# Married but paying for rations while on course.



## Langton123 (9 Jan 2013)

I will be paying an extra $540.00 per month while on course for the next six months due to the new rules that take effect on February 1st.  This will create an immediate and serious hardship for my wife and kids and I'll probably end up at Sisup to borrow $2000.00-$2500.00 to pay for this new cost.  I've been sent for training as a civilian and was never required to pay for my own food, does the CF really think that this is a good way to save money?  Does anyone else out there think that this will encourage people to show up and apply themselves while on course (getting people to hang in there for courses is already a problem).


----------



## Pandora114 (9 Jan 2013)

Your clerk musta messed up somewhere.  If you're married, and you're on course, you shouldn't pay rations.

If your'e common law and didn't do your paperwork properly, that's your problem.

If you're on IR THAT is when you pay rations, NOT when your'e on course.  Your clerk either messed up, or you're on IR.


----------



## Langton123 (9 Jan 2013)

No mistake, IR is changing on February 1st and I will be docked $270.00 a pay for the next six months.  Separation pay and post living differential are on the way out too.


----------



## jeffb (9 Jan 2013)

If he's on course that's not probably not IR, that's most likely TD. 

No one here will be able to solve this for you. Go to you chain of command tomorrow to seek clarification and help. You are clearly not the only person at your training establishment that has had to deal with this before.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Jan 2013)

And Mods, perhaps a move to Military Administration is in order?


----------



## Pandora114 (9 Jan 2013)

jeffb said:
			
		

> If he's on course that's not IR, that's TD.
> 
> No one here will be able to solve this for you. Go to you chain of command tomorrow to seek clarification and help. You are clearly not the only person at your training establishment that has had to deal with this before.



I know that.  We've been through the IR/TD mill a few times in this house, I know the difference.  If he's been marked as IR when it's really a TD, then the clerk musta screwed up. 

+1 on the Chain of command.


----------



## DAA (9 Jan 2013)

Welcome to the "new" evolution or should I say, "application" of the regulations.

I was waiting for something like this to come up which is as a direct result of the changes to the "IR" (Separation Expense) poiicy changes which are about to come into effect on 1 Feb.

What is happening here, is the OP is now having to pay for his "Rations", and is losing the SE Allowance and nothing more.....

My best guess based on the limited info is.....graduated from CFLRS and then posted "Prohibited" to the training location for QL3 training.  So they will NOT pay for Quarters but will definitely have to pay for Rations and will no longer receive the extra Separation Allowance benefit that they are accustomed to.


----------



## 63 Delta (9 Jan 2013)

Does someone mind explaining all the new rules coming out. Ive tried reading the Canforgens and the new IR thread, but Ill be damned if I can figure it all out. Ive never been posted, and was only on course for Basic and my DP1, so really have no other experience with any of this. 

Maybe a Idiots guide to how the new rules work?


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2013)

Langton123 said:
			
		

> No mistake, IR is changing on February 1st and ...


IR is not changing - Separation Expense is changing.  This is a pedantic but significant difference. Pers on IR receive SE and so they will be affected along with a number of other groups (like new untrained pers who are prohibited posted to a trg establisemt and married service couples posted apart).


----------



## technophile (15 Jan 2013)

I think there is going to be a lot of hair pulling in the next few months as a " double standard " appears.

There are already instances where pers have remustered and sent on course TD , and others who have severed ties with their former units but are restricted posting.  ( courses over 6 months in length)  This will make a big difference in terms of who will be paying for rations next month and who wont. Even though both members are on the same course ( and in one case in particular, roommates ! )


----------



## DAA (16 Jan 2013)

technophile said:
			
		

> I think there is going to be a lot of hair pulling in the next few months as a " double standard " appears.
> 
> There are already instances where pers have remustered and sent on course TD , and others who have severed ties with their former units but are restricted posting.  ( courses over 6 months in length)  This will make a big difference in terms of who will be paying for rations next month and who wont. Even though both members are on the same course ( and in one case in particular, roommates ! )



I have seen this scenario happen before.  The TA/MA was given some subtle advice and suddenly, everyone on course was Attach Posted.  lol


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2013)

Langton123 said:
			
		

> No mistake, IR is changing on February 1st and I will be docked $270.00 a pay for the next six months.  Separation pay and post living differential are on the way out too.



The CF has released nothing about PLD going away.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2013)

jeffb said:
			
		

> If he's on course that's not probably not IR, that's most likely TD.



Unless by IR the OP means posted prohibited while attending initial occupation/classification trg.  



> No one here will be able to solve this for you. Go to you chain of command tomorrow to seek clarification and help. You are clearly not the only person at your training establishment that has had to deal with this before.



Sniper round.


----------



## NavyHopeful (22 Jan 2013)

I'm in the same boat, as well.  However, I have been in constant contact with my POs and have been told that they are trying to contact the people who organize the BTL to get myself and another member at my unit switched to TD or Attach Posted so that we don't have to pay for our rations until our course is completed.  But when I checked into it with the clerks, they told me to go to my POs and tell them to check out CANFORGEN 159(12).  I haven't looked into it yet, but it'll be on my list of things to do today, I'm sure.

Guess it's just a waiting game until all of this gets sorted out, but I am sure there will be countless hours of stress put into this topic from all angles.


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Jan 2013)

NavyHopeful said:
			
		

> I'm in the same boat, as well.  However, I have been in constant contact with my POs and have been told that they are trying to contact the people who organize the BTL to get myself and another member at my unit switched to TD or Attach Posted so that we don't have to pay for our rations until our course is completed.  But when I checked into it with the clerks, they told me to go to my POs and tell them to check out CANFORGEN 159(12).  I haven't looked into it yet, but it'll be on my list of things to do today, I'm sure.
> 
> Guess it's just a waiting game until all of this gets sorted out, but I am sure there will be countless hours of stress put into this topic from all angles.



It is probably these two paragraphs (4 and 5) of CANFORGEN 159/12 that the clerks are referring to (and also what your POs seem to be doing):



> IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT PERSONNEL PROCEEDING ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS OR TRAINING OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR THAT REQUIRE TEMPORARY GEOGRAPHIC RELOCATION CANNOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO UPROOT THEIR FAMILIES. THE CF HAS AT ITS DISPOSAL A NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENT POLICIES (ATTACHED POSTING, TEMPORARY DUTY) THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THESE PERSONNEL ARE PROVIDED WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORT DURING THESE SHORT TERM RELOCATIONS AND THAT FAMILIES ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNDUE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL PRESSURE. SPECIFICALLY, PERSONNEL ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS MAY BE ATTACH POSTED AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO BENEFITS UNDER REF B. ALONG THESE LINES, CAREER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES, IN CONCERT WITH FORCE GENERATORS, WILL EXPLORE INNOVATIVE METHODS TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF THE SE CHANGES BY REMAINING VIGILANT FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR PERSONNEL TO BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES FOR PROTRACTED PERIODS
> 
> IN ADDITION, STEPS WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT RECENTLY ENROLLED PERSONNEL ARE MANAGED WHILE ON THE BTL AS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNEXPECTED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, PARTICULARLY WHEN TRAINING NECESSITATES THAT THEY PROCEED UNACCOMPANIED. THIS MAY ALSO INCLUDE ATTACH POSTINGS AND TEMPORARY DUTY BENEFITS AS PER REF B


----------



## peacelove (23 Jan 2013)

So some units are doing it while others aren't. well isn't that just super. 
Since when does it even sound like a good idea to charge married members - in training - upwards of 500/month for food? When they already pay that at home. Maybe they have 3 kids and they pay more. Now, you have a member with 3 kids, a wife, a huge grocery bill and a secondary all ranks mess bill. 

