# Back Pay



## trooper142 (19 Sep 2014)

Really sorry if this has been answered, I attempted the search, but did not find what I was looking for.

I was promoted recentely to Cpl, but upon checking my EMMA account, was surprised to find that my pay had not been adjusted. I spoke with my clerks, and they noticed their error and said it would be on the next pay (sept 30, 2014). When I checked again today, I noticed that my pay had been adjusted to the date I spoke to the clerks, not the date of promotion (weeks prior). Additionally, I was under the impression that Cpl pay was retroactive to the date that a member is eligible to be promoted to cpl, not the date he/she is actually promoted.

My question is: would anyone be able to confirm/deny, and if so provide a link to relevant pay policy.

Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2014)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> ........ Additionally, I was under the impression that Cpl pay was retroactive to the date that a member is eligible to be promoted to cpl, not the date he/she is actually promoted.



What if you were a total screw up and although eligible to be promoted, were not, due to your inabilities?

Do you really think you would get paid at the higher rank?


----------



## MJP (19 Sep 2014)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Really sorry if this has been answered, I attempted the search, but did not find what I was looking for.
> 
> I was promoted recentely to Cpl, but upon checking my EMMA account, was surprised to find that my pay had not been adjusted. I spoke with my clerks, and they noticed their error and said it would be on the next pay (sept 30, 2014). When I checked again today, I noticed that my pay had been adjusted to the date I spoke to the clerks, not the date of promotion (weeks prior). Additionally, I was under the impression that Cpl pay was retroactive to the date that a member is eligible to be promoted to cpl, not the date he/she is actually promoted.
> 
> ...



You should get your back pay back to the date you were eligible for promotion.  Don't have references in front of me but have dealt with this situation a few times.  Best advice is engage your CoC.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> What if you were a total screw up and although eligible to be promoted, were not, due to your inabilities?
> 
> Do you really think you would get paid at the higher rank?



What relevance does this have to his simple question? He was promoted but not paid properly.   Maybe one should just stick to their lane if they don't know the answer.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Sep 2014)

MJP said:
			
		

> You should get your back pay back to the date you were eligible for promotion.



Wouldn't the back pay only go to the date one was actually promoted?   ???


----------



## Harris (19 Sep 2014)

In my experience there are a number of dates involved with promotions:

Date finished a course/achieved necessary time in, etc... depending on rank and trade.
Date Actually promoted (May be months or longer later).
Date Promotion is actually in effect.

Note that the three dates listed above may or may not all match up.  As far as the "system" is concerned, the date you were effectively promoted (The date on the promotion paperwork that the CO etc... signs) is the date your new pay if applicable starts on.

As an example I've had a MCpl who was qualified Sgt after his course was complete, was promoted the end of Sept at a Unit parade, but who was already receiving Sgt pay for a week as his paperwork was signed off, dated, and input a week prior.

There may be circumstances where this date is changed after the fact (redress, clerical or CofC error etc...) and you would receive the additional pay as back pay.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2014)

Thank you Harris



			
				Harris said:
			
		

> There may be circumstances where this date is changed after the fact (redress, clerical or CofC error etc...) and you would receive the additional pay as back pay.



Unfortunately, sometimes there is a error towards the opposite, and it may mean a claw-back of pay.  

Always track and keep your pay records.


----------



## DAA (19 Sep 2014)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Really sorry if this has been answered, I attempted the search, but did not find what I was looking for.
> 
> I was promoted recentely to Cpl, but upon checking my EMMA account, was surprised to find that my pay had not been adjusted. I spoke with my clerks, and they noticed their error and said it would be on the next pay (sept 30, 2014). When I checked again today, I noticed that my pay had been adjusted to the date I spoke to the clerks, not the date of promotion (weeks prior). Additionally, I was under the impression that Cpl pay was retroactive to the date that a member is eligible to be promoted to cpl, not the date he/she is actually promoted.
> 
> ...



CFAO 49-4.  Normally for a promotion from Pte to Cpl, the effective date is the date you meet the time prerequisites (ie; usually at 48 months of service).  It can usually only be deferred for administrative reasons (ie; C&P) and only with the concurrence of DGMC.


----------



## MJP (19 Sep 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the back pay only go to the date one was actually promoted?   ???



Not for Cpl.


----------



## MJP (19 Sep 2014)

Harris said:
			
		

> In my experience there are a number of dates involved with promotions:
> 
> Date finished a course/achieved necessary time in, etc... depending on rank and trade.
> Date Actually promoted (May be months or longer later).
> ...



Very valid points however this is a simple time in promotion to Cpl as DAA points out IAW CFAO 49-4.   Unless the CO is holding back the promotion or C&P is involved it doesn't come into play in this case.  I just did an grievance for a soldier that we luckily solved at the lowest level for this issue.

We actually did all the paperwork to hold back a soldier's promotion to Cpl once.  He got promoted after the 6 month deferral with his back pay.  All that was hit was his ego.  I much rather just put someone on a remedial measure


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Sep 2014)

MJP said:
			
		

> Not for Cpl.



