# Medical travel reimbursement



## dubois (3 Aug 2022)

Good day everyone, I just have a small question about the medical travel claim. I have been on my transition to civilian for a while now.  I have been working from home and had to go to multiple medical appointments 50+km from my house. I don't live in a PMQ. My unit is taking off the KM off my Claim equal to a round trip to base saying that the military expect me to be on base and won't pay for the gas to go to base. This ends up taking over half the claim and doesn't even cover the gas. Are they screwing with me? Is there anything I can do. I been put on work from home by my docs. Also one of those claim was for a surgery where I had to be there for 0630 in the morning ....

Thank you


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Aug 2022)

Who precisely is telling you that there's no entitlement, and what is their specific rationale? If you have written authority to work from home, you should be covered for the whole trip minus any portion outside of the defined geographical boundaries of the base. For an appointment at 0630, you should have been authorized an overnight stay either in DND accommodation, or on the economy.

If you're being transitioned to civilian live, then you should have been posted to the local Transition Center, particularly if your release involves medical issues. One of their roles is to manage this sort of complexity. 

 I sense you may be in RoG territory, so perhaps a well articulated NOI might generate some action.


----------



## dubois (3 Aug 2022)

Yes indeed I am at the TC of my base. This info I given to me by the clerk saying that's how it's always been done. They say that the km done to go to base is expected to be done everyday. And they say that it starts from where the military "usually" work aka base. But for injured people that are work at home they say it's the same so they rove the km to go to base. They pulled the DRAS 208.80. it's ridiculous how they go such a length to fuck their own people...


----------



## MJP (3 Aug 2022)

dubois said:


> Yes indeed I am at the TC of my base. This info I given to me by the clerk saying that's how it's always been done. They say that the km done to go to base is expected to be done everyday. And they say that it starts from where the military "usually" work aka base. But for injured people that are work at home they say it's the same so they rove the km to go to base. They pulled the DRAS 208.80. it's ridiculous how they go such a length to fuck their own people...


 I couldn't find what you are referring to in the CAF TG DAP Index but it may be a non-published/under review policy. 

However, that is the normal way that MTECs are processed so the clerks are not wrong.  It is a logical flow that one should not be compensated for travel they would have undertaken normally anyway, but like many things in government policy does not always fit with every situation.  That said there is little point arguing with them over the issue as they don't control the policy.  

Since it sounds like it is all local health related travel ADM (HR-Mil) Instruction 08/05 (DWAN) does not come into played as health-related travel done within the geographical boundaries of a member's support base/wing. Authority for compensation is the member's base/wing commander or equivalent which is likely your own TC CoC

My suggestion is work with your TC Pl staff to seek a low level resolution/approval from your CO that sees you covered for misc travel expenses based on your place of residence vice work.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Aug 2022)

DRAS is the French acronym for CBI.


----------



## MJP (3 Aug 2022)

dapaterson said:


> DRAS is the French acronym for CBI.


Doh!

@dubois CBI 208 is all about relocation not travel per se and the relevant CBI 209 in this case (specifically 209.30(2) essentially says the CAF will issue admin instructions regarding duty travel which in your case would be the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions (CFTDIs)  They are likely pulling the reference for what they are saying from CFTDIs Chap 5 para 5.20 as their basis. My suggestion remains the same is ask your CO to approve travel from residence vice work


----------



## dapaterson (3 Aug 2022)

Alternative method to piss everyone off: State that you will not use your own vehicle, but want a DND/CAF vehicle instead: drive to base, drop off your car, pick up the DND/CAF vehicle, go to appointment, back to base, drop off DND/CAF vehicle, pick up your car, go home.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Aug 2022)

I would argue that if he is authorized to work from home, then that becomes his place of duty, and any travel elsewhere should be compensated.


----------



## MJP (3 Aug 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> I would argue that if he is authorized to work from home, then that becomes his place of duty, and any travel elsewhere should be compensated.


Yes, that is applying a common sense approach. 

 We live in a world where we are so risk-adverse that it would never fly. The policy is written or it's the way the unit operates. The staff have no way of circumventing it, therefore someone needs to approve it.  Ya CAF. 


This topic did get me thinking about about how they manage MTECs  for appts away from normal work location now given a vast swathe of people work from home.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Aug 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> I would argue that if he is authorized to work from home, then that becomes his place of duty, and any travel elsewhere should be compensated.


According to the CFTDTIs, no.  Para 5.20 a states “There is no entitlement for a member to be reimbursed any expenses for travel […] to and from their permanent workplace on a daily basis.”

The definition of permanent workplace for Reg Force members is “the location — inside a place of duty — of the establishment or other position to which a member is posted — not attached — to perform duty.”  The location of the establishment is normally on a base, even when working from home.

So, the CAF don’t pay your mileage to come into work.  I don’t know many employers that would pay your mileage to go to a hospital for care.  Be grateful of the gas you save from working from home on a daily basis and see it as just going to regular work. Your claim should have the mileage from base to appointment only.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2022)

Editing for references


----------



## kev994 (3 Aug 2022)

MJP said:


> Authority for compensation is the member's base/wing commander or equivalent which is likely your own TC CoC


Trenton uses this one to subtract the distance to the edge of the geographic area so YMMV


----------



## kev994 (3 Aug 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Alternative method to piss everyone off: State that you will not use your own vehicle, but want a DND/CAF vehicle instead: drive to base, drop off your car, pick up the DND/CAF vehicle, go to appointment, back to base, drop off DND/CAF vehicle, pick up your car, go home.


I’ve actually seen the BAdminO suggest this in an attempt to save the member some costs in a similar situation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2022)

I'll try this again.


dubois said:


> it's ridiculous how they go such a length to fuck their own people...



The CAF letting you work from home when you're injured isn't what many would consider ****ing their people.

Are you actually working from home in that you're set up with a laptop or tablet connected to the DWAN and you're doing 8 hour work days? Or are you getting paid to attend your medical appointments and chill out? 

Not criticizing you here but if it's the latter then that's a pretty big benefit.

Are your claims coming from the medical side or from your unit? As far as I'm aware (still looking for references but fairly confident) home units are not obligated to pay for claims when members are attending medical appointments, that includes the Transition Units.

Claims for medical appointments need to be approved through the medical team/medical claims clerk.

I would be careful with how much you push. Sometimes when people think they're getting screwed over they end up boning themselves. For example I know of a soldier who was getting their units duty driver to drive them to out of town medical appointments. They made a big deal over something small and the unit turned around and find your own transport. They went to the CDU to have a personal driver bring them and they got told they can take the duty bus or pay for their own transport. 

Your unit CO can't over ride your work from home MELs but 50kms may be out of your units geographical area and your CO isn't obligated to allow you to remain out of area.  SupersonicMax brings up a great point about saving 100Kms in gas everyday.


----------



## dubois (5 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'll try this again.
> 
> 
> The CAF letting you work from home when you're injured isn't what many would consider ****ing their people.
> ...