Pte bloggins at training facility A has to pay 540/month in rations
while
Pte blogette at training facility B pays nothing

If they aren't going to charge, and they damn well shouldn't, charge nobody!


----------



## mld (23 Jan 2013)

I am heading to CFLRS in two days. I just received notice from my recruiting centre that effective right now, all married and commonlaw members at CFLRS are required to pay for rations. They are exempt only from lodging. 

This is going to hit the family budget hard :-S


----------



## peacelove (23 Jan 2013)

What is the rate now at CFLRS?
Good luck on your course


----------



## mld (23 Jan 2013)

Rations rate is $524.66 a month. My whole family only spends $450 a month.


----------



## 0010bravo (23 Jan 2013)

Yeah....... It blows!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jan 2013)

peacelove said:
			
		

> What is the rate now at CFLRS?
> Good luck on your course



Just for clarity before the sky falls in on this thread, the rates are set nationally and only vary for certain aspects (cafeteria vice table service, full vice partial ration plan).

Yes, it blows for ppl who are prohibited posted and I feel for those who have families at home to feed as well.


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jan 2013)

Wait till you start getting a pay deduction after exercises for all the IMPs you eat.


----------



## Pandora114 (23 Jan 2013)

Does this also apply to those on PLQ? or just BMQ?


----------



## DAA (23 Jan 2013)

I posted on this topic earlier but am now having an "after thought" to the original question.  There are several variables in play, which would raise differences in entitlements when personnel are assigned for training at the QL3 level and below.  The original post doesn't provide sufficient information to get an accurate picture of just what is happening.

So you can't paint everyone with the same brush.

There will be differences and it is unavoidable.


----------



## mld (23 Jan 2013)

Pandora114 said:
			
		

> Does this also apply to those on PLQ? or just BMQ?



The recruiting centre specifically all members at cflrs. So I am assuming that means everyone.


----------



## PMedMoe (23 Jan 2013)

mld said:
			
		

> The recruiting centre specifically all members at cflrs. So I am assuming that means everyone.



I'm suspecting they mean recruits on BMQ as that is a posting.  Anyone going to CFLRS on courses such as PLQ, ILP, etc _should_ be on TD from their home units and not subject to R&Q.


----------



## DAA (23 Jan 2013)

Very very brief run down.

Recently enrolled pers who are Married/Common-Law at the time of enrolment, will pay for Rations at both BMQ/BMOQ and ALSO during occupational/phase training if they are separated from their dependants.  Personnel who are currently serving (ie; reached OFP) and are undergoing OT are different and in these cases, everything depends on what method is used to send them on training (ie; Attach Posted or Posted).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jan 2013)

Hoping to see lots of AP/TD msgs vice posted prohibited.


----------



## jeffb (23 Jan 2013)

If this policy had been in effect when I joined I would not have been able to afford it and I would either be a civilian now or bankrupt. It's one thing to say that members who choose to live in the shacks have to pay R & Q and another to order married members into the shacks and then charge them for it. I completely understand for initial training (BMQ, BMOQ) but after that it's unreasonable to order someone to be undergoing the expense of R & Q for months (almost 2 years in my case). We like to talk about taking care of families but if the first thing we do when someone joins the CF is this, then I think we need to reevaluate our priorities. 

Will members still be entitled to PLD at their primary residence while on prohibited posting?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jan 2013)

In other developments WRT R & Q, there is a CANAIRGEN (released not long ago) WRT de-linking R & Q.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jan 2013)

Pandora114 said:
			
		

> Does this also apply to those on PLQ? or just BMQ?



Rather than applying to a certain course, it will pertain to the mbr's posting and career status/situation.  Members posted prohibited with their D HG & E in another location who occupy SQ will pay R & Q.  Members who are attach posted, or on Temporary Duty for a course and who have D HG & E at their posting location will not pay R & Q.

If AP or TD and not married/common law but maintain a residence, those mbr's will not pay quarters but will pay rations.

*IIRC


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jan 2013)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Will members still be entitled to PLD at their primary residence while on prohibited posting?



Yes, IAW current policy if their place of enrolment is a place of duty and their D HG & E is in the PLDA.


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Jan 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If AP or TD and not married/common law but maintain a residence, those mbr's will not pay quarters but will pay rations.
> 
> *IIRC



I'm not so sure about that -- I haven't seen anything that says that single pers on Temporary Duty are required to pay for their rations. Besides, the CFTDI hasn't been amended since this whole reduction of benefits push broke in July 2012. Similar story with Attached Posting -- Attached Posting is a different thing from Temporary Duty, but they receive similar meal benefits according to the CFTDI version that's posted online (revised 1 Jan 2012). 

There may well be a new version of CFTDI coming out that insists that we all start foraging the countryside for food, but it hasn't hit the street yet.


----------



## NavyHopeful (24 Jan 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> It is probably these two paragraphs (4 and 5) of CANFORGEN 159/12 that the clerks are referring to (and also what your POs seem to be doing):



Yeah, that's them...  And I'm pretty sure something came down for the bunch of us that it applied to.  I'll have more to post when I get updated.



			
				Ostrozac said:
			
		

> There may well be a new version of CFTDI coming out that insists that we all start foraging the countryside for food, but it hasn't hit the street yet.



I hope we don't have to forage... I suck at it...  ;D


----------



## Pandora114 (24 Jan 2013)

Hmm..

This thread made me really think, and send an email off to my recruiter to get a straight answer for my situation (not the PLQ..that's my husband's situation)  That way we can be prepared and budget appropriately when I go off on my training.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2013)

Pandora114 said:
			
		

> Hmm..
> 
> This thread made me really think, and send an email off to my recruiter to get a straight answer for my situation (not the PLQ..that's my husband's situation)  That way we can be prepared and budget appropriately when I go off on my training.



If you are going PRes, you won't have to worry at all.  PLQ is a AP or TD course.


----------



## Pandora114 (24 Jan 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If you are going PRes, you won't have to worry at all.  PLQ is a AP or TD course.



No, husband is going on PLQ *again* once his leg is fixed up (Had to be RTU'd because of the break happening on the course).  He didn't have to pay for rations when he was there, but he might be going back after the fiscal year switches over so things might be different.  Hence why I asked. 

I'm enlisting as Reserves as RMS Clerk, app is sitting in CFRC Halifax as I type this, just waiting on the call  for my testing.  It's cool, I sent an email to my recruiter and I'll probably hear back from him tomorrow.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2013)

Pandora114 said:
			
		

> No, husband is going on PLQ *again* once his leg is fixed up (Had to be RTU'd because of the break happening on the course).  He didn't have to pay for rations when he was there, but he might be going back after the fiscal year switches over so things might be different.  Hence why I asked.



And as I said, PLQ is AP (Attach Posted) or TD (Temp Duty) to the TE (Trg Establishment) and not affected.



> I'm enlisting as Reserves as RMS Clerk, app is sitting in CFRC Halifax as I type this, just waiting on the call  for my testing.  It's cool, I sent an email to my recruiter and I'll probably hear back from him tomorrow.



Great.  But you can't be posted as PRes, so you will be TD for your courses likely on a Cl B route letter.  IR status, posted prohibited, etc doesn't apply to a reservist.


----------



## Pandora114 (24 Jan 2013)

Sweet.  We're just skimming the surface here as it is.  (and I'm also filing this away in my brain database for when I am a clerk)  Clerks should know this stuff anyway.


----------



## NavyHopeful (24 Jan 2013)

OK... So I have some more information regarding this.  My PO gave me a copy of an email that pertains to this subject, and was sent through our trade career manager from the BTL management.

