# Changing posting status from Prohibited to Restricted



## ballz (15 Oct 2016)

Good day,

I have a member in the process of a well-founded (in my opinion) grievance. He was posted to Gagetown prohibited on the BTL, moved out on the economy on his own dime with permission from the CO, and then a year later without asking him or even notifying him, his posting status was changed from prohibited to restricted... it's causing him to lose eligibility to a posting allowance since, as long as that posting message is still effective, he was posted when he was an untrained member.

My question is, *can a member's posting status be changed from prohibited to restricted without even asking him?* I thought it had to be done at his request. There are big risks accepted in having his posting status changed to restricted while he is still on the BTL. If he would have been posted geographically, he would have had to pay out of his own pocket to move himself. I am looking for some sort of reference that states what is required to change a member's posting from prohibited to restricted... I was under the understanding he was required to request it and then his CO could approve it. I cannot fathom that a unit can just tell a member "guess what, we're changing your posting status to restricted and you will be paying for your move if you get posted geographically after you are done training." In this case, they didn't even tell him, they just did it and he found out a year later when he finished training and got posted.


----------



## Pusser (17 Oct 2016)

Normally, changing a posting from "prohibited" to "restricted" is to the member's benefit, so I'm a little confused here.  

A "prohibited" posting is one where the member is prohibited from moving his/her Dependants, Household Goods and Effects (DHG&E).  This is often used for members posted early in their careers for training, until the CF decides where they're going to go.  It is also used for posting members to dangerous or isolated places where families should not go.

A "restricted" posting is one where members are restricted from moving their DHG&E until they have secured accommodations and the CO has "lifted" the restriction.  Lifting the restriction is an administrative process.

From what you have described (I may be missing some important details), you have a member who was on a prohibited posting as a trainee.  The system has now changed his posting to a restricted one.  This means that as long as the CO has lifted the restriction, he can now move his DHG&E at public expense to Gagetown.   If he's a new member who has not yet moved at public expense, he may still be entitled to an "initial move on enrolement," which means that he may be able to have any furniture and other stuff that he left behind (in storage?) at his place of enrolement, shipped to him at no cost to him.  In this case, changing his posting from "prohibited" to "restricted" is a good thing.

None of this should affect entitlement to a Posting Allowance, if he is in fact entitled to one.   First off, a member entitled to a Posting Allowance is entitled, regardless of whether the posting is prohibited or restricted.  Secondly, if there is no physical move from one geographical location to another, there is no entitlement to a Posting Allowance, so until he gets another posting message, moving him out of Gagetown, there is no entitlement to Posting Allowance.  Finally, unless he's reached "career status" (i.e. being posted OFF the BTL to his first operational position OR has been in at least three years), there is also entitlement to a Posting Allowance.


----------



## DAA (17 Oct 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> He was posted to Gagetown prohibited on the BTL, moved out on the economy on his own dime with permission from the CO, and then a year later without asking him or even notifying him, his posting status was changed from prohibited to restricted... it's causing him to lose eligibility to a posting allowance since, as long as that posting message is still effective, he was posted when he was an untrained member.



Sounds like yet another instance where a CO "thinks" they are doing the member a favour, when in fact, they aren't.

The relocation of DHG&E is based on the members current assignment.  So if they are assigned (Posted) to the BTL for training purposes, then the status will normally be "Prohibited" and will normally remain as such until they have completed their full occupational training and are then Posted for first time employment, which is when the future Post Instr will indicate "Restricted".

If the CAF member chooses to relocate their DHG&E at their own expense to their trg location, then there exists the possibility that they will most likely forefit some of their future relocation benefits.  This is where some very "bad" decisions can and have been made, resulting in detriment to the serving member who relocated on their own dime.  Someone thinks they are doing good, when at the end of the day, they aren't.    :facepalm:

The change of the move status, does not happen by magic and requires either the issuance of either an AMENDED or NEW Posting Instruction.   So without either of those, what your explaining, just can't happen.

PS - when a member is posted BTL, the approving authority for a change in the move status is now CMP.


----------



## ballz (22 Oct 2016)

DAA said:
			
		

> The change of the move status, does not happen by magic and requires either the issuance of either an AMENDED or NEW Posting Instruction.   So without either of those, what your explaining, just can't happen.



