA 3 wouldn't amend the AIG to actually reflect what DGCB had said. I had to tell them them we'd be submitting a second person's grievance over the same manner as the RDAO was still denying the benefit based on the unchanged DCBA direction. "I've tried to resolve this informally. If DCBA will not change it's position, then we'll send another grievance for the same thing to DGCB." To which he responded that before a member submits a grievance they'd have to go to DCBA for clarification first. To which we responded, "get f'd, the member can submit a grievance as soon as he is denied a benefit. You had your chance."

About 3-4 weeks later, they updated the AIG... but they still have the old AIG and the old information in their FAQ posted on their website a year later.

DCBA 3 is really just one civilian, a former RMS clerk, some might say dinosaur, whose literacy is questionable and he is literally making decisions that affect every soldier, sometimes in quite substantial ways, and has a rotating chair of Majors who always seem absent that are supposed to be supervising.

The same person who's got his name tied to a lot of these grievance decisions and yet somehow hasn't been fired. "Waiting for a policy change to be announced" won't help the guy who wants to travel with their POMV tomorrow, next week, or likely within the next year.... it might never occur with those jokers.


----------



## MJP (15 Aug 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> What makes you think one will be announced?
> 
> Decisions by the DGCB (the IA for this) are not published and it's Protected B info so technically shouldn't be distributed. We had one happen last year for which I was provided a copy of with consent of the member. We sent an "inquiry" (ie. a prompt) to DCBA 3 as to when they would be updating the AIG that had caused the grievance. DCBA 3 wouldn't amend the AIG to actually reflect what DGCB had said. I had to tell them them we'd be submitting a second person's grievance over the same manner as the RDAO was still denying the benefit based on the unchanged DCBA direction. "I've tried to resolve this informally. If DCBA will not change it's position, then we'll send another grievance for the same thing to DGCB." To which he responded that before a member submits a grievance they'd have to go to DCBA for clarification first. To which we responded, "get f'd, the member can submit a grievance as soon as he is denied a benefit. You had your chance."
> 
> ...



True, had a a very unique LTA "test the system" case where the member's IA was granted by DGCB but LTA policy never changed. Mbr was successful in claiming that they didn't have to be on leave for the entire time period in a reverse LTA situation. 

I haven't looked to see if it was updated later but it certainly wasn't the case 1+ year after the original decision.


----------



## ballz (15 Aug 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> True, had a a very unique LTA "test the system" case where the member's IA was granted by DGCB but LTA policy never changed. Mbr was successful in claiming that they didn't have to be on leave for the entire time period in a reverse LTA situation.
> 
> I haven't looked to see if it was updated later but it certainly wasn't the case 1+ year after the original decision.



That's the same case I'm talking about, ask me about it at TGIT. It still has not been updated.


----------



## MJP (15 Aug 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's the same case I'm talking about, ask me about it at TGIT. It still has not been updated.



Haha will do, funny enough I was just re-reading the grievance today for a completely different reason.


----------



## CountDC (1 Oct 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> True, had a a very unique LTA "test the system" case where the member's IA was granted by DGCB but LTA policy never changed. Mbr was successful in claiming that they didn't have to be on leave for the entire time period in a reverse LTA situation.
> 
> I haven't looked to see if it was updated later but it certainly wasn't the case 1+ year after the original decision.



Really?  I could use that for one of my staff made to take leave when family visited on a reverse LTA.   Any chance you have the case number?


----------



## MJP (1 Oct 2020)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Really?  I could use that for one of my staff made to take leave when family visited on a reverse LTA.   Any chance you have the case number?


Let me check if I still have access to the system to grab it.  If not it may be a few days


----------