Basically, the crux of it is that any BTL NCM students that who were enrolled before 1 Sep 12 and will remain on the BTL after 1 Feb 13 are among those who qualify for this.  (NCMs who are in training now at different units, and NCM-SEPs are among the numbers)

If the member is leaving CFLRS to their next unit, CFLRS will remain the parent unit, and the member will be sent to the next training location on Attached Posting.

NCM-SEP students will remain posted with their applicable ULO and sent on to their next training location after graduation on Attached Posting.

Anyone who is already Prohibited Posted and on their courses (like me), and wre entitled to R&Q at public expense, will be posted RESTRICTED out of thier schools and into their first employing unit by the D Mil C Career Managers.  The employing units will immediately Attach Post the students back to the school to complete their training.  After graduating the required training, the member would THEN move to their employing unit, and the gaining CO will be able to lift the restrictions and allow the move of family and HG&E.

As far as I know, this only applies to NCMs under the old rules.  I was also told that a new CANFORGEN should be out soon about this, but the email was sent now, just in case the CANFORGEN isn't released by 1 Feb 13, so that our staff and clerks have some sort of guideline...

So now, we wait and see what happens next, I guess...


----------



## once a gunner (25 Jan 2013)

this whole thing sickens me.......I think that married or not.......anyone on course for mil trg, should get free R&Q.  Once you finish trg, and live in shacks / PMQ's then you are responsible for your own R&Q.  what's comming next.....a rental fee for use of the uniforms we have to wear?


----------



## DAA (25 Jan 2013)

NavyHopeful said:
			
		

> OK... So I have some more information regarding this.  My PO gave me a copy of an email that pertains to this subject, and was sent through our trade career manager from the BTL management.
> 
> Basically, the crux of it is that any BTL NCM students that who were enrolled before 1 Sep 12 and will remain on the BTL after 1 Feb 13 are among those who qualify for this.  (NCMs who are in training now at different units, and NCM-SEPs are among the numbers)
> 
> ...



That's one way to sort of solve the problem.  The only follow on issues to something like this would be with respect to training failures but that would be addressed in due course.


----------



## NavyHopeful (25 Jan 2013)

once a gunner said:
			
		

> this whole thing sickens me.......I think that married or not.......anyone on course for mil trg, should get free R&Q.  Once you finish trg, and live in shacks / PMQ's then you are responsible for your own R&Q.



It would allow for some kind of equality, I'm sure.  But that sort of argument is a bit out of my lane.  I only know what I know.



			
				DAA said:
			
		

> That's one way to sort of solve the problem.  The only follow on issues to something like this would be with respect to training failures but that would be addressed in due course.



It will certainly make it easier to post people out of BMQ.  As for the members on qualification courses right now (like myself), it will definitely add more paperwork to their file.  But as long as the problem has been or gets resolved, it'll go a long way to assist the members caught in the crossfire.



			
				once a gunner said:
			
		

> what's comming next.....a rental fee for use of the uniforms we have to wear?



With all the kit Navy personnel get issued, I certainly hope not...  Could you imagine the cost?


----------



## kratz (25 Jan 2013)

[quote author=NavyHopeful]With all the kit Navy personnel get issued, I certainly hope not...  Could you imagine the cost?
[/quote]

/off topic

You have not seen how much kit our friends in green are issued.

/on topic


----------



## jwtg (25 Jan 2013)

once a gunner said:
			
		

> this whole thing sickens me.......I think that married or not.......anyone on course for mil trg, should get free R&Q.  Once you finish trg, and live in shacks / PMQ's then you are responsible for your own R&Q.  what's comming next.....a rental fee for use of the uniforms we have to wear?


I always heard that the reason for waiving R&Q is so that people aren't paying for R&Q as well as rent and groceries.  In the case of a married member, like myself, my wife and I eat perfectly well on 400-450$ a month in groceries.  I would be paying more than it costs my family for groceries if I were required to pay rations while on course; I also pay rent, so paying for rations & quarters when it's the CF who is imposing the separation and added expense doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The flaws I see with your logic are that people could join off the street and freeload despite not having to pay R&Q anywhere else (Joe graduates from college where he lived at home, enrolls in the CF and moves out of mommy's house for the first time, and goes on to live for free, courtesy of the taxpayers).  This seems like an irresponsible use of taxpayers money to me.

The most obvious example I can think of is RMC- essentially a 4 year long 'course' with other courses occurring during the summers.  RMC cadets pay R&Q and it makes sense to have them continue to do so.  The exceptions to the rule are those cadets who are married/common-law and who have spouses elsewhere, either in Kingston or elsewhere.


----------



## Quellefille (25 Jan 2013)

once a gunner said:
			
		

> this whole thing sickens me.......I think that married or not.......anyone on course for mil trg, should get free R&Q.  Once you finish trg, and live in shacks / PMQ's then you are responsible for your own R&Q.  what's comming next.....a rental fee for use of the uniforms we have to wear?



Well the thing is the guys living in the shacks with no family, their stuff is being held in storage, at the gov'ts expense so the gov't is paying for their lodgings, but not paying twice

As for food, well the guys with a family back home are already buying groceries and they could be fed at home for a fraction of the cost.  Wheras Pvt. Bloggins with no family isn't buying any groceries.


Question though, from someone who doesn't speak acronym:  BTL means what?


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Jan 2013)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> Question though, from someone who doesn't speak acronym:  BTL means what?



The BTL is the Basic Training List -- in general terms, it's the positions that exist for personnel who are undergoing initial training and have not yet reached their first operational unit. It is also used for personnel that are in the process of transferring from one occupation to another -- this means that when you are undergoing initial training you are not assigned to a position in an operational unit.

There is also a similar thing called the Advanced Training List -- this is used for things like year long French courses... if your Company Commander needs a year long French course, he can be posted to the ATL, allowing another Major to move into his old spot and command that company. If he was just Temporary Duty or Attached Posted to a language school, he would still be assigned to his old position, and he couldn't be backfilled.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2013)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The BTL is the Basic Training List -- in general terms, it's the positions that exist for personnel who are undergoing initial training and have not yet reached their first operational unit. It is also used for personnel that are in the process of transferring from one occupation to another -- this means that when you are undergoing initial training you are not assigned to a position in an operational unit.
> 
> There is also a similar thing called the Advanced Training List -- this is used for things like year long French courses... if your Company Commander needs a year long French course, he can be posted to the ATL, allowing another Major to move into his old spot and command that company. If he was just Temporary Duty or Attached Posted to a language school, he would still be assigned to his old position, and he couldn't be backfilled.



I await the _rumored_ upcoming CANFORGEN (if true: nothing like waiting until the last minute to communicate  ... yet again).  

I think it will be interesting to see if it addresses BTL in the manner someone suggested below and if ATL pers will be treated in the same respect - else we have just set yet another double standard.  I was posted restricted to the ATL for the 10 month SLT at a location away from where my spouse was posted to/family was at.  I haven't been posted to the same base as my spouse since (we've both had other postings since my "year"-long course), just not to the same places as each other.

I am quite looking forward to that same system reducing me to rent only eff 01 Feb (what about my other expenses that I too am already paying for at home? Basic phone so I can call and actually TALK to my family? My laundry expenses because I have to use a laundromat here but own and pay for washer/dryer at home etc etc etc?? Not even to mention that our family now requires two vehicles for work purposes/travel each day).  If the above groups are treated in same manner, then we have yet another double standard between them ... and us who have been posted "not through choice" to a location separated from our families for even longer periods of time than a 10 month long course etc.  Should they be covered and me not because the CF only chose to post them away from their families for 1-2 years on courses while they chose to post me away from mine for 4+ years now??