It did happen. A new posting message was cut, but it was never delivered to the member. He only became aware of it over a year later when he was posted locally and received a local, "no cost" move posting instruction to 2 RCR. At that point, he realized something had gone wrong as he had never received any posting benefits.

What I don't understand is how that message could be cut without some sort of paperwork showing the member is requesting that change. That's what I'd like to point to and say "hey, if you can't produce a request from the member asking for that posting to be changed from "prohibited" to "restricted," then whoever changed it did so on their own initiative which is not allowed."



			
				DAA said:
			
		

> PS - when a member is posted BTL, the approving authority for a change in the move status is now CMP.



Do you have a reference for that? It will probably lead me to some of the other questions I need answered in order to proceed. I definitely need to find out if the member *must* make a request in order for it to change, or whether or not someone can just order it.


----------



## ballz (22 Oct 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Normally, changing a posting from "prohibited" to "restricted" is to the member's benefit, so I'm a little confused here.



Regardless of whether its to his benefit or not, it occurred without him requesting it, without his consent, or without him even being informed. In the end, he is now not receiving a $4500 posting allowance because he was untrained when they cut the message (the one they didn't tell him about). The normal process would have seen him finish training and then be posted, in which case he would receive the posting allowance because he had attained career status.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> From what you have described (I may be missing some important details)



You are missing some details. It's not an overly complicated situation but I don't feel like posting a timeline of events that occurred over a 2.5 year period. I already have 99% of the details / info I need, I know what each posting is and what their associated entitlements are. The vital ground right now is what is required to change a posting from prohibited to restricted... does it require the member's request / consent before it can be approved by the approving authority (apparently CMP as indicated above by DAA)?


----------



## meni0n (22 Oct 2016)

If he was posted in the same geographical area, then he would not receive the posting allowance.
From the manual.

Limitations. Posting allowance is not payable:
• for moves within the same place of duty;
• in cases of posting cancellation;
• on release, on posting as a result of release, or posting to a location for
release, or for moving to an intended place of residence (IPR) on or
after release unless returning from outside Canada as per art 12.9.01
or an isolated post as per art 11.4.03;
• in instances where CF members do not move but receive SCA and
commute to their residence on a regular basis;
• to CF members who are posted and continue to reside within the
geographic boundaries of the former place of duty or at the authorized
location for the former place of duty;
• in all other cases where a posting occurs and the posting does not
result in CF members actually moving;
• when the posting is to the first place of duty where CF members will
be employed after re-enrolment or transfer to the Regular Force;
• on attached posting;
• for any Reserve Force members; and
• to foreign exchange personnel who are posted while serving with the
CF.


----------



## ballz (22 Oct 2016)

meni0n said:
			
		

> If he was posted in the same geographical area, then he would not receive the posting allowance.



Yes, he would. Like all others who join and are posted prohibited because they are on the BTL, reach career status, and then receive their "first move on enrolment," he would be entitled to a posting allowance if they hadn't cut his message (without his request, consent, or without even informing him) before he reached career status.

I assure you, what benefits he is entitled to under each scenario is not what is being debated in his grievance. DGCB has already ruled that he was entitled to a full-cost move less a posting allowance, and that if the message had been cut when he attained career status he would receive a posting allowance. The reason it is sans a posting allowance is because the message was cut when he was still on the BTL (without his request, consent, or without even informing him) and had not reached career status. They have just stated that there is not enough evidence to show that the original message was cut in error.

There is lots of evidence to support that the message was cut in error. The fact that it is not the normal process at the Infantry School to lift a prohibited posting for an untrained member, the fact that he has an email from the Chief Clerk stating at the time that his prohibited posting would not be changed until he finished training, the fact that the BTL coordinator who cut the message told the grievance analyst and myself that "from the information available, it looks like this was done in error," and the fact that the other 4 people that came to the Battalion with this member are not in this fiasco... 

However, I am looking for the nail in the coffin which would be that without the member submitting a request to have his posting status changed from prohibited to restricted, and having that request approved, then CTC never had the authority to change his posting status.