Pretty big benefit... I love how everyone assume we are so good. I'm work from home because each time I show my face on base I almost puke my guts out and want to crack anyone's skull... I'm not at home for fun. Do you know how much it makes me feel when I always thought I would complete at least 30 years.... It's a medical travel claim not a regular claim so yes it's on the medical side. Always pickup my paperwork at the CDU. I'm at 34 km of base so I am in the Geographical location of the base.


----------



## dubois (5 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, the CAF don’t pay your mileage to come into work.  I don’t know many employers that would pay your mileage to go to a hospital for care.  Be grateful of the gas you save from working from home on a daily basis and see it as just going to regular work. Your claim should have the mileage from base to appointment only.


I totally get that they won't pay me to go to work. I'm no fool. But when your doc says your work is home. Wtf are you supposed to do. People that lives in pmq gets their entire trip covered because the live in PMQ but people like me, get fucked over.


P.s  "Be grateful" is a bit much when I know that the life insurance I have for my wife does cover transport to specialised medical appt. It's the same with the forces. They are our life insurance because we HAVE to use the military health system.


----------



## Quirky (5 Aug 2022)

dubois said:


> People that lives in pmq gets their entire trip covered because the live in PMQ but people like me, get fucked over.



You chose to live off base. You get paid to sit at home and “work”, our medical system, in my opinion, is a joke allowing people to stay home, with full pay, because people are triggered seeing military bases. Any other employer would just fire you, be grateful.

Good luck in the real world, they won’t be as accommodating or pay you to chill on your couch all day.


----------



## dubois (5 Aug 2022)

Quirky said:


> You chose to live off base. You get paid to sit at home and “work”, our medical system, in my opinion, is a joke allowing people to stay home, with full pay, because people are triggered seeing military bases. Any other employer would just fire you, be grateful.
> 
> Good luck in the real world, they won’t be as accommodating or pay you to chill on your couch all day.


Yes I chose it. What's your point.

"Work" our medical system... I do still have physical injuries. The forces are supposed to take care of you medically. That's why you cant go civilian side and get a provincial health card.

I never said I was sitting on the couch all day did I ? Stop assuming that we are all like that. I might not be able to go on base but I still give my time somewhere in the community. I aint a freeloader.
You can go elsewhere with all your assumptions, thanks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Aug 2022)

dubois said:


> Pretty big benefit... I love how everyone assume we are so good.



We DO treat out people poorly in alot of ways. We also do some really good things, which isn't something injured members may appreciate hearing. There's jobs out there that literally hire private investigators to spy on their injured people. 




> I'm work from home because each time I show my face on base I almost puke my guts out and want to crack anyone's skull


It sounds like your medical team made a good decision both for yourself and for others safety. 



> It's a medical travel claim not a regular claim so yes it's on the medical side.


Nice. If the driving is bothering you or too expensive you may be able to approach your unit and ask if they can have a driver pick you up and bring you to your appointments. Medical would sign a claim for your meals and your escort/drivers meals but save money since the driver would just use the base fuel pumps to gas up. 



dubois said:


> but people like me, get fucked over.



Some units dish out some pretty ridiclous TD claims. At the end of the day it's less that someone is trying to Fuck over soldier so and so, and more that people are just following the policy.  If you disagree with the policy you can try to change it. (I can't remember off the top of my head if you can grieve a CAF wide policy or not,  but you can still try and change it)



dubois said:


> I might not be able to go on base but I still give my time somewhere in the community.



You should be careful here. If you're MELs say work from home then that means you should be at home between 8-4 as that's your place of duty. That's not working off base in the community. If you are working you can have your clinician change your MELs to no military environment (you can still go to your unit for claims etc.. ) ,  and civilian work place only.  
You're not allowed volunteering during work hours.


----------



## dubois (5 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> You should be careful here. If you're MELs say work from home then that means you should be at home between 8-4 as that's your place of duty. That's not working off base in the community. If you are working you can have your clinician change your MELs to no military environment (you can still go to your unit for claims etc.. ) ,  and civilian work place only.
> You're not allowed volunteering during work hours.


 It's part of my MELs to volunteer.  I have some time home some time in the community.

Thanks for the extra warning.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Aug 2022)

It's wild to hear that. I'm surprised , but maybe not that much because of our medical system. 

You're not "volunteering" because you're getting paid by the government.  The government isn't supposed to pay employees to volunteer at organizations. 

You could work for an organization that takes volunteers but that would be a part of a RTD program and it wouldn't (or I should say shouldn't) be "working from home".

In any case it sounds like it's working for you though so that's great. Cheers.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Aug 2022)

dubois said:


> I totally get that they won't pay me to go to work. I'm no fool. But when your doc says your work is home. Wtf are you supposed to do. People that lives in pmq gets their entire trip covered because the live in PMQ but people like me, get fucked over.
> 
> 
> P.s  "Be grateful" is a bit much when I know that the life insurance I have for my wife does cover transport to specialised medical appt. It's the same with the forces. They are our life insurance because we HAVE to use the military health system.


You want to challenge the policy, go ahead. You can write to CMP and get them to adjucate but you don’t have much of a leg to stand on (don’t go the grievance route - you’re challenging the policy itself, not the interpretation of a policy).  The policy, as written, doesn’t allow for your whole mileage to be paid out.


----------



## ballz (6 Aug 2022)

This entire thread has been giving me anxiety for days and watching it turn into a bun fight reminds me why I need to stop coming on this site  while I am still decompressing from the years of stupidity I had to endure in the CAF. I'm not sure I've seen more incorrect statements said in one go all based on how clerks are doing things ... which means jack shit as our clerks are given very poor training by some very incompetent and intellectually lazy people and so even those who are very smart are doing many things incorrectly.

Bottom line, up front.... the member is entitled to mileage for the *entire distance, *not the entire distance minus the distance the would normally drive to get to the base.



A medical appointment is a duty and doing so off-base constitutes being on TD. If there are any questions about it, the ADM(HR) instruction makes it clear that a member attending a medical appointment is on duty on TD, which is also well document in grievance case summaries.... plus, even if it didn't explicitly state that anywhere it meets the definition of TD, although obviously some people can't read or it wouldn't be in a grievance case summary!

It also makes clear that medical travel outside the geographic area (place of duty) is the responsibility of member's CDU, while inside the local geographic area is under the Base Commander's authority. To be clear, authority in this context means his financial authorities. The Base Commander is the approving authority for the TD IAW his/her delegation of authority... don't confuse this with having "discretion" over whether or not they have to reimburse travel for someone who has a duty to travel. Yes, I wish they would use simple words because intellectually lazy finance officers can't be bothering to read and understand the policies, but c'est la vie.

The ADM(HR) policy is correct in saying it's under the Base Commander's authority as providing transportation to local medical appointments is a Base Service and the the Base Commander funded to do so as part of the purpose of bases are these types of things for everyone on the base (which is why it doesn't matter if it's Army, Air Force, Navy, etc.). Units are funded for operations and training, the bases are funded for these types of base support services. This is why the ADM(HR) instruction says "local medical travel is under the authority of the Base Commander." This is why, back when the CAF could properly administer itself, the Base would have things like a medical run to the local hospital, to cut down on TD claims and costs... some still do, but for the most part _the reason why_ has been forgotten and in some bases like Edmonton the Base does nothing and it falls on local units picking up the slack which is _not right_ especially since the Base is receiving the money to do this, but they're busy spending it on more treadmills in March.