----------



## Quellefille (28 Jan 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I am quite looking forward to that same system reducing me to rent only eff 01 Feb (what about my other expenses that I too am already paying for at home? Basic phone so I can call and actually TALK to my family? My laundry expenses because I have to use a laundromat here but own and pay for washer/dryer at home etc etc etc?? Not even to mention that our family now requires two vehicles for work purposes/travel each day).  If the above groups are treated in same manner, then we have yet another double standard between them ... and us who have been posted "not through choice" to a location separated from our families for even longer periods of time than a 10 month long course etc.  Should they be covered and me not because the CF only chose to post them away from their families for 1-2 years on courses while they chose to post me away from mine for 4+ years now??



I feel for you.  This canforgen was meant to address the people abusing the IR system, and its really just screwing over those who don't.  And it seems that the push is to fix if for folks like my husband, on BTL, vs you, who've given your all and already made huge sacrifices.  Which isn't fair cause honestly, the army needs folks like you just as much if not slightly more than new folks like my husband


----------



## NavyHopeful (28 Jan 2013)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> I feel for you.  This canforgen was meant to address the people abusing the IR system, and its really just screwing over those who don't.  And it seems that the push is to fix if for folks like my husband, on BTL, vs you, who've given your all and already made huge sacrifices.  Which isn't fair cause honestly, the army needs folks like you just as much if not slightly more than new folks like my husband



 :goodpost:


----------



## peacelove (29 Jan 2013)

Looking forward to seeing this new CANFORGEN.

Hopefully it will contain actual policies and not vague brainstorming.


----------



## Quellefille (5 Feb 2013)

Several ladies on the Military Spouses board on facebook have been saying their husbands are being posted, so even with no Canforgen, the plan for guys to be posted and then put on TD for their 3s is proceeding as normal.

Now if only they'd fix it for the MSCs.


----------



## DAA (5 Feb 2013)

The problem has been addressed as best it could.  Personnel enrolled prior to 1 Sep 12 will be sort of "grand-fathered" by way of "creative posting instrs" and will not be paying for R&Q until they are occupationally trained and off the BTL.  Those who enrolled 1 Sep 12 and on are considered to "have been advised of the cost implications for entry level training and agreed to the impacts before enrolling in the CF."

There is no mention of MSC's, pers who underwent an OT, CT or any other current serving member.  From what I can tell, this ONLY applies to "new enrolments" which occurred prior to 1 Sep 12.

Not much more can be done.


----------



## Quellefille (5 Feb 2013)

I think they're also doing the creative instructions for those underwent an OT.


----------



## SentryMAn (5 Feb 2013)

This new system is making me very nervous, I am not in the CF but have an application in for Log O.  I am married, maintain an apartment and such now.  If I am sent away on training and have to pay R & Q I hope I will at ateast be able to claim the expense on my taxes come April.  It would fall under the realm of mandatory work expenses required to complete the job I am employed to do.
But I think I have a different situation where I have already done BMOQ and some trade trg.


----------



## DAA (5 Feb 2013)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> If I am sent away on training and have to pay R & Q I hope I will at ateast be able to claim the expense on my taxes come April.  It would fall under the realm of mandatory work expenses required to complete the job I am employed to do.



An interesting concept but I don't think it will work.  You would need the CF to complete a T2200 on your behalf and that just isn't going to happen.  Mind you, filing annual Income Tax returns is a personal matter, so you can pretty much claim anything that you think you're entitled to.  The problem comes when CRA decides to audit you because your claiming something that you have never claimed before and seems out of the ordinary.  And then you need the paperwork/documentation to back up your claim.

There are a few things to consider on this front.  That you are considered to be a "salaried employee" and that the CF/DND have paid for your travelling expenses to get you to your place of employment.

At the very least, you should not be paying for "quarters", as a result of a "Prohibited" posting.  Other than that, your on your own.


----------



## NavyHopeful (11 Feb 2013)

NavyHopeful said:
			
		

> OK... So I have some more information regarding this.  My PO gave me a copy of an email that pertains to this subject, and was sent through our trade career manager from the BTL management.
> 
> Basically, the crux of it is that any BTL NCM students that who were enrolled before 1 Sep 12 and will remain on the BTL after 1 Feb 13 are among those who qualify for this.  (NCMs who are in training now at different units, and NCM-SEPs are among the numbers)
> 
> ...



Further news on this...

New people have been arriving at CFNES, and if they fall into this category, they have been Attached Posted.  The ones who were here before (like me) have now been posted back to BTL at NDHQ, and then Attached Posted back to CFNES.

As for the rumoured CANFORGEN, the only things I have seen coming through the Message Centre are creeative posting messages, and retroactive attach postings.

To anyone who thinks they fell through the cracks on this, I advise you to seek help from your CoC.  Mine went to bat for the bunch of us here in this situation, and I'm sure that if you are one of the candidates who meet the criteria, they will be more than willing to help you out.

Good luck to all!

Rev


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Feb 2013)

So it appears the tide is turning and the people who are posted (prohibited) while attending basic and initial occupation/classification trg are starting to be looked after.  That is good to see.


----------



## TCM621 (18 Feb 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> The problem has been addressed as best it could.  Personnel enrolled prior to 1 Sep 12 will be sort of "grand-fathered" by way of "creative posting instrs" and will not be paying for R&Q until they are occupationally trained and off the BTL.  Those who enrolled 1 Sep 12 and on are considered to "have been advised of the cost implications for entry level training and agreed to the impacts before enrolling in the CF."
> 
> There is no mention of MSC's, pers who underwent an OT, CT or any other current serving member.  From what I can tell, this ONLY applies to "new enrolments" which occurred prior to 1 Sep 12.
> 
> Not much more can be done.!


 
This is no longer the case.  As of today, I was informed I will be paying rations back dated to 1 Feb. AT The last briefing shortly after the beg. Of Feb we were told SA was gone but rations and quarters were were paid for. The cbi reflected that. Now it is just quarters. Anyone who doesn't want to move there family was advanced posted then TDed back. Those of us who are moving our families but are going unaccompanied while the sale of our house goes through are fucked. 
At least when they were going to duck us over in sept they gave us some notice. I can't even delink because air command has forbidden it.

Needless to say I am pissed. I have never been more upset  and disappointed in my 17 years in the CF


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Feb 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I can't even delink because air command has forbidden it.
> 
> Needless to say I am pissed. I have never been more upset  and disappointed in my 17 years in the CF



That is certainly NOT the case.  THere is a CANAIRGEN of recent release authorizing the de-linking of R & Q and the specifics that go along with the ability to do this.  It was late 2012/early 2013. 

Take a look for it.  I won't be back to work until Thurs, or would post it.

Also, FWIW, this was not a policy that the CF went looking for, rather it was from the TB.  At the end of the day, AFC/Snr Leadership is like the rest of us, and when they are issued marching orders, they are expected to carry them out.   :2c:

Now, I will ALSO add that, IF the government is looking for ways to save money, great, but is there not a BETTER way to do it, like cutting out actual wasteful spending first?   :


----------



## NavyHopeful (19 Feb 2013)

> Now, I will ALSO add that, IF the government is looking for ways to save money, great, but is there not a BETTER way to do it, like cutting out actual wasteful spending first?   :



*quickie rant*

I agree... I am sick of my tax dollars being spent on politician's fancy houses and cars.  Sure, you can look professional, and have a nice house, but do you REALLY need $150,000 a year to do it?  I know lawyers who make less than a third of what politicians make, and they live comfortably enough...