----------



## Len_v11 (26 Oct 2016)

Policy is quite clear on this subject

CBI 208.49(1) states that the member must have attained career status at time of posting.

Posting #1 
When the member was posted while in the BTL he was untrained and therefor not entitled to a posting allowance

CBI 208.49(3)(d) - member is not entitled to a posting allowance if

in respect of an officer or noncommissioned member who is posted but continues to reside within the geographical area of the member's former place of duty or at the authorized location for the member's former place of duty;

You cannot take the posting message from posting #2 and attempt to apply allowances to posting #1, and vice versa.

Basically each posting has its entitlements.  
Posting #1 to Gagetown was as untrained member and not entitled to posting allowance.  
Psting #2 - local posting and therefore not entitled to posting allowance.

The changes to his initial posting messages are itrelivent to entitlements and looking at that factor is only muddying the waters and making it difficult to see the details.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2016)

Len_v11 said:
			
		

> Policy is quite clear on this subject



Yes, it is, and no one is disputing the entitlements for each type of posting.



			
				Len_v11 said:
			
		

> CBI 208.49(1) states that the member must have attained career status at time of posting.



Thanks again. You must work at DGCB. They have also been very fixated on what he was entitled to under the posting and not whether or not the posting itself was legitimate (authorized).



			
				Len_v11 said:
			
		

> You cannot take the posting message from posting #2 and attempt to apply allowances to posting #1, and vice versa.



No one is trying to do so. 



			
				Len_v11 said:
			
		

> The changes to his initial posting messages are itrelivent to entitlements and looking at that factor is only muddying the waters and making it difficult to see the details.



No, the changes to his initial posting message is not irrelevant. The change to his initial posting message is the actual subject of the grievance. It appears to have been unauthorized. The member never requested it, never consented to it, and was never made aware. The local policy at the time was that members on BTL remained on prohibited status until they were done training, and he was explicitly told this in an email that has been included in the grievance. He should have remained on "prohibited" status until his training was complete. When his training was complete and THEN the posting status should be changed to restricted. At that point, as a trained member, he is entitled to a posting allowance.

"Posting #1" should have never occurred. In that case, "Posting #2" is a full-cost move for a trained member under the CFIRP directive.

I am pretty well versed in the entitlements of each type of posting. I never asked about the entitlements for each type for a reason, as I did not want this thread to go down the road of the various entitlements under various scenarios (clearly, I failed). Please see the original post and the *bolded and underlined question.* That is the question that remains unanswered. Can a member's prohibited posting be amended to restricted without his request, consent, or without even informing him?


----------



## kev994 (26 Oct 2016)

Len_v11 said:
			
		

> Policy is quite clear on this subject
> 
> CBI 208.49(1) states that the member must have attained career status at time of posting.
> 
> ...


But posting 1 he was posted prohibited and therefore not entitled to move his F&E, so he's still entitled to a cost move from his place of enrollment, so for all intents and purposes, posting 1 never occurred until his message was somehow changed from prohibited to restricted.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2016)

Len_v11

Let me apologize for getting irritable here, not my best moment, but this has been a very frustrating issue as DGCB continues to focus on what he was entitled to and not whether or not the posting was authorized which is the actual subject of the grievance. I appreciate that you are trying to help.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2016)

kev994 said:
			
		

> But posting 1 he was posted prohibited and therefore not entitled to move his F&E, so he's still entitled to a cost move from his place of enrollment, so for all intents and purposes, posting 1 never occurred until his message was somehow changed from prohibited to restricted.



Yes, exactly.

We *think* we know what happened now. It appears that 12 months after he vacated singles quarters and moved off base under the explicit conditions that this was done under his dime and that his posting would *not* be changed, the new CTC Comd published a policy stating to the effect that "anyone who wants to live off base will fill out this form and request that their posting status be changed from prohibited to restricted." Because of this, it appears that his name was forwarded to have his posting status amended. However, he moved out under a different set of conditions, and when they made the change it was without his request, consent, or without even informing him that "hey, the policy has now changed, here is your new message... go coordinate a DND move with the OR and get your stuff here."


