# PLD in BMOQ with Service Spouse



## Fizzik (5 Jun 2014)

So my wife is currently in Saint Jean doing her BMOQ and we are a service couple. I am posted and we own a house together in Halifax. She is having some issues with clerks there telling her that she is not entitled to PLD as she is posted to Saint Jean and I'm posted to Halifax. I'm currently collecting 100% of my PLD but from my understanding that Halifax is still her place of residence and service couples are both entitled to 75% of that amount totaling 150%. She also does not pay for Quarters which makes complete sense that she would also be entitled to PLD as her place of residence is here in Halifax. On top of that a fellow platoon mate of her's is also from the Halifax/Sherwater PLD region and owns a house is receiving their PLD entitlement because they he/she is not a service couple. I would assume they owe her 50% to the day she arrived in Saint Jean due to myself collecting 100%. They claim that because I'm getting it and I'm posted here and she is posted there that she's not entitled. If anyone could please enlighten me on how that would even make sense or have any info it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Griffon (6 Jun 2014)

She doesn't pay quarters because she is separated from you, but she is in fact posted to CFLRS for BMOQ and is therefore not entitled to PLD in Halifax.  Her place of primary residence when she enrolled is irrelevant, she is not required by the CAF to maintain a residence in Halifax and so the CAF is not required to pay the PLD rates.  It's like when an 18 year old recruit leaves her parents' house in Toronto to go to basic: they don't pay her the Toronto PLD rate because her stuff is in her parent's basement.  To address your specific situation, from the CBI (205.45):


"205.45(12) (Member of service couple posted)
A member of a service couple referred to in
paragraph (11) who is posted to a new place of
duty: (b) not authorized to move, is not entitled to
receive the PLD in respect of the principal
residence at the former place of duty. Their
service spouse who remains at the previous
location in their principal residence reverts to
100 percent of the PLD for the PLDA for the
location of their principal residence."


----------



## DAA (6 Jun 2014)

Griffon is on the money with their answer.  

A few years back, "new enrollee's" in the CF, who were married and maintaining a principle residence which was located in a PLD area, were in fact receiving PLD.  However, the matter was reviewed by DCBA and Treasury Board and it was determined that NO entitlement existed.  The policy was therefore changed.

Here is the quote from DCBA back in 2012 -  "After further review, it has been confirmed that the intent of CBI 205.45 in regards to PLD for a member who is Prohibited Posted on enrolment and maintaining a residence in a PLD Area is NOT entitled to PLD if occupying quarters at the place of duty of the Prohibited Posting."

So if there is someone on her course, in receipt of PLD, then it's only a matter of time before recovery action is initiated.


----------



## Fizzik (8 Jun 2014)

Thank you so much guys.


----------



## Jay4th (9 Jun 2014)

So on a related matter ...
My wife and I own a home in Edmonton and its our residence.
 I am a Reg Force Warrant Officer collecting 100% PLD.
My wife is a reservist and she got a CT to the LDSH
Since we already live in Edmonton and are not moving her anywhere, she will get no PLD and I keep getting mine.
Am I on the right train of thought?


----------



## Griffon (9 Jun 2014)

Was she authorized a move on her CT message? If so, then you are both entitled to 75% PLD.  If no, then the CBI _could_ be interpreted to say that your PLD will stay as is, but could be argued otherwise.  I'd just print off a copy of the relevant CBI and get her to do the PLD request form at her unit.  I can explain more if you need, just fire a PM.


----------



## Jay4th (9 Jun 2014)

That was exactly my impression as well.  I will wait to see what her actual message says re: move


----------



## Ostrozac (9 Jun 2014)

Even if she isn't authorized a move on the CT message, the CBI seems to allow her 75% PLD.