(That said, the lawyers I'm referring to are based mainly in Legal Aid or working smaller stuff, like real estate law.  I actually worked for a lawyer who, after paying the Bar dues and income taxes, took home less money that I did, and he was still able to live comfortably, albeit a heck of a lot more frugally than I was living...)

*end of rant*


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Feb 2013)

SUBJ: DELINKING OF RATIONS AND QUARTERS

CANAIRGEN 01/13

REFS: A. CANAIRGEN 012/09 CAS 17/09
B. CANAIRGEN CAS 027/09
C. DAOD 3012-1
D. CFTDTI 1 JANUARY 2012   
SUBJECT: DELINKING OF RATIONS AND QUARTERS 
  
1.  IN OCT 12, CHIEF OF THE AIR FORCE STAFF INDICATED HIS INTENT TO 
DELINK RATIONS AND QUARTERS (R AND Q) IN THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR 
FORCE (RCAF).  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CDS PROVIDED DIRECTION TO DELINK R 
AND Q ACROSS THE CF EFF 26 OCT 12 AND ORDERED A SYSTEMIC REVIEW OF 
RQ POLICIES BY FALL 13. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE REF A MANDATE FOR 
LINKING OF R AND Q FOR QUOTE LIVING IN UNQUOTE PERSONNEL IS 
RESCINDED.  LIVING IN PERS WILL BE PROVIDED THE OPTION TO REMAIN ON 
RATION STRENGTH AND PAY FOR FULL RATIONS (TWENTY ONE MEALS PER WEEK) 
OR PAY FOR PARTIAL RATIONS (TEN MEALS PER WEEK) PER REF B. LIVING IN 
MEMBERS WHO ELECT TO FULLY DELINK WILL RETAIN THE OPTION FOR POINT 
OF SALE (PAY AS YOU GO) MEAL PURCHASES IAW REF C HOWEVER SUBJECT TO 
AVAILABILITY (SURPLUS CAPACITY)

*2. PER REF D, USE OF QUARTERS FOR PERS ON TRAVEL OR ATTACHED POSTING 
SHALL CONTINUE TO BE MAXIMIZED AND RATIONS WILL REMAIN LINKED WHEN 
UTILIZING MILITARY ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THIS PURPOSE.  FURTHERMORE, 
WCOMDS SHALL MAINTAIN LINKING OF R AND Q FOR TRAINING AND/OR 
OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR WHEN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAIL 
THAT MAKE DELINKING IMPRACTICABLE*

3.  DELINKING IS NOT TO BE PERCEIVED AS BLANKET AUTHORITY FOR LIVING 
IN PERS TO COMMENCE FOOD/MEAL PREPARATION WHILE OCCUPYING SQ. THE 
FOCUS ON SAFETY AND HYGIENE IN THE QUARTERS AND HEALTHY EATING 
HABITS REMAINS PARAMOUNT. WCOMDS ARE TO DETERMINE, IN CONSULTATION 
WITH CE AND PMED, IF AND TO WHAT EXTENT PREPARATION AND STORAGE OF 

FOOD IN SPECIALLY DESIGNATED AREAS OF QUARTERS CAN BE AUTHORIZED AND 
PUBLISH LOCAL ORDERS TO THAT EFFECT

4.  ALL LIVING IN PERSONNEL ARE TO BE ADVISED THAT THEY SHALL NOT 
PREPARE FOOD OR COOK MEALS IN THEIR ROOMS OR SQ COMMON AREAS WITHOUT 
PRIOR AUTHORITY AND FULL COMPLIANCE OF LOCAL REGULATIONS. WING 
AUTHORITIES ARE TO ULTIMATELY ENSURE THAT HIGH STANDARDS OF SAFETY 
AND HYGIENE IN THE QUARTERS ARE ENFORCED AT ALL TIMES

5.  FOR THE INTERIM, ONLY EXISTING PURPOSE BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE AND 
PRE EXISTING, AND APPROPRIATELY CERTIFIED, APPLIANCES SHALL BE USED 
TO SP LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.   WCOMDS ARE TO CONSIDER OPPORTUNITIES TO 
MODIFY, RETROFIT OR REPLACE SINGLE QUARTERS TO PERMIT THE STORAGE OR 
PREPARATION OF FOOD OR MEALS

6.  FOR RCAF PERS SERVING ON BASES UNDER DIFFERENT CUSTODIAL L1 S, 
IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT DIRECTION WILL BE ISSUED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.  
CMP WILL LEAD THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW POLICY REGARDING THE LINKAGE 
OF R AND Q CF WIDE WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF IDENTIFYING THE GAPS AND 
DEFICIENCIES IN CURRENT POLICY AND ADDRESSING ISSUES INCLUDING, BUT 
NOT LIMITED TO, EXCEPTIONS TO DELINKING, CRITERIA FOR AND EXTENT OF 
MEAL PREPARATION IN QUARTERS AND AFFORDABILITY OF RATIONS IN DINING 
FACILITIES

7. THE RCAF WILL REMAIN WELL REPRESENTED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS AND 
FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS WILL BE DISSEMINATED AS IT BECOMES 
AVAILABLE


----------



## Occam (19 Feb 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That is certainly NOT the case.  THere is a CANAIRGEN of recent release authorizing the de-linking of R & Q and the specifics that go along with the ability to do this.  It was late 2012/early 2013.



DWAN link - http://airforce.mil.ca/canairgens/2013/141649ZJAN13_e.htm


----------



## TCM621 (19 Feb 2013)

As DOLPHIN_Hunter posted above, pers at training est are not allowed to de-link. The crazy thing is that the Air Force probably has the highest number of re-musters in the training system. So you have a tar load of guys who have 5,10, 15 years + in the CF getting screwed. Now guys are going to tell the CF to pound sand when they give them a posting message for a course that starts in less then a month. That is what happened to me and I know there are a lot of people in my situation. I also just talked to a guy who arrived from CFLRS on Sunday and he had no idea he had to pay rations until I started ranting about it yesterday. I guess because everyone was sure that they wouldn't fuck over people like that, they just stopped telling recruits about it.

You got to love the concept that if you join the CF and you have a family, you are expected to survive on 2200 gross a month. After taxes that is about 18500 a year. With a family of 4 that puts you under the poverty line by about 5 grand (if you live in butt fuck Manitoba). Welcome back to the early 90s.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Feb 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> You got to love the concept that if you join the CF and you have a family, you are expected to survive on 2200 gross a month. After taxes that is about 18500 a year. With a family of 4 that puts you under the poverty line by about 5 grand (if you live in butt fuck Manitoba). Welcome back to the early 90s.



I'll bite.

How about if you gross 2200 a month, you make the reasonable decision not to live in a single income family, and not to have two children.  

No one forces you to marry and procreate, least of all the CF.

Welcome to taking responsibility for one's own decisions.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Feb 2013)

Pte 1 is an entry level position; after that, all ranks of the CF are remunerated quite handsomely.  Even the first level of Private still possesses very competitive benefits.  You won't convince me that any CF member is in the poor house due to poor pay and benefits, because it is simply not true.


----------



## JorgSlice (19 Feb 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I'll bite.
> 
> How about if you gross 2200 a month, you make the reasonable decision not to live in a single income family, and not to have two children.
> 
> ...



Ahh... gone are the days of budgeting and living within your means, aren't they?


----------



## TCM621 (20 Feb 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I'll bite.
> 
> How about if you gross 2200 a month, you make the reasonable decision not to live in a single income family, and not to have two children.
> 
> ...



In this case,, he already had the kids and his wife got downsized.  I am just surprised that a CF member can be below the poverty line. I thought those days were gone.