Okay, thanks.  I learned something new, now I can go home.   ;D


----------



## trooper142 (19 Sep 2014)

Thanks everyone for their responses, I spoke to the clerks today and they noticed their error and looked embarrassed. I was friendly and just asked that it be corrected.

Makes me wonder what else they missed tho  :


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Sep 2014)

It happens. I had time missed to calculate IPC and back pay on promotion due to previous time acting in that rank. Showed up at the ROR with CBI in hand, asked if I was interpreting it correctly, they said yes and fixed it for the next pay run.


----------



## TCM621 (22 Sep 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the back pay only go to the date one was actually promoted?   ???



It goes to the actual effective date of the promotion, not the physical date they recieved the new slip ons. I am not sure if it still works this way but shouldn't their be a promotion message that spells out the effective date?


----------



## DAA (26 Sep 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It goes to the actual effective date of the promotion, not the physical date they recieved the new slip ons. I am not sure if it still works this way but shouldn't their be a promotion message that spells out the effective date?



For "controlled" ranks (ie: MCpl and up;  Capt and up), DGMC is the issuing authority, so there would be a message.  But when it comes to promotion to Cpl, the Unit CO is the promoting authority.  It normally involves a promotion screening form of some sort and a 743A (Qualification Record Sheet) which are both raised at unit level.  It's been so long and I'd have to look it up but the basic requirements are "Suitable, Available, Medically Fit, Met Fitness Standard, Occupation Qualified, Met Time Prerequisite".  The dates for the first two and the last should be when the CF member reaches 48 months of qualifying service, the others will be based on the members current status.  If they haven't yet reached QL5 in their occupation then the 743A will read "Promotion to A/Cpl (LQ)" other than that it should read "Promotion to Cpl (S)".

Suitable = satisfactory/acceptable performance
Available = available for unrestricted employment (ie; no admin issues)


----------



## hotei (26 Sep 2014)

George Wallace -- seriously I feel as though this is malice for the sake of it. He was asking a legitimate question.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> What if you were a total screw up and although eligible to be promoted, were not, due to your inabilities?
> 
> Do you really think you would get paid at the higher rank?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2014)

hotei said:
			
		

> George Wallace -- seriously I feel as though this is malice for the sake of it. He was asking a legitimate question.



Really?

What malice do you find in the question I put forward; or is it just that it was I who put the question forward?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> What malice do you find in the question I put forward; or is it just that it was I who put the question forward?



Oh!   I see the problem.  YOU actually thought I was talking about the OP.   :

Just for hotei; let me rephrase that in a PC way:




"What if said member were a total screw up and although eligible to be promoted, were not, due to their inabilities?

Do you really think they would get paid at the higher rank?"


Does this now fall in line with your sensibilities?


----------



## DAA (26 Sep 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Oh!   I see the problem.  YOU actually thought I was talking about the OP.   :
> 
> Just for hotei; let me rephrase that in a PC way:
> 
> ...



The real answer.  Unless the unsatisfactory performance has been well documented according to the DAOD's and has reached the level of C&P, there is NO way NO how, the unit can prevent the promotion from occurring.

I've seen such instances, I've seen the promotion to Cpl denied at the unit level and seen it "immediately" overturned by DGMC.  If it's not documented and the process for Remedial Measures is not followed accordingly, there is no way to stop it from happening.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2014)

Agreed DAA.  It all has to be documented.  

This brings up another pet peeve.  There is a major problem in the CAF, where too many people/supervisors are often too afraid or too lazy to do the documenting and maintenance of Pers Files, which in turn allow less than admirable people to progress through their careers unpunished for their inabilities, indiscretions, incompetence, crimes, etc.


----------



## DAA (26 Sep 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Agreed DAA.  It all has to be documented.
> 
> This brings up another pet peeve.  There is a major problem in the CAF, where too many people/supervisors are often too afraid or too lazy to do the documenting and maintenance of Pers Files, which in turn allow less than admirable people to progress through their careers unpunished for their inabilities, indiscretions, incompetence, crimes, etc.



I'd have to agree but it has nothing to do with maintenance of Pers Files and more to do with "effective leadership, supervision and maintenance of discipline".  The Pers File is nothing more than a respository for information, provided that information makes it to the Pers File and is left there, when warranted.

It all starts at the first level of supervision and goes upwards from there.  The longer the problem goes unaddressed from an administrative measure, the greater the risk.

The view from the bottom up, is generally "Why is this person still around?"  The view from the top down, is probably "Why haven't my subordinates addressed this and how bad will it look on me because of it?"

It's never a good feeling to issue an IC/RW/C&P, it just doesn't feel right because it can give you the sense of failure on your part as a leader, no matter how hard you may have tried to correct the problem and avoided all of that.

With rank, comes responsibility and with the responsibility, comes the nasties which have to be done.


----------