From CBI Chapter 205

_principal residence
means a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependants, and is situated at:
1.the member's place of duty, if their household goods and effects are located at that place;
2.the member's former place of duty, if the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty;
3.the place where the member's household goods and effects were located on enrolment, if that place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty; or
4.any other place of duty, selected place of residence or designated alternate location, if the member is authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to that place, except for the purpose of release or transfer to the Reserve Force._

Para 1 seems to cover your specific case.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Jun 2014)

And further at the note to 205.45(12) it states that:

"Where a military spouse, who is a member of the Reserve Force is moved in accordance with CBI 209.80 (Movement of Dependants), but not for the purpose of a period of Reserve service at the new place of duty, the spouse is moved as a dependant in accordance with paragraph (3)(a) of that instruction and is not entitled to PLD."


----------



## Griffon (9 Jun 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And further at the note to 205.45(12) it states that:
> 
> "Where a military spouse, who is a member of the Reserve Force is moved in accordance with CBI 209.80 (Movement of Dependants), but not for the purpose of a period of Reserve service at the new place of duty, the spouse is moved as a dependant in accordance with paragraph (3)(a) of that instruction and is not entitled to PLD."



Spouse CT'd, so no longer a PRes member and not moved.

But the body of your quoted ref states:

205.45(12) (Member of service couple posted) A member of a service couple referred to in paragraph (11) who is posted to a new place of duty:

[list type=decimal]
[*]authorized to move, is entitled to receive an unreduced PLD for the PLDA in respect of the principal residence at the new place of duty. Their service spouse who remains at the previous location unaccompanied ceases to be entitled to PLD; or

not authorized to move, is not entitled to receive the PLD in respect of the principal residence at the former place of duty. Their service spouse who remains at the previous location in their principal residence reverts to 100 percent of the PLD for the PLDA for the location of their principal residence.
[*]
[/list]

So IF the transfer to LdSH is considered a new "place of duty", AND the posting message states that a move is not authorized, then it could be interpreted that the member is not entitled to PLD.  Conveniently, "place of duty" is not listed in the terms section of the CBIs...

HOWEVER, para 12 is contingent on para 11, which states:

[list type=decimal]
[*]205.45(11) (Service couple) If both members of a service couple are entitled to the PLD for the same PLDA, and jointly occupy a principal residence, each member is only entitled to receive 75% of the PLD rate.
[*]
[/list]

So for para 12 to really apply, both members would have to be entitled to and receiving PLD, then one is moved.  This would be the basis of my argument against the possible decision that the member would not be entitled to PLD due to the application of para 12; she isn't currently receiving the 75% as she wasn't entitled.

Long story short: according to my interpretation of the Instruction you should both be getting 75%.  I was just saying that somebody might try to get smart and decide you aren't entitled, but they wouldn't be able to make an argument at all if a move was authorized. It's always a good idea to have a copy of the Instruction, just in case.


----------



## Jay4th (9 Jun 2014)

WOW,  Thanks for all the replies guys.  I will have her take the above references with her to the OR in case the clerks there aren't certain of the entitlement and I will be prepared to have my clerks knock my PLD to 75% as of her new date.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Jun 2014)

I'm still reading the directive that a reservist is _only_ entitled to PLD _if_ they are posted for Class B or C service.

"205.45(5) (Entitlement – Reserve Force) Subject to paragraphs (7) to(19), a member who is authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty for a period of nationally-solicited Class B or C Reserve Service is entitled, for that period of service, to the monthly PLD rate established in the Table to this instruction for the member's PLDA if:

    that place of duty is within a PLDA;
    the member's principal residence is located within that PLDA; and
    the move was not authorized as a return move upon completion of a period of Class B or C Reserve Service.

205.45(6) (Subsequent periods of service) Subject to paragraphs (7) to (19), a member who commences a new period of nationally-solicited Class B or C Reserve Service within 90 days of completing the entire period of service described in paragraph (5) (i.e., no early termination initiated by member), is entitled to the PLD established in the Table to this instruction for the member's PLDA if:

    the new period of service is performed at the same place of duty as the previous period of service;
    that place of duty is within a PLDA; and
    the member's principal residence is located within that PLDA."