----------



## newwifey (20 Feb 2013)

Ahhh yes, but don't forget the "other" incomes that help alleviate that poverty level.  Child Tax benefit, the working supplement and so on.

Sure it's tough, but it's do-able.  And you find out fast real needs vs wants.  There is a big difference.

**and call me crazy, but is this not a discussion you have with your spouse before taking this big leap and loss of income??  One has to assume you prepare a little for it??


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2013)

Odd.  When I look at the pay scale, a Pte starts at $2751 per month, gross - 25% more than suggested in the earlier post.  That's over $33K per year (again, gross).

Monthly rate increases by $612 the next year, and $676 the following year.  So, with two years in the military, monthly pay will be $4039; that's over $48K per year, gross, for a private.


http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/pay-sol/pr-sol/rfncmr-mrfr-eng.asp


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Feb 2013)

> 2. PER REF D, USE OF QUARTERS FOR PERS ON TRAVEL OR ATTACHED POSTING
> SHALL CONTINUE TO BE MAXIMIZED AND RATIONS WILL REMAIN LINKED WHEN
> UTILIZING MILITARY ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THIS PURPOSE.  FURTHERMORE,
> WCOMDS SHALL MAINTAIN LINKING OF R AND Q FOR TRAINING AND/OR
> ...



Not delinking R&Q during course while on TD or Att Post is not the same as delinking for living-in members (either living-in by choice, or on IR).

The CANAIRGEN Para 2. uses ongoing linking to actually provide R&Q to members on course, hence why the January rush to post trainees on the BTL to their (post-course) gaining unit, then immediately att post them back to the school.  That way, the CF (RCAF) is responsible for providing R&Q for those pers undergoing initial trade training.  I know this to be true for one particular unit and I am assuming (dangerous, I know) that other RCAF units' personnel are being treated simliarly.  If not, the personnel who were recently posted to their gaining unit then attach posted back onto the basic training list should engage with their CoC back at their home unit to clarify their specific situation.

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG (20 Feb 2013)

TD and attached postings are both covered under CFTDTI.
All pers attached posted to a trg establishment should (if that establishment is not geo-located with the home unit) be getting full TD benefits.


----------



## TCM621 (20 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Odd.  When I look at the pay scale, a Pte starts at $2751 per month, gross - 25% more than suggested in the earlier post.  That's over $33K per year (again, gross).
> 
> Monthly rate increases by $612 the next year, and $676 the following year.  So, with two years in the military, monthly pay will be $4039; that's over $48K per year, gross, for a private.
> 
> ...



2200 is after rations, which is the topic at hand. I apologize if that wasn't clear. The people this is going to hurt the most are the new privates in training. They are not all 18 year old single dudes anymore. Alot of them have families now.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Feb 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> 2200 is after rations, which is the topic at hand...



That's net, not gross.


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Alot of them have families now.



Which several people have pointed out are choices that they have made.  The CF shouldn't be responsible for poor life planning on the part of others.


----------



## GAP (20 Feb 2013)

There are few private jobs that start at a reasonably adequate wage and progress as rapidly as the CF does so that within approx 3 to 4 years they are making around $20,000 more than when they started.....and this is with full benefits from day 1. 

Not that bad of a deal.


edit to add: comment based on not being a thud....


----------



## Quellefille (21 Feb 2013)

MJP said:
			
		

> Which several people have pointed out are choices that they have made.  The CF shouldn't be responsible for poor life planning on the part of others.



How about CF members with families who made choices based on the information they were given at the time shouldn't be responsible for the poor planning of the CF.  We made the choice for him to join thinking his rations were all paid for and we would just deal with the stress of separation.  There was never an option to move me and my husband together.  Husband and I put off having children because he was joining.  This whole canforgen was clearly a) poorly planned and b) poorly implemented.

My husband didn't sign up for him to make less with the forces than he did answering phones for a call center on behalf of Molsen beer.

ArmyVern didn't sign up to not only be constantly separated from family by the choice of the forces, but now also having to pay for the privilege.

We're not asking the forces to pay for jet skis, or cruises, or anything out of the ordinary or extravagant.  We're asking them to not make the members pay for the priviledge of eating breakfast after waking up alone and away from families.  Especially those whose choices are do this, or GTFO like MSCs and those on shorter courses on the BTL.


Also, please explain why having a spouse and children is poor planning.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Feb 2013)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> How about CF members with families who made choices based on the information they were given at the time shouldn't be responsible for the poor planning of the CF.  We made the choice for him to join thinking his rations were all paid for and we would just deal with the stress of separation.  There was never an option to move me and my husband together.  Husband and I put off having children because he was joining.  This whole canforgen was clearly a) poorly planned and b) poorly implemented.
> 
> My husband didn't sign up for him to make less with the forces than he did answering phones for a call center on behalf of Molsen beer.
> 
> ...



Again...remember, the CF was given orders and they can not be ignored, not by the CDS, or any other CF member.  

The CF actually bought its affected members some "time to plan/adjust", as the implementation was held in abeyance from fall 2012 until Feb 2013.  

I know this sucks and every one of us here knows what it is like to be 'starting off' and seperated from family, making the lower end of the pay scale, etc.  We all started off as Recruits or OCdts/NCdts.  Might help if you keep that in mind.


----------



## MJP (22 Feb 2013)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> Also, please explain why having a spouse and children is poor planning.



TCM who I was quoting mentioned 



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> They are not all 18 year old single dudes anymore. Alot of them have families now.



Please don't twist my words to fit your arguement.  I never mentioned Married Service Couples.  The poor planning I was talking about was about making a choice to take a job where there was the chance you couldn't support your family.  Then turning around and blaming the organization that hired you for your poor choice.  

Does the rations & quarters thing suck?  Yup
Have we found the 80% solution to allieviate some of the financial pain?  Yup  
Will some people leave because of the changes?  Most likely
Will the CF carry on and follow the rules laid out by the government (remember this was the TB not  the CF as the driving force)?  Yup


----------



## td_2013 (22 Feb 2013)

My husband is in BMQ right now and was informed 2 days before he left for BMQ that he would be paying rations, and that was him calling to ask about something else then that topic came up... I don't fully disagree with the whole idea that they should charge for meals and what not (if they are going to anyway...) but I think they should have it set up different, and definitely not be $500+ / month for ONE person to eat.... and the lodging he is yes exempt from... but that is like $92/month???  
No sense in complaining about it at all, but it does suck... especially when he is now at the same scale as the guy coming out of mommy and dads basement.... when we have a mortgage,kids,other responsibilities... we will make it work obviously, it is and will be worth it... but I already know of a lot of people VRing as they cannot afford it..... 

Again, not necessarily "whining" or expecting the CF to give special treatment ... but some fair warning would have been nice, even when he got the call with the offer or at their swearing in... Just my opinion


----------



## DAA (22 Feb 2013)

Everything aside, I find it rather intriguing that anyone would walk away from a job which has not only "job security" but a guaranteed raise over the first two years where you start at $33K and then reach $48K.  A potential two year hiatus and then promoted to "Cpl", followed by another 4 consecutive years of guaranteed raises, ending in an annual salary of $58K or more.


----------



## td_2013 (22 Feb 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> Everything aside, I find it rather intriguing that anyone would walk away from a job which has not only "job security" but a guaranteed raise over the first two years where you start at $33K and then reach $48K.  A potential two year hiatus and then promoted to "Cpl", followed by another 4 consecutive years of guaranteed raises, ending in an annual salary of $58K or more.