I'm surprised to hear the local CDU is administering the claims for local appointments, but perhaps the Base Commander has provided a SAF to the CDU's CO (or, more likely, it's being done incorrectly).

In any case, now that we've established this is TD in the local area (regardless of whose signing it), let's get into the TD entitlements for travel...

"5.40 PMV - driver

(Member Is Requested To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 5.20(2) (Selection), a member - who is requested by an approving authority to use a PMV on duty travel and who uses that PMV as requested -* is entitled to be reimbursed:*
*the kilometric rate for the direct road distance;*
the actual and reasonable parking expenses during the TD or attached posting; and
if the member is required to purchase additional insurance to carry passengers for business purposes, the actual and reasonable expenses of that additional insurance.

(Member Requests To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 5.20(2) (Selection), a member 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 the lesser of:*
*the kilometric rate for the direct road distance,* and
as determined by a method established under the authority of the CDS, the cost of the more economical and practical mode of transportation."

*Direct road distance* - means the shortest, practical road distance between two points, that is determined — by the approving authority — in accordance with generally accepted road distance measurement practices.

Notice it does not say "minus the distance a member would normally travel from their dwelling to their permanent workplace" or anything of that sort.

This wording is the exact same in every chapter, do they take off the KM of your normal daily commute from your TD trips when you're going to the airport or driving 200km from Edmonton to Wainwright?


Now, some have incorrectly pointed to the fact that at the front of Chapter 5, it stays "(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;"

This is also stated at the front of Chapter 6, 7, and 8. So why do you think it gets subtracted from the "direct road distance" for Chapter 5 travel, and not for Chapter 6, 7, or 8?

And thus we see the mistake being made here.... trying to take a line from 40 paragraphs prior and insert it into somewhere it doesn't belong. This is the same mistake DCBA made with cost-comparisons and why the CAF had to pull every cost-comparison done between 2015 and 2020 and re-do them all when someone finally grieved it.



SupersonicMax said:


> You want to challenge the policy, go ahead. You can write to CMP and get them to adjucate but you don’t have much of a leg to stand on (don’t go the grievance route - you’re challenging the policy itself, not the interpretation of a policy).  The policy, as written, doesn’t allow for your whole mileage to be paid out.



The grievance is the proper route, and yes, the policy as written explicitly states that the mileage, in full, is the entitlement.



MJP said:


> However, that is the normal way that MTECs are processed so the clerks are not wrong.



You owe me a case of beer for all the years that statement just took off my life, and from you of all people.


----------



## ballz (6 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, the CAF don’t pay your mileage to come into work.  I don’t know many employers that would pay your mileage to go to a hospital for care.  Be grateful of the gas you save from working from home on a daily basis and see it as just going to regular work. *Your claim should have the mileage from base to appointment only.*



So if he lives on the south side of town, 5km from the appointment, and the base is 30km north, he should be reimbursed for 60km? Base-to-appointment and back? Even though he only drives 10km?

I don't know many employers that do a lot of the stupid shit the CAF does, I probably wouldn't use that argument much cause when one weighs it all out the CAF will lose every time, such as the retention rates are showing.


----------



## kev994 (6 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> This entire thread has been giving me anxiety for days and watching it turn into a bun fight reminds me why I need to stop coming on this site  while I am still decompressing from the years of stupidity I had to endure in the CAF. I'm not sure I've seen more incorrect statements said in one go all based on how clerks are doing things ... which means jack shit as our clerks are given very poor training by some very incompetent and intellectually lazy people and so even those who are very smart are doing many things incorrectly.
> 
> Bottom line, up front.... the member is entitled to mileage for the *entire distance, *not the entire distance minus the distance the would normally drive to get to the base.
> 
> ...


You’re missing a bulletin (I don’t remember who the authority is) that says there’s no entitlement to medical travel in the geographic area and outside the geographic area the entitlement is at the discretion of the formation commander. I can probably dig it up, I’ve dealt with this exact thing recently.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> (Member Requests To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 5.20(2) (Selection), a member 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 the lesser of:*
> 
> 
> *the kilometric rate for the direct road distance,* and
> ...


Couple things here. 

1- If the member requests to use PMV, that’s kilometric rate up to what it would have cost using the moat economical and practical means. Essentially 0$ if provided with a military vehicle.
2- In the definition of direct road distance, there is no definition of what the two points are. 

If the OP wants to play that game, I would order them to come to work to pick up their claim and start the local TD from work and come back into work to finalize their claim.  They are getting financial relief that many (outside Ottawa) aren’t getting, by not having to drive into work.


----------



## MJP (6 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> You owe me a case of beer for all the years that statement just took off my life, and from you of all people.


Meh, that is how MTECs for medical travel are processed on a few bases.  I didn't pull it out of my @ss, I went and looked at base standing orders and other things for many of the policies. They are essentially following CFTDIs Chap 5 para 5.20 in their application. Didn't say I agreed or disagreed with that application just told OP that clerks don't make policy (although they can advise) and if he wanted it changed then work with his CoC.

I have my own personal opinion of the request and even the application of the policy but I felt no need to share it. Just wanted to give someone a method they could potentially solve their issue


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Couple things here.
> 
> 1- If the member requests to use PMV, that’s kilometric rate up to what it would have cost using the moat economical and practical means. Essentially 0$ if provided with a military vehicle.


Exactly. Using ones own car isn't a right. In this case the medical side could just request a vehicle and driver from the base transport and have a mbr meet the driver on base to drive them to and from their appointment. No obligation for reimbursement for a mbr driving from home to unit.


----------



## Quirky (6 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> A medical appointment is a duty



This is the craziest thing, CF pays you to attend medical appointments and people still feel entitled and have the audacity to feel "fucked by the CF". Incredible.


----------



## childs56 (6 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> So if he lives on the south side of town, 5km from the appointment, and the base is 30km north, he should be reimbursed for 60km? Base-to-appointment and back? Even though he only drives 10km?
> 
> I don't know many employers that do a lot of the stupid shit the CAF does, I probably wouldn't use that argument much cause when one weighs it all out the CAF will lose every time, such as the retention rates are showing.


When I used my truck for work purposes I received a minimum of 100km day at .55cents km. Plus fuel card. So yes there is a standard in some industries to cover the cost of vehicle usage. It isn't just the km used its the maintenance required and the risk for use that is paid for.


----------



## ballz (6 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Couple things here.
> 
> 1- If the member requests to use PMV, that’s kilometric rate up to what it would have cost using the moat economical and practical means. Essentially 0$ if provided with a military vehicle.



Not accurate at all.

If the member _requests_ to use their PMV, then the "method established under the authority of the CDS, the cost of the more economical and practical mode of transportation" is used... that method is the cost-comparison and it doesn't have military transport / crown vehicles  as one of the comparison factors. IIRC it compares the cost of flights, bus/taxi, or rental. In a short trip the PMV KM-rate is almost always the cheapest since even a taxi ends up being more than the km-rate. And only the CDS and CMP have authority to amend the cost comparison, not your clerks, or a CO/Base Commander.