----------



## dapaterson (26 Oct 2016)

Ballz: From what you've said, this is not a DGCB grievance.  It's a grievance with his CoC who, at some point, changed his status without his request / without informing him.  If that action is successfully grieved, and the original status restored, then DGCB will follow the rules as written.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's a grievance with his CoC who, at some point, changed his status without his request / without informing him.



Indeed. Except the error didn't come to light until he was posted to our unit and was told "no benefits for you, you received a full-cost move to here over a year ago." Our CO (his Chain of Command) doesn't have the authority to change the posting message that was cut 12 months ago (almost 24 months ago at this point), so he couldn't act as the Initial Authority....so he had to send the grievance to the CFGA.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ballz: From what you've said, this is not a DGCB grievance.



Yes, agreed... but that is where the CFGA sent it to act as the Initial Authority... I said the same thing... DGCB is not the right Initial Authority, it should have been CMP (or whoever has the authority to cancel the erroneous message)... but we are where we are now...



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> If that action is successfully grieved, and the original status restored, then DGCB will follow the rules as written.



Of course, but DGCB said there isn't enough evidence to conclude that the posting message was an error.... even though the BTL Coordinator who cut the message has said "with the information available, it appears that this was an administrative error." Very frustrating, indeed... they spent a lot of time and analysis on talking about what the various posting entitlements are, and a lot of time explaining why an untrained member isn't entitled to a posting allowance.....and very little time or analysis, if any, into whether or not the posting message was an administrative error.

Which is why I am looking for some piece of policy that says in order for the posting message to be amended, the member HAD to request it... that would be the nail in the coffin so to speak, there would be no disputing that.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ballz: From what you've said, this is not a DGCB grievance.  It's a grievance with his CoC who, at some point, changed his status without his request / without informing him.  If that action is successfully grieved, and the original status restored, then DGCB will follow the rules as written.



How long is this going to take?!


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How long is this going to take?!



So far about 7 months to get a decision from the IA and now after our 30 days to respond its going to go to the FA. I am guessing that will take at least 12 months.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Oct 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Of course, but DGCB said there isn't enough evidence to conclude that the posting message was an error.... even though the BTL Coordinator who cut the message has said "with the information available, it appears that this was an administrative error." Very frustrating, indeed... they spent a lot of time and analysis on talking about what the various posting entitlements are, and a lot of time explaining why an untrained member isn't entitled to a posting allowance....*.and very little time or analysis, if any, into whether or not the posting message was an administrative error.*



Emphasis added.  DGCB wouldn't look at the posting message - because that's not their area of responsibility.  They can say whether or not the benefits were provided IAW comp & ben policy; but it would be some other part of CMP that owns the BTL management piece - believe it's somewhere in Kingston.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Emphasis added.  DGCB wouldn't look at the posting message - because that's not their area of responsibility.  They can say whether or not the benefits were provided IAW comp & ben policy; but it would be some other part of CMP that owns the BTL management piece - believe it's somewhere in Kingston.



I understand that... it wasn't our choice to send it to DGCB, it was CFGA that did so. But the duties of an IA are clear...

"unless planning to grant all redress sought, prepare a synopsis of the grievance, including:
all relevant facts;
an analysis to determine whether the grievor has been aggrieved; and
a recommendation as to the redress which might be granted; 

Note – If the IA lacks the authority to grant some aspect of the appropriate redress, approval must be sought, in anticipation of reliance on that remedy, from the appropriate authority before it is recommended in the synopsis."

In my opinion, DGCB could have done was obliged to do a proper analysis on the actual matter grieved and liaised with CMP in the 7 months they took to render a decision. They are all located in the same building on Colonel Drive for a reason. The IA had the scope obligation to analyze the matter grieved and liaise with CMP. It's not the grievor's fault that this one landed on DGCB's desk, it doesn't relieve them of doing a thorough job IAW policy.

That was actually the recommendation from us to the IA after we received the disclosure package and realized that DGCB had no authority to cancel the message. Instead, he came back with, "There is not enough evidence to conclude that this was error." Felt a lot like the "I don't want to put the work into solving this problem, you can take it to the Final Authority" approach.

Anywho, I don't want to vent frustrations any longer with the grievance process.... I am still looking for a reference that would help me put the nail in the coffin so that the Final Authority doesn't come back and say "despite all the evidence, there was firm piece of policy on this matter."