Exactly my thoughts.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Feb 2013)

td_2013 said:
			
		

> but I think they should have it set up different, and definitely not be $500+ / month for ONE person to eat.... and the lodging he is yes exempt from... but that is like $92/month???



It is a lot of money when compared to the cost of purchasing groceries, but IIRC it does also include the rest of the stuff that goes into the meal itself; purchasing/preping the food, as well as the remainder of overhead costs associated with the work needed to make all those meals happen.


----------



## technophile (22 Feb 2013)

McDonald's has overhead too. 

It bothers me when the mess hall adds overhead costs such as wages etc. into their operating budget.  Last I heard, we were paid by Ottawa ( including military cooks) My unit doesn't add the pay of soldiers to the annual budget.  Another thing that gets my goat regarding the mess hall is that they argue soldiers de-linking and allowing "pay as you go " meals takes away their ability to prepare enough food.

Again, McDonald's doesn't know how many people are coming for lunch, and they seem to manage just fine.  

A full meal plan in the mess hall IMHO should cost no more than $250 per month.   

PS... ever look at what a box lunch costs ?  The dude who owns the mess hall must be living the high life !


----------



## dapaterson (22 Feb 2013)

The mess halls do not set rates for Rations. Treasury Board does.


----------



## technophile (22 Feb 2013)

That may be the case.

However a couple years ago the BFoodO gave a fancy powerpoint presentation to members living in explaining why the cost of a ration plan was so high, and why ( at the time ) we couldn't de-link.

It included things such as wages, electricity bills, training , something about they are forced to purchase food items at a higher rate than a restaurant downtown etc etc.

I am not sure anyone in the room bought into the explanation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Feb 2013)

Okay but even at home, there are overhead costs to eating.  Electricity/gas/propane costs, you likely have an apt, condo, home etc that you prep and eat your meals in, etc.

I'm not saying I agree with ppl posted prohibited paying at all, don't get me wrong, but I also can see the reality being that fact that there are overhead costs associated with mess halls, and that the requirements for those mess halls is real, and the costs that go along with it...are real as well.

As for de-linking; some ppl can de-link and not have their rooms turn into a shit-pit.  The ones who CAN'T act like they are older than 5 year olds and make hygiene an issue in the SQs are the ones who screw it up for the others.  Commanders have to ensure their ppl can do the tasks they are paid to do, and if Donny the Dummy has 40 pizza boxes and associated critters in his room, well...


----------



## td_2013 (23 Feb 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It is a lot of money when compared to the cost of purchasing groceries, but IIRC it does also include the rest of the stuff that goes into the meal itself; purchasing/preping the food, as well as the remainder of overhead costs associated with the work needed to make all those meals happen.



I realize this, which is why I do not disagree with the fact... but I do not know how they come up with their numbers..... when making over a grand a month off of TWO recruits... when there are hundreds there.....(BMQ I am talking)...and I was told that out of the staff at bmq...the only meal they have free is lunch... so yeah..awful.. just my opinion like I said before. We do not even spend that much on groceries / month for our family.
But again, it is all worth it in the end which is why hubby is still there and yes I work fulltime and we are going to have it rough even so for the time being that he is in training...  with everything associated to owning our home and raising two kids, such is life... we chose this life, but it is too bad for people that went in with expectations and are now VRing due to this...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Feb 2013)

When I was an instructor at CFLRS, the only meal I got for free was lunch when I was the Marching NCO for the course, because I had to eat in the mess with them.


----------



## TCM621 (24 Feb 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> As for de-linking; some ppl can de-link and not have their rooms turn into a crap-pit.  The ones who CAN'T act like they are older than 5 year olds and make hygiene an issue in the SQs are the ones who screw it up for the others.  Commanders have to ensure their ppl can do the tasks they are paid to do, and if Donny the Dummy has 40 pizza boxes and associated critters in his room, well...



I have never bought into this argument. If some guys start using Hot plates in contravention of Standing Orders, charge them. If guys can't keep their rooms from being shit pits, give them extras then charge them. If the school staff is to lazy to do inspections, then how is that the member's problem? 

If you force people to pay 543 dollars a month of shitty food people are going to be pissed. If they can't afford to cook with out me subsidizing it then maybe they should fire some of the civvies they have working there.

 Right now what you get for leaving your family because the military makes you is about 70 dollars a month (depending on the shacks) in accommodations. Everyone who is forced to live away from their family for any reason other than TD will now lose money because of this. As it stands right now, my expenses that directly relate to me living away well I wait for my family are 543 for food, 60 for internet, about 40 a month for various incidentals, and on average 40 for cabs to go shopping. That is with me leaving my room to go to Canex or shopping once a week.  That is just under 700 dollars a month. Yes Internet is a but if don't count a phone bill in their to keep in touch with my family and I have to coordinate my move from the other side of Canada, so it is necessary for me. If I was at home I would be paying maybe 100 dollars more in groceries and maybe an extra 100 in gas. That means I lose about 500 dollars every month because I did what the military wants me to. 

Now I am making a lot more money than a lot of people in my position and my family is going to be here in 5 weeks, so it isn't that bad. But it is the principle of the thing. The CF is committed to families and their soldiers, or so they keep telling us. Yet they force soldiers to lose money while their budget for contractors and consultants is increased by almost  half a billion (source). it just isn't right. And I know their are people who are in high positions who read these boards. They should know how this affects the troops and how people feel about it.


----------



## SentryMAn (28 Feb 2013)

So current;y I am not in the CF, but awaiting an offer(hopefully).  I do have prior experience and will go to trade training directly upon acceptance.  I am married and have a household in my current city.

Would I be posted to a unit fist then sent to course on TD(hopefully) or Posted to the school and subject to R&Q then posted to a unit after graduation?


----------



## td_2013 (28 Feb 2013)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> So current;y I am not in the CF, but awaiting an offer(hopefully).  I do have prior experience and will go to trade training directly upon acceptance.  I am married and have a household in my current city.
> 
> Would I be posted to a unit fist then sent to course on TD(hopefully) or Posted to the school and subject to R&Q then posted to a unit after graduation?





You have prior experience in what? and going directly to trade training ... ? meaning you won't need to go to BMQ? 
Sorry, your post/question is confusing... in BMQ now everyone (regardless if married / having a mortgage) pays rations... as well as when you do your specific training after BMQ wherever that may be for yourself depending on what you get in for.


----------



## SentryMAn (1 Mar 2013)

Prior Military exp, did BMOQ and trade training(partially skilled in LOG) of which I have been given credit for to  "Phase 3".  Re-entering CF and currently merit listed for Log O.  Just curious about my first steps upon re-entery.

I agree, outside looking in, that post is vague and confusing.


----------



## TCM621 (1 Mar 2013)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> Prior Military exp, did BMOQ and trade training(partially skilled in LOG) of which I have been given credit for to  "Phase 3".  Re-entering CF and currently merit listed for Log O.  Just curious about my first steps upon re-entery.
> 
> I agree, outside looking in, that post is vague and confusing.



As it stands now (at least as I understand it) you would be paying rations. However, you may be posted on a restricted basis in which case you could move your family. I would definitely ask for clarification, in writing, from CFRC on that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Mar 2013)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> So current;y I am not in the CF, but awaiting an offer(hopefully).  I do have prior experience and will go to trade training directly upon acceptance.  I am married and have a household in my current city.
> 
> Would I be posted to a unit fist then sent to course on TD(hopefully) or Posted to the school and subject to R&Q then posted to a unit after graduation?



Is your current city also a place of duty, have a base nearby?  Is there going to be a significant delay between your swearing in date to your course start date?