SupersonicMax said:


> 2- In the definition of direct road distance, there is no definition of what the two points are.



Dude stop, this is pathetic. It can't say what the two points are because a policy can't know where a member's duty travel is going to begin or end. For example, the member could be at work on base for half the day and need to conduct duty travel to a meeting and back to the base. In that case. In the case it would base-to-meeting-to-base.

In the case of someone travelling to a medical appointment from their home, it's obviously home-to-appointment location-to-home. As soon as they leave their home, they're on duty travel (if they get in a car accident, for example, it's a duty-related injury).




SupersonicMax said:


> If the OP wants to play that game, I would order them to come to work to pick up their claim and start the local TD from work and come back into work to finalize their claim.  They are getting financial relief that many (outside Ottawa) aren’t getting, by not having to drive into work.



Yes, unfortunately it's difficult to protect the CAF's members from leaders that lack integrity and character, hence all the scandals in the news and public and membership's loss of confidence in the CAF's leadership. You should be ashamed to say something like that publicly but as with so many in the CAF, you can't shame the shameless.

Perhaps you could just fulfill your duties as they are written in a professional manner (_sans petty ego-tripping)_, and select the most appropriate mode of transportation considering the factors outlined it the policy:

"1. the *relative cost and* *efficiency* of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;
2. the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation - in the duty travel area;
3. forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel;
4. the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services;
5. the CF’s operational needs;
6. an intermediate sedan is the standard rental vehicle across government;
7. the member’s safety and convenience;
8. the amount of baggage or supplies that the member is required to transport; and
9. any other factor that is immediately relevant to the duty travel requirement."


Anyone considering the circumstances *objectively and without bias *would not come to the conclusion you're coming to.

And then just pay the member what they're entitled to (the direct road distance for the duty travel which is from their house to the medical appointment), instead of doing mental gymnastics to try and avoid paying a member an extra $20 to do the most efficient and practical thing because for some reason that extra $20 offends you.



Jarnhamar said:


> Exactly. Using ones own car isn't a right. In this case the medical side could just request a vehicle and driver from the base transport and have a mbr meet the driver on base to drive them to and from their appointment. No obligation for reimbursement for a mbr driving from home to unit.



Great use of resources there. Losing a fully functional Private or Corporal and a Crown vehicle for a half-day or more (all constrained resources), maybe have to pay out additional meals anyway, creating extra administration, prolonging the amount of the time the member in question is tied up in this duty so they can't work on other things, etc. all to avoid paying an extra $20 (which is hardly a constrained resource as the CAF is swimming in money).

I'm sure the Private selected for this task will be happy to know that their time is worth so little to CAF.

The approving authority is provided the _opportunity_ to avoid all this nonsense by the CFTDTIs and maximize the use of his available resources, should he choose to use good problem solving skills.

Bravo folks, you have both provided a perfect example of why the CAF can't get out of its own way.



kev994 said:


> You’re missing a bulletin (I don’t remember who the authority is) that says there’s no entitlement to medical travel in the geographic area and outside the geographic area the entitlement is at the discretion of the formation commander. I can probably dig it up, I’ve dealt with this exact thing recently.



I assure you whichever "bulletin" that is, is not approved anyone with the actual authority to make such a policy... Likely some random Base policy crafted by someone who should be employed with maximum supervision.


----------



## ballz (6 Aug 2022)

childs56 said:


> When I used my truck for work purposes I received a minimum of 100km day at .55cents km. Plus fuel card. So yes there is a standard in some industries to cover the cost of vehicle usage. It isn't just the km used its the maintenance required and the risk for use that is paid for.



My private sector employer also doesn't spend countless hours trying to figure out how to nickel and dime me, going to great lengths and wasting numerous other resources to try and figure out how they can avoid reimbursing me an extra $20.


----------



## kev994 (6 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> I assure you whichever "bulletin" that is, is not approved anyone with the actual authority to make such a policy... Likely some random Base policy crafted by someone who should be employed with maximum supervision.


ADM (HR-Mil) Instruction 08/05. Now you made me open my work computer on a weekend.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> Great use of resources there. Losing a fully functional Private or Corporal and a Crown vehicle for a half-day or more (all constrained resources), maybe have to pay out additional meals anyway, creating extra administration, prolonging the amount of the time the member in question is tied up in this duty so they can't work on other things, etc. all to avoid paying an extra $20 (which is hardly a constrained resource as the CAF is swimming in money).


I'll counter this brother. There are soldiers whose duty is to be a driver. Some of them may even be injured themselves (I think employing injured soldiers as drivers is a better alternative than the canteen). Drivers may be bored sitting around waiting for driving tasks and may jump at the opportunity to:
-get out and do something;
-get a $20 breakfast, $20 lunch, $50 supper claim; and
-avoid shit jobs that may come down the pipe.

Transport often has vehicles just sitting around collecting dust. Those vehicles should be used and not just sit around to ensure parts don't become ceased up (meaning you lose that asset for months and require using another one in it's place). $$

I'm not sure if the CAF pays a premium for fuel or gets it at a discount. What's now rate per km, .25cents for claims?

So it could cost the CAF more to pay someone to use their PMV fuel wise, or the CAF could save money using their own base fuel. I'm not sure.



ballz said:


> I'm sure the Private selected for this task will be happy to know that their time is worth so little to CAF.


Considering what we pay privates in the CAF I don't think they're in a place to bitch and complain about driving an injured soldier to a medical appointment.



ballz said:


> The approving authority is provided the _opportunity_ to avoid all this nonsense by the CFTDTIs and maximize the use of his available resources, should he choose to use good problem solving skills.


Taking your PMV still is not a right. If it's a shitty system and it's legitimately unfair to members then someone should change it.



ballz said:


> Bravo folks, you have both provided a perfect example of why the CAF can't get out of its own way.


If walking everywhere was good enough for dinosaurs it's good enough for the troops  🦖


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Aug 2022)

Man, I thought I'd only see this level of saltiness on CAF Reddit.

Ultimately there's really only 1 solution here:

OP doesn't like the reimbursement policy the Base is using. Fine, ask for a duty driver or a staff car. When they say no, you fall under full high rate mileage.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> If the member _requests_ to use their PMV, then the "method established under the authority of the CDS, the cost of the more economical and practical mode of transportation" is used... that method is the cost-comparison and it doesn't have military transport / crown vehicles  as one of the comparison factors. IIRC it compares the cost of flights, bus/taxi, or rental. In a short trip the PMV KM-rate is almost always the cheapest since even a taxi ends up being more than the km-rate. And only the CDS and CMP have authority to amend the cost comparison, not your clerks, or a CO/Base Commander.


Fair.  No staff car. Cost compare with a bus pass.