But, I'll let someone with more administrative knowledge clarify that.

"Place of duty" is defined in Chapter 208:

place of duty

means the place at which an officer or non-commissioned member usually performs their normal military duties and includes any place in the surrounding geographical area that is determined to be part thereof by the Chief of the Defence Staff or such other officer as the Chief of the Defence Staff may designate.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jun 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> Griffon is on the money with their answer.
> 
> A few years back, "new enrollee's" in the CF, who were married and maintaining a principle residence which was located in a PLD area, were in fact receiving PLD.  However, the matter was reviewed by DCBA and Treasury Board and it was determined that NO entitlement existed.  The policy was therefore changed.
> 
> Here is the quote from DCBA back in 2012 -  "After further review, it has been confirmed that the intent of CBI 205.45 in regards to PLD for a member who is Prohibited Posted on enrolment and maintaining a residence in a PLD Area is NOT entitled to PLD if occupying quarters at the place of duty of the Prohibited Posting."



Would this be the applic part of the CBI?

205.45(12) (Member of service couple posted) A member of a service couple referred to in paragraph (11) who is posted to a new place of duty:
1.authorized to move, is entitled to receive an unreduced PLD for the PLDA in respect of the principal residence at the new place of duty. Their service spouse who remains at the previous location unaccompanied ceases to be entitled to PLD; or
2.not authorized to move, is not entitled to receive the PLD in respect of the principal residence at the former place of duty. Their service spouse who remains at the previous location in their principal residence reverts to 100 percent of the PLD for the PLDA for the location of their principal residence.





> So if there is someone on her course, in receipt of PLD, then it's only a matter of time before recovery action is initiated.



Unless they were TD or AP for course?


----------



## DAA (10 Jun 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Would this be the applic part of the CBI?
> 
> 205.45(12) (Member of service couple posted) A member of a service couple referred to in paragraph (11) who is posted to a new place of duty:
> 1.authorized to move, is entitled to receive an unreduced PLD for the PLDA in respect of the principal residence at the new place of duty. Their service spouse who remains at the previous location unaccompanied ceases to be entitled to PLD; or
> ...



Based on the OPs original post, the spouse is currently at CFLRS St Jean, so they would be "Posted Prohibited" to St Jean.  As a result, there is NO entitlement to PLD at the place of enrolment, regardless of whether or not they are now part of an MSC.  (205.45(12)(b) ) would apply.  "If" the member, on completion of occupational training, should then be posted back to the location of their spouse, then YES, they both should then receive PLD at the 75% rate whether or not a cost move took place.  In the meantime, while one party is undergoing training, the CF member remaining/residing in the PLD area would continue to receive 100%. (205.45(4) ).

There is no longer any requirement for the HG&E to have been "relocated" at "public expense" to the PLD area, with the exception of certain period of Res F Service.  That caveate was removed from the regulation years ago and replaced with the term "place of duty".  It was pretty much discriminatory in cases where a former CF member rejoins the Reg F or a Res F member CT's, they were already occupation qualified/ready for immediate employment and posted (ie; No Cost Move) to the location they re-enrolled/CT'd from.

In the case of "Jay4th", they would be subject to 205.45(4) applies and 205.45(12) doesn't.  As the spouse who CT'd is posted to the same location, there is no "former place of duty" involved and the entitlement would therefore revert to 205.45(11).

Cases such as this are often misinterpreted resulting in nonpayment of the entitlement.  Best bet, fill out the forms and submit them.  If the spouse is denied, then request that the matter be referred to DCBA for review and or submit a grievance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jun 2014)

Rog.  I was in agreement with you, just wanted to make sure I was reading the CBI right  .


----------



## Jay4th (25 Jun 2014)

My wife's orderly room has decided that she IS entitled to PLD and set her at the reduced rate.  My orderly room also changed mine to the reduced rate.  Thanks for all the help with the CBIs.


----------