----------



## dapaterson (26 Oct 2016)

Actually, DGCB us in a different building from DGMC who are in a different building from CMP.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Actually, DGCB us in a different building from DGMC who are in a different building from CMP.



 [Xp


----------



## Buddy00189 (4 Jul 2018)

This might not be the right thread but it is the only one I found closest to address my query.
My situation:
I am on BTL (CFB HFX ), not at OFP (still have a 6 month course to go) and prohibited posted to Gagetown for the duration of the course (i.e.: move of DH&E prohibited).  I am married, have two kids and own a house.  I was told I am not entitled to special relocation leave and thus no leave pass is required.
My question:
Shouldn't I be entitled to 2 days to take care of admin and one day travel (POMV) to get there with my kit and RFD ?


----------



## dangerboy (4 Jul 2018)

Buddy00189 said:
			
		

> This might not be the right thread but it is the only one I found closest to address my query.
> My situation:
> I am on BTL (CFB HFX ), not at OFP (still have a 6 month course to go) and prohibited posted to Gagetown for the duration of the course (i.e.: move of DH&E prohibited).  I am married, have two kids and own a house.  I was told I am not entitled to special relocation leave and thus no leave pass is required.
> My question:
> Shouldn't I be entitled to 2 days to take care of admin and one day travel (POMV) to get there with my kit and RFD ?



Here is what the leave manual says: Special Leave (Relocation) shall not be granted:
•to a new enrollee on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) who is awaiting recruit or basic training courses as the member has not yet attained career status; or
•to a member who has just completed the recruit or basic training course but has not yet attained career status as defined in CBI 205.42 (moved to CBI 208.849), Posting Allowance. (and the reference: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/leave-policy.page )

I would say you would not get the two day to take care of admin but should get travel time. Best advice check with your orderly room.


----------



## Lumber (4 Jul 2018)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Here is what the leave manual says: Special Leave (Relocation) shall not be granted:
> •to a new enrollee on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) who is awaiting recruit or basic training courses as the member has not yet attained career status; or
> •to a member who has just completed the recruit or basic training course but has not yet attained career status as defined in CBI 205.42 (moved to CBI 208.849), Posting Allowance. (and the reference: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/leave-policy.page )
> 
> I would say you would not get the two day to take care of admin but should get travel time. Best advice check with your orderly room.




This is a situation where, in our office, I directed that we do things that I _might_ be wrong about, but that I think adheres to the spirit of the benefit.

First, let me start by saying that I think they need to divide Special Leave (Relocation) into two new sections, one for "Posting/Attach Posting", and one for "operations/training exercises, career courses or incremental tasking".

When you read the section 5.10 Special Leave (Relocation), it just sounds very much like it talking specifically about postings/attach postings, and includes courses/exes/taskings as an after though. This causes confusion because some of the sub-paras really do seem to only pertain to the one, but not the other. Para 5.10.13 is one of those sub-paras, where I believe it really referring to official postings/attach postings, and not exercises/taskings/courses, where the CO has _the discretion_ to grant Special Leave (relocation).

Now I admit, I could be entirely wrong in my interpretation of the written word of the regulation; I think it's a little hard. So, my 2nd justification comes from the spirit of the benefit. Why do we grant special leave relocation for courses and exercises, and why is it at the CO's discretion? And why would they not grant this benefit to those not MOS qualified? (and I'll mention here that NWOs don't get MOS qualified until right before their promotion to Lt(N), which for me was 7 years into my career; do you think I never got Special leave (relocation)?). 

For a new recruit, or someone recently finished basic, they probably live in shacks somewhere, and are young with few responsibilities. In these cases, sure, do they really need the extra time off? Maybe not. But that's why it's in the CO's discretion! We have members like OP who aren't young with few responsibilities; they have a house and kids. They actually might need a day or two to sort their shit out before they go away for 6 months. Ergo, CO's discretion.

Anyways, I could be wrong, but I think OP should get it, and if my office was processing it, we would give it to him.


----------



## CountDC (6 Jul 2018)

Lumbar - I agree with you and hope that it is right.  if someone doesn't feel comfortable with it though there is the option of short leave also.


----------