Yes, unfortunately it's difficult to protect the CAF's members from leaders that lack integrity and character, hence all the scandals in the news and public and membership's loss of confidence in the CAF's leadership. You should be ashamed to say something like that publicly but as with so many in the CAF, you can't shame the shameless.
It is not lacking integrity, it is being a steward of CAF ressources. Not sure if you’ve been following but the CAF has been in hot water for financial stewardship before. 


ballz said:


> "1. the *relative cost and* *efficiency* of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;
> 2. the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation - in the duty travel area;
> 3. forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel;
> 4. *the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services;*
> ...


You forgot to read 3 lines down.  PMV is not a preferred method of transport for local trips.

I have been ordered, before, to take a staff car when I requested a PMV. I didn’t come here to complain my CO lacked integrity and character.  It’s part of life and my travel costs were still covered. I didn’t make money out of it but that’s not the purpose of the CFTDTIs.


----------



## ballz (6 Aug 2022)

kev994 said:


> ADM (HR-Mil) Instruction 08/05. Now you made me open my work computer on a weekend.



That's literally the policy that's been quoted in here numerous times, with links, and it does not, in any way, say what you are saying it says.

It says medical travel outside of the geographical area is under the CDU and that medical travel inside the geographical area falls under the Base Commander's authority. I've already provided a lengthy explanation to what that means and it doesn't mean it's their "discretion."

The Edmonton CDU referenced the ADM(HR) instruction and published a letter to show members stating that there was no entitlement to local medical travel but if the member could substantiate that it would cause financial hardship the Base Commander could "decide" to reimburse it. Thankfully the CO didn't have an ego problem so when we (1 CMBG) properly explained the policies to him he changed the letter without drama.



Jarnhamar said:


> I'll counter this brother. There are soldiers whose duty is to be a driver. Some of them may even be injured themselves (I think employing injured soldiers as drivers is a better alternative than the canteen). Drivers may be bored sitting around waiting for driving tasks and may jump at the opportunity to:
> -get out and do something;
> -get a $20 breakfast, $20 lunch, $50 supper claim; and
> -avoid shit jobs that may come down the pipe.
> ...



"Cost" is the not the same thing as "_cost and efficiency_."

I'm not going to argue that what you're saying are all legitimate things to consider, because they are, but that's entirely different than what was being thrown around in this thread:

1) That TD in the local area is supposed to have the mileage to and from base subtracted from the mileage;
2) That they should/could order someone to drive to the base to do their claims and subvert the requirement to pay mileage for TD;
3) That it's responsible/ethical to do so even if it makes no practical sense.

All of the things you mention might be plausible, might not, depending on the base and other circumstances, hence why the approving authority is actually supposed to weigh the factors and decide the best route.



Jarnhamar said:


> Considering what we pay privates in the CAF I don't think they're in a place to bitch and complain about driving an injured soldier to a medical appointment.



I'm not sure if you're saying we pay them too much, or too little, or what their pay has to do with people becoming disgruntled when their time is not used appropriately and effectively by leadership. I think one of the biggest gripes most people in the CAF have, and it's legit, is all of their time getting wasted inefficiently and how it contributes to people being burned out, etc. There's some serious cognitive dissonance going on here with how the CAF employs people and simultaneously complains about self-inflicted problems like this.



Jarnhamar said:


> Taking your PMV still is not a right. If it's a shitty system and it's legitimately unfair to members then someone should change it.



Never argued it was, just that if you look most duty travel in the local area, it's almost always the best decision to request the member to use their PMV and should be utilized far more often than it is... but hey, I have high expectations for leadership, you know.. be professionally competent and act ethically.

The "system" or reference is fairly good, it's the leadership trying to apply the policy (incorrectly, usually) that's causing problems. There's not a whole lot you could change about the CFTDTIs to improve them, however there is much room for improvement in the people charged with applying it.



SupersonicMax said:


> Fair.  No staff car. Cost compare with a bus pass.



Maybe you should actually look at a cost-comparison instead of just trying to be right. I can't remember exactly what's listed on there but public transportation definitely isn't. When I said "bus/train," I meant a commercial transportation i.e. greyhound. And I can't actually recall which methods of commercial transport are listed, but I know public transportation isn't.



SupersonicMax said:


> It is not lacking integrity, it is being *a steward of CAF ressources*. Not sure if you’ve been following but the CAF has been in hot water for financial stewardship before.



You're ignoring every other resource except for what actually gets directly reimbursed by the member. You're providing a perfect demonstration of piss poor stewardship of resources. Hey, I got an idea, let's get the troops to do garbage sweeps in the community while we're at it, it's all free labour right?



SupersonicMax said:


> You forgot to read 3 lines down.  PMV is not a preferred method of transport for local trips.



I didn't forget to read anything, you're trying to argue about things you don't know about and are too intellectually lazy to go read it yourself and need it spoon-fed to you.

"(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*:

The Approving Authority has to consider and weigh all the factors in every assessment, not cherry pick various ones to suit their own biases.

Yes, some guidance is added for *short local trips *_- that doesn't mean or imply that every trip within the geographic area is a short, local trip, nor does it limit weighing all the other factors into the thought-process. _Local geographic areas can be quite large, 100k+. Once again, it provides the decision-maker space to make good decisions... something some people clearly aren't capable of.

The reference gives the approving authority the leeway to weigh all relevant factors and make a decision that actually makes sense. I.e. if it's a 50km trip, request the member to use their PMV at a cost of $60 instead of a taxi both ways at a cost of $200 - or request them to use their vehicle at a cost of $60 instead of a taking 3 public busses there and 3 publish busses back, turning a 2 hour day into an 8 hour day and incurring costs for lunch and dinner anyway. Cause that would be _stupid _and unfortunately the TB personnel drafting the policy couldn't possibly predict the depths of stupid some people are willing to go.



SupersonicMax said:


> I have been ordered, before, to take a staff car when I requested a PMV. I didn’t come here to complain my CO lacked integrity and character.  It’s part of life and my travel costs were still covered. I didn’t make money out of it but that’s not the purpose of the CFTDTIs.



And what does that have to do with this? Did your CO dreaming up an inefficient scheme that takes up far more resources than the extra mileage that would be reimbursed, all because of his personal feelings about you being reimbursed for mileage? I wouldn't expect you to complain about his lack of integrity and character if he made a well-thought out decision that considered relevant factors. If, however, you were taking your vehicle, were told you weren't going to be reimburse for half the trip, and showed/demonstrated the proper application of the CFTDTIs and so the CO, rather just admit being incorrect and moving on about his day, decided to start doing backflips and mental gymnastics to ensure you didn't "get your way" even though that's what made the most sense..... well that would be a totally different scenario worthy of criticism, wouldn't it?

If you don't like the government rates for mileage, write your MP about it and stop suggesting stupid things like screwing numerous people around for no reason just cause it gets your rocks off. Toxic leadership 101.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Aug 2022)

I fail to see how ordering the member to use a government vehicle a bad use of resources. We have vehicles literally for those types of things. Not using them would be a bad use of resources. If talking about the OP’s time, that’s up to local CoC to decide whether the OP’s work time is better spent doing the admin surrounding getting a staff car or doing work tasks.

On the day of their local trip, it seems like they were expected to show up to base (permanent workplace) and then start their local travel from that location. As there is no entitlement to drive up to base, that part is not covered.  

Paying for the portion of going onto base would be an unfair application as everyone else that drives to base on a daily basis that have similar appointments wouldn’t have that part covered. That aspect of both fairness and appearance of fairness in the application of the policies is important for the morale of others. There could be an OP’s neighbour that conduct the same type of work getting compensated differently for the same appointment.

If the OP is worried about not having enough to pay for gas (which seems to be the issue), requesting a fleet car would solve that.

There is grey in the policy exactly for those reasons: to give option space for commanders and take those kind of things in consideration.

As far as buses, I used buses vs rental cars several times on TD (outside the local area) when I didn’t have much to carry. It is surprisingly efficient in most cities.

Not sure whether you have ever been an approving authority or a CO (when you have a bigger picture of all the factors), but you sure sling a lot of mud.


----------



## ballz (6 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I fail to see how ordering the member to use a government vehicle a bad use of resources.



That all depends on all the other factors involved. Having a member drive 50km North to Base to get a vehicle, and then 50km south to go to their appointment, and then 50km north again to return the vehicle, and then 50km south to get back home, would be galactically stupid. Also, not every base has a surplus of vehicles available and sometimes you're forced to rent. It's also more staff time involved to TSR and issue a vehicle which for the sake of a small trip. There' a myriad of factors, but you're trying to get away from the point. Let's replay this shall we...

1) The correct application of the policy was pointed out to you
2) You didn't like it, started getting petty (I quote... "If the OP wants to play that game")
3) Decided you should order someone to do something that makes no sense because you don't wanna lose this "game" where people get reimbursed IAW correct application of policy.



SupersonicMax said:


> On the day of their local trip, it seems like they were expected to show up to base (permanent workplace) and then start their local travel from that location. As there is no entitlement to drive up to base, that part is not covered.



It doesn't say that at all. When given the correct info, you decided it was appropriate to try to make it that way in order to subvert paying the extra chump change.



SupersonicMax said:


> Paying for the portion of going onto base would be an unfair application as everyone else that drives to base on a daily basis that have similar appointments wouldn’t have that part covered.



That's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. In the case where the appointment is closer to base, the person working from home might get reimbursed more. In the case where the appointment is closer to home, the person working on base may very well get reimbursed more.  If you're getting reimbursed for actual mileage of the TD journey then that's about as fair as you can make it.



SupersonicMax said:


> That aspect of both fairness and appearance of fairness in the application of the policies is important for the morale of others. There could be an OP’s neighbour that conduct the same type of work getting compensated differently for the same appointment.



Are they travelling the same route as part of their TD? If not, then apples are being compared to oranges. Like I said, if the appoint is right next to OP's residence, then his neighbour might be getting reimbursed more.



SupersonicMax said:


> If the OP is worried about not having enough to pay for gas (which seems to be the issue), requesting a fleet car would solve that.



That wasn't in your petty COA at all. Backtracking much?



SupersonicMax said:


> There is grey in the policy exactly for those reasons: to give option space for commanders and take those kind of things in consideration.



Yeah, which has nothing to do with incorrectly subtracting mileage from claims.



SupersonicMax said:


> As far as buses, I used buses vs rental cars several times on TD (outside the local area) when I didn’t have much to carry. It is surprisingly efficient in most cities.



Okay?



SupersonicMax said:


> Not sure whether you have ever been an approving authority or a CO (when you have a bigger picture of all the factors),



Lol, because I need to be a CO to see "the bigger picture" of use of resources. Yep, so many of them are geniuses at that which is why the CAF doesn't waste resources at all.... of course you need to be a LCol to be capable of such a complex task as figuring out the most practical method for a trip to a local appointment.

That must be why people in Wainwright are being told to take the shuttle to the Edmonton Airport, then take a $100 cab to the Base, and then $100 cab back to the airport + associated meals, in order to attend something on Base Edmonton, instead of just reimbursing them $200 to take their car and drive straight to base, cutting the length of their day in half.... because all of those genius COs who seeing the bigger picture so much better... couldn't possibly be because... oh nvm, you get where I'm going with this.



SupersonicMax said:


> but you sure sling a lot of mud.



Well you could have just been rational and objective instead of trying to win "that game" of approving authority who's wrong vs soldier who just wants their travel to be done IAW the CFTDTIs. Toxic leadership begets toxic followers.

Like I said, this thread gives me anxiety.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Aug 2022)

The policy allows for substracting mileage, depending on how it is applied.  In fact, that’s almost exclusively how I have seen it applied.  “Playing the game” was meant as removing the convenience of starting the trip from home and start it from base, and get the same reimbursement.  Allowing the OP to start directly from home while getting the mikeage from base to appointment is just a way to use common sense while applying some fiscal responsibility.  If the OP wants more financial compensation because they are allowed to start traveling from home, then ordering them to work for their admin before proceeding on their local trip is entirely within the scope of what can be done to avoid this issue.  Because the policy allows, amongst other options, a thing, doesn’t mean we need to use that option. Not sure how a fair application of policy makes “a place of work, usually an office environment, that is marked by significant personal conflicts between those who work there.”  If you consider this a significant conflict, I have news for you…

Most people are expected to be working from the office (again, outside Ottawa).  The only fair way to apply the policy is to reimburse mileage from the “permanent workplace” to the appointment.

FWIW, when I was working from home, in the letter allowing me to work from home, it was specific that I was not to be reimbursed anything above and beyond what I would normally be allowed to claim if I was working from the office, including any extra TD costs.

The reality is that the CFTDTIs haven’t been update to reflect the reality of working from home.

If you can’t see that the OP is already afforded a significant financial advantage over their colleagues, by not having to drive to work every day probably, $100 a week, and you think that only paying mileage from base to appointment the odd time is unfair, not sure what else to say.


----------



## ballz (7 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The policy allows for substracting mileage, depending on how it is applied.



I wish I had such magick superpowers that I could just ignore all written policy presented to me, type something out completely opposite and it be true.

You just can't accept you're in the wrong even when it's given to you in black and white. This isn't a critical studies class where you can reinvent the meaning of words.



SupersonicMax said:


> Most people are expected to be working from the office (again, outside Ottawa).  The only fair way to apply the policy is to reimburse mileage from the “permanent workplace” to the appointment.



Go write the TB about it getting the policy changed then because that is certainly not what it says.



SupersonicMax said:


> FWIW, when I was working from home, in the letter allowing me to work from home, it was specific that I was not to be reimbursed anything above and beyond what I would normally be allowed to claim if I was working from the office, including any extra TD costs.



People write letters and make-up policies they don't have the authority to write or make-up all the time. That's not a good thing so stop following in their footsteps.

"You need to write a memo to have a beard in this unit."
"You need a weekend leave pass to travel outside the geographical area in this unit."
"You can't wear your toque if you aren't wearing gloves in this unit."
"You can't wear your toque and gloves with a rain jacket in this unit."
"You can't wear your fleece as an outside layer in this unit."



SupersonicMax said:


> If you can’t see that the OP is already afforded a significant financial advantage over their colleagues, by not having to drive to work every day probably, $100 a week, and you think that only paying mileage from base to appointment the odd time is unfair, not sure what else to say.



Like I said, I'm being objective, I'm not here to judge the OP just speak to the policy. I must have missed the part in the CFTDTIs where it says you can reduce someone's entitlement because they're on MELs and you think they've got it too good. Perhaps you can reference it for me.

How do you even know the appointment is even in the same direction of the base? For all you know he's in between the two locations and they're subtracting the mileage anyway. They quoted CBI's for a TD trip for Christ's sake, shows how competent they are.

Also, how do you know he didn't pick a house directly by an LRT that goes near base and paid $70/month for it, but the appointment is nowhere near the LRT station so driving makes infinitely more sense? I have a vehicle and I bought a house right next to the LRT so I can use it to zip downtown for $70/month instead of commuting.

CFTDTIs make all this easy since they use the "direct route" it covers everyone in any circumstance - except the circumstance where someone goes on a power trip and decides "the shortest, practical road distance between two points" includes a 20km detour to Base so you can screw them around. And don't tell me if you have an appointment or flight at 0800 they are making you drive to base and leave from base for the appointment.

You're blinded by your biases and "the way it's always been," incapable of reading the policy for what it says.


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> I wish I had such magick superpowers that I could just ignore all written policy presented to me, type something out completely opposite and it be true.
> 
> You just can't accept you're in the wrong even when it's given to you in black and white. This isn't a critical studies class where you can reinvent the meaning of words.


So, a CO is not allowed to order a member working remotely, on base before their duty travel starts?


----------



## kev994 (7 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, a CO is not allowed to order a member working remotely, on base before their duty travel starts?


Not if there MEL says ‘no military environment’


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Aug 2022)

kev994 said:


> Not if there MEL says ‘no military environment’


The base hospital/dental unit, gym, and JPSU are not considered military environments when it comes to MELs stating no military environment.


----------



## kev994 (7 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> The base hospital/dental unit, gym, and JPSU are not considered military environments when it comes to MELs stating no military environment.


I did not know that


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Aug 2022)

kev994 said:


> Not if there MEL says ‘no military environment’


From the OP: “Always pickup my paperwork at the CDU.”

So, they go to base and then go to the appointment.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Aug 2022)

kev994 said:


> I did not know that


Some doctors don't either 

Our MEL system needs a big revamp, or at least how it's applied.

For that MEL in particular if it meant no coming on base (which people often think it does and sometimes applied as such by medical) then someone would be violating their MEL's if they went to their unit to drop off a claim or went to sick parade.


----------



## kev994 (7 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> That's literally the policy that's been quoted in here numerous times, with links, and it does not, in any way, say what you are saying it says.


You make some good points. My base uses it to say ‘we’re just going to not pay you’. But the more I think about it, it’s quite absurd that we can order someone on TD and just not pay them. I’ll have to dig that up again, it probably says the authority to order them on TD, not the authority to just not pay their TD.


----------



## ballz (7 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, a CO is not allowed to order a member working remotely, on base before their duty travel starts?



You're just taking us full circle back to "Yes, unfortunately it's difficult to protect the CAF's members from leaders that lack integrity and character, hence all the scandals in the news and public and membership's loss of confidence in the CAF's leadership."

I've addressed this already, if the only reason you're doing something like this is to win "the game"  - which is _clearly _your only motivation for in this case, despite anything else you might say to try to backtrack out of it and/or muddy the waters - then that goes right back to integrity and character.

And since you're now just taking us in circles because you won't just admit being wrong, I'm well past done with wasting my time on this.


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> You're just taking us full circle back to "Yes, unfortunately it's difficult to protect the CAF's members from leaders that lack integrity and character, hence all the scandals in the news and public and membership's loss of confidence in the CAF's leadership."
> 
> I've addressed this already, if the only reason you're doing something like this is to win "the game"  - which is _clearly _your only motivation for in this case, despite anything else you might say to try to backtrack out of it and/or muddy the waters - then that goes right back to integrity and character.
> 
> And since you're now just taking us in circles because you won't just admit being wrong, I'm well past done with wasting my time on this.


It is not to win a game but the fair application of the CFTDTIs.  My “game” comment came after dapaterson’s comment:


dapaterson said:


> Alternative method to piss everyone off: State that you will not use your own vehicle, but want a DND/CAF vehicle instead: drive to base, drop off your car, pick up the DND/CAF vehicle, go to appointment, back to base, drop off DND/CAF vehicle, pick up your car, go home.


Not sure how having the member pick up their claim before going on duty travel lacks integrity and character. Perhaps you can expand on that because it is not dishonest or immoral.  I’d say picking up your claim before travel is probably par for course. Integrity and character is also about not caving to every gripe and consider all factors, and apply policies in a fair and defensible way. It is not always about an individual member but it is about members (plural).  If doing something benefits one person but pisses off the rest of the crew, unless there are compelling reasons (such as major physical/mental injuries, death or mission failure), I am likely not doing it. It would be dishonest and unfair to others.  And yes, small things like that often end up having a disproportionate effect on morale.  Having said this, if there is little consequence to the morale of others, I’ll likely entertain the idea.


----------



## ballz (7 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> It is not to win a game but the fair application of the CFTDTIs.  My “game” comment came after dapaterson’s comment:



I cannot believe the lengths you will go to... anyone can read the posts and see you are clearly trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You were responding to me, quoting my post, and the idea that if the member wants to quote policy and ask that it be applied correctly, you'll find a way to subvert it by making him come to base first so that he doesn't get his way.

Putting your response in the context of responding to DAP doesn't even make any sense. DAP's advice was, "don't accept taking your PMV, request a staff car / ride from the base." And your response was, "If the OP wants to play that game, I'll... I'll... I'll... do exactly that." And you expect me to believe this is what you meant?

The real crux of what's driving your motivations was clearly stated, "They are getting financial relief that many (outside Ottawa) aren’t getting, by not having to drive into work." And so you wanted to find a way to ensure the KM were taken off their mileage even though it's not within the CFTDTIs to do so.

You've now given two different versions of "the game" you were referring to - two posts ago "the game" was something completely different -both of which are demonstrably not true. Just stop.



SupersonicMax said:


> Not sure how having the member pick up their claim before going on duty travel lacks integrity and character. Perhaps you can expand on that because it is not dishonest or immoral.  I’d say picking up your claim before travel is probably par for course.



Why waste my time talking about integrity with someone who's just going to try and rewrite the story. Perhaps you're going to tell me how claims processing works too, I wouldn't know anything about that of course, I was just a Financial Policy & Procedures Officer and a Comptroller for 4.5 years.


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> The real crux of what's driving your motivations was clearly stated, "They are getting financial relief that many (outside Ottawa) aren’t getting, by not having to drive into work." And so you wanted to find a way to ensure the KM were taken off their mileage even though it's not within the CFTDTIs to do so.


Precisely. OP stated went to base to complete admin.  That mileage is NOT covered per the CFTDTIs.  The mileage is covered from the base to the appointment. I would be completely okay with starting the travel from their home (doing the admin remotely and in the process, saving some of their time), as long as only the mileage from base to appointment was covered.  When someone complains about being “fucked over” (their word), this is when I would start applying the full intent.

There are some nuances in the policies for COs to allow some discretion, to account for factors that processes and policies cannot didn’t take into consideration. Those policies were written before WFH was even a thing. Someone that works from home, is required to go to a medical appointment once in a while, is reimbursed a good chunk of change and saving a lot (compared to others) is hardly getting “fucked over.” Before COVID, we needed ink signatures on claims. That on itself, in the context of when the policy was written, is a good reason for the member to be ordered to work before their travel start. 

This isn’t being petty. This is being fair to everyone else.


----------



## ballz (8 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> OP stated went to base to complete admin.  That mileage is NOT covered per the CFTDTIs.



Didn't state that he went there the same day. I doubt he went to see the clerks at 0500 before his 0630 surgery.

What is this, your 3rd or 4th version of what's going on here? I can't keep track. This latest interpretation seems to directly conflict with the one below, you sure didn't seem to think he was driving to base prior to the appointment a few posts ago:



SupersonicMax said:


> “Playing the game” was meant as removing the convenience of starting the trip from home and start it from base, and get the same reimbursement.  Allowing the OP to start directly from home while getting the mikeage from base to appointment is just a way to use common sense while applying some fiscal responsibility.  If the OP wants more financial compensation because they are allowed to start traveling from home, then ordering them to work for their admin before proceeding on their local trip is entirely within the scope of what can be done to avoid this issue.



I am sure you will come back and explain that you weren't talking about going directly from home to the medical appointment, but it is very clear to anyone literate that that's exactly what you were talking about, so please don't bother, the reliability of your word has been aptly demonstrated.



SupersonicMax said:


> There are some nuances in the policies for COs to allow some discretion, to account for factors that processes and policies cannot didn’t take into consideration. Those policies were written before WFH was even a thing. Someone that works from home, is required to go to a medical appointment once in a while, is reimbursed a good chunk of change and saving a lot (compared to others) is hardly getting “fucked over.”



It is not common practice (or common sense) to make someone drive to base to before departing on their TD depending on the time and location of the TD, length of the TD, plus a million other factors. If you have an early morning appointment somewhere, or an early morning flight, you don't drive to Base beforehand just because, or drive to the base because you're "supposed to start from there" which is not even hinted at anywhere in any policy.



SupersonicMax said:


> Before COVID, we needed ink signatures on claims. That on itself, in the context of when the policy was written, is a good reason for the member to be ordered to work before their travel start.



I would laugh at this if it weren't so sad that you're actually trying to be serious. Like I said, you'll say anything, it's absolutely shameless.

Good thing we had mail back in 2009 so I didn't have to drive 6.5 hours to my OR when I was posted to Corner Brook and it was in St. John's. My Lord, your problem solving skills are pretty sharp too obviously.



SupersonicMax said:


> This isn’t being petty. This is being fair to everyone else.



Like I said, depending on appointment timings (and evidently whether or not they've got a POS in charge of them), there's a real good chance everyone is just leaving from their house. And just like the CFTDTIs state, they get paid for the direct road distance they're travelling.

Not that I actually believe you think you're being "fair," because it was made clear your motivations for your proposed COA are driven purely out of vindictiveness and ego-tripping, but you also don't realize how many people you would be screwing over in the process when your new bright idea becomes "the way we've always done it" and the CFTDTIs are being applied even more incorrectly then they currently are, and people are getting royally f'd by it because some wingnut who should stick to flying planes started abusing their rank to enforce his idea about policies he's too lazy to read and too biased to comprehend objectively and coerced his clerks into doing it that way. I can think of a handful of scenarios (which are far more common than the OPs) where your new interpretation just leads to the bystanders of your vindictiveness getting screwed..... but then again, I'm actually experienced and knowledgeable about claims administration.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Aug 2022)

That’s also what other senior admin officers (including within CMP, you know, those that write the CFTDTIs) think is fair and how it is applied at every base I have been posted to.  But keep thinking that people “lack character and integrity” because they are “screwing people over,” without being remotely capable of seeing the forest from the tree.  If only you had stayed in and challenged those issues you see, by asking the intent of those that wrote the policies and proposing changes, you’d have a bit more credibility.  I can tell you with fairly good certainty the intent of the policy is as I told you. Before saying it’s impossible to have policies changed, it is entirely possible, even as a junior officer.

I am done in this topic. It stole enough of my time.  Refer to your base administrative policy.  If you don’t agree, ask the base admin officer to explain to you how the policy is applied and why. Good luck.


----------



## ballz (9 Aug 2022)

Lot's of hearsay and lots of appeals to authority in there, but nothing of any value  - well, the idea that being in the CAF is in anyway correlated with credibility has some comedic value I guess.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Aug 2022)

ballz said:


> Lot's of hearsay and lots of appeals to authority in there, but nothing of any value  - well, the idea that being in the CAF is in anyway correlated with credibility has some comedic value I guess.


Are you done on the soap box trying to troll people into another argument or cool with just agreeing to disagree?


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (11 Aug 2022)

I am former pay clerk use to do travel claims are the main part of my job.  Claims distance was usually measured from place of work, because Transport Assistance  claim only kicked in after you drove the first 32km to and from work so before you could claim any mileage you have to drive 56km a day total before any mileage would be be paid beyond that. So if you live 32 km from base and the CO approved you for transport assistance you would be able to claim 4km a day. Because the appointment is part of your duty, it would start from your place of normal duty not from home. So using that line of thinking, if you have to drive to medical appointment, the first 64 Km is on you as it would the same as if you were driving to to work each day.  So if you are not getting the full mileage to an medical appointment, they are using the same standards used way back when. Just be glad they are covering some of your travel costs because the rest of the people in Canada have to wait to claim that travel distance on their taxes. So you could claim the difference on your income tax at the end of the year. As a medical expense if you live in a Province where travel can be claimed. But I know some of the rules have changed over the years but the system still works the same way. ( edit because old age and I had my numbers wrong been a long time since I did Commuters Assistance Claims, like 27 years  but still worked the same way back then )


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Aug 2022)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> . . .  Just be glad they are covering some of your travel costs because the rest of the people in Canada have to wait to claim that travel distance on their taxes. So you could claim the difference on your income tax at the end of the year. As a medical expense if you live in a Province where travel can be claimed. . . .



For some clarity on claiming medical travel expenses . . . 






						Details of medical expenses - Canada.ca
					

Details of medical expenses.




					www.canada.ca
				





> *Travel expenses (less than 40 km)* – travel expenses cannot be claimed as a medical expense if you traveled less than 40 kilometres (one way) from your home to get medical services.
> 
> *Travel expenses (at least 40 km) *– the cost of the public transportation expenses (for example, taxis, bus, or train) when a person needs to travel at least 40 kilometres (one way), but less than 80 km, from their home to get medical services.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (11 Aug 2022)

Travelling on duty to a medical appointment is not transportation assistance or any similar benefit.

It is duty travel.  Governed by the CFTDTI.  Not subject to the whims of local changes.


----------