If so, you may have a chance at getting posted to the Base BTL (Basic Training List) and given some job/position while awaiting trg.  If you were posted to the BTL, as long as the course isn't over 1 year, you could be Attach Posted and have the AP type benefits.

AKAIK, even if your classification trg was over 1 year, it would be a prohibited posting as you (likely) are at Career Status yet.  I'm not sure what the exact Career Status is for LogO, and don't have a copy of the exact definition (supposedly in CANFORGEN 031/97 according to the BTAGs [Basic Trg List Admin Guide] but is defined in the BTAGS as 'Essentially it equates to completion of regular force basic occupation qualification or three years regular force service.'

No career status = no CFIRP benefits = no cost move.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Mar 2013)

So will part of the requirements to attend training be added to?  

Minimum rank of_____
MOC qualified QL _____
Able to afford to eat for duration of training


----------



## SentryMAn (2 Mar 2013)

Great info provided, I have a base within a 20km drive from me(Gagetown).  In the "new" financial situation the forces find themselves in, to me it makes sense to post me to the local base since I live here now and then once occupationally trained post me where need be.

But I'm fully aware that what makes sense to me, does not in turn make sense to anyone else.  I am willing to go where ever the military needs me and have squared this away with my family.  It would be nice to get a posting here 

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Mar 2013)

As its a weekend, I don't have a copy, but there was a CANLANDGEN sent out this week that ordered the de-linking of rations and quarters immediately. It set out 3 conditions for rations, being full, half rations (20 meals a week) and pay-as-you-go (if available). I didn't see it on here anywhere, but I can post the text on Monday. Seems like a good solution for those not willing to pay $550 a month for food for one person while supporting a family.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Mar 2013)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> Great info provided, I have a base within a 20km drive from me(Gagetown).  In the "new" financial situation the forces find themselves in, to me it makes sense to post me to the local base since I live here now and then once occupationally trained post me where need be.
> 
> But I'm fully aware that what makes sense to me, does not in turn make sense to anyone else.  I am willing to go where ever the military needs me and have squared this away with my family.  It would be nice to get a posting here
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.



I don't know how it works for ppl in your situation, there may be some info in the BTAGs.  But, maybe your ULO is a good place to ask questions?  They might be able to tell you if there is a possibility of an OJT type position in G-town pending your course start.   :2c:


----------



## td_2013 (2 Mar 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As its a weekend, I don't have a copy, but there was a CANLANDGEN sent out this week that ordered the de-linking of rations and quarters immediately. It set out 3 conditions for rations, being full, half rations (20 meals a week) and pay-as-you-go (if available). I didn't see it on here anywhere, but I can post the text on Monday. Seems like a good solution for those not willing to pay $550 a month for food for one person while supporting a family.



What would/does this mean? Apologize for sounding dumbfounded but just a newbie wife posting here.... haha

Curious, as hubby is in BMQ right now.

Thx


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Mar 2013)

td_2013 said:
			
		

> What would/does this mean? Apologize for sounding dumbfounded but just a newbie wife posting here.... haha



Typically rations and quarters are linked, meaning if you're paying quarters, you're paying for rations. Quarters are substantially cheaper than rations (rations in Kingston are $550 and quarters are $75 a month I've been told). With delinking, you basically are only paying for rations you're going to eat if you're away from your family for extended periods (awaiting training) and are going home on weekends, or want to make use of cooking facilities in your barracks, if there are any.

Don't apologize, you're new to the CF and are going to have a book of term and acronyms thrown at you. Its good you're here, the threads have all sorts of information to help you get acquainted to the CF world.


----------



## td_2013 (3 Mar 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Typically rations and quarters are linked, meaning if you're paying quarters, you're paying for rations. Quarters are substantially cheaper than rations (rations in Kingston are $550 and quarters are $75 a month I've been told). With delinking, you basically are only paying for rations you're going to eat if you're away from your family for extended periods (awaiting training) and are going home on weekends, or want to make use of cooking facilities in your barracks, if there are any.
> 
> Don't apologize, you're new to the CF and are going to have a book of term and acronyms thrown at you. Its good you're here, the threads have all sorts of information to help you get acquainted to the CF world.






Oh ok! Wasnt sure what delinking meant yeah lol, Yeah my hubby went to bmq a month ago and was told two days before he left that he would be paying rations... he got exempt from quarters which was like $94...I would have rathered that over the $550 lol. I personally think its wild that all are equal now....yes and no... but it hurts people that have mortgages and kids and other things at home as opposed to a kid out of highschool kind of thing. But we cannot win with the gov't... lol. 

Thanks for clarifying !


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2013)

Just an FYI, there is zero chance of de-linking R & Q at CFLRS for BMQ/BMOQ folks.  There are no facilities for food prep/storage,  there is no time for food prep and shopping, etc.

Also, De-linking is not automatic at every base and in include all Single Quarters.


----------



## td_2013 (3 Mar 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Just an FYI, there is zero chance of de-linking R & Q at CFLRS for BMQ/BMOQ folks.  There are no facilities for food prep/storage,  there is no time for food prep and shopping, etc.
> 
> Also, De-linking is not automatic at every base and in include all Single Quarters.



I assumed as much but thanks!


----------



## Lost Sheep (28 Mar 2013)

NavyHopeful said:
			
		

> OK... So I have some more information regarding this.  My PO gave me a copy of an email that pertains to this subject, and was sent through our trade career manager from the BTL management.
> 
> Basically, the crux of it is that any BTL NCM students that who were enrolled before 1 Sep 12 and will remain on the BTL after 1 Feb 13 are among those who qualify for this.  (NCMs who are in training now at different units, and NCM-SEPs are among the numbers)
> 
> ...



Can anyone point me to the direction/email outlined above?  I am restricted posted to Borden on QL3, am married, and was enrolled prior to 1 Sep 2012.  Other guys on my course in the same boat have been posted as described, but some, including me, have not.  If I can find the reference, then I have justification and evidence to support a redress of grievance.  Of course that is a tool I want to keep in my back pocket as long as I can, but if I can point to something saying that I should not be paying rations, then I can take steps other than to hope that a posting message appears out of the blue somehow.  At the very least I can apply to have rations cost reimbursed (and collect TD owed), although I would rather get it sorted sooner and spare my family the hit while I am still here for another 5 1/2 months.

Any help would be appreciated...


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Mar 2013)

Lost Sheep said:
			
		

> Can anyone point me to the direction/email outlined above?  I am restricted posted to Borden on QL3, am married, and was enrolled prior to 1 Sep 2012.  Other guys on my course in the same boat have been posted as described, but some, including me, have not.  If I can find the reference, then I have justification and evidence to support a redress of grievance.  Of course that is a tool I want to keep in my back pocket as long as I can, but if I can point to something saying that I should not be paying rations, then I can take steps other than to hope that a posting message appears out of the blue somehow.  At the very least I can apply to have rations cost reimbursed (and collect TD owed), although I would rather get it sorted sooner and spare my family the hit while I am still here for another 5 1/2 months.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated...



Lost Sheep, engage your course CoC, and enquire if there is an intent to have you posted to a specific unit already.  Not knowing your specific situation (trade? school?) makes it a bit difficult to definitively say whether you may have slipped through the cracks and something can be worked out, or not.  That said, I know of members who are now on their MOC-500 QL3s in Borden, and who were posted to their parent unit, then Attach Posted back to CFSATE to complete their QL3s.  The difference between Prohibited and/or Restricted Posting and Attach Posting is notable enough that it is worth following up to see if your situation could be addressed by the Unit Posting/Att Posting back to School course of action.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Lost Sheep (30 Mar 2013)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Lost Sheep, engage your course CoC, and enquire if there is an intent to have you posted to a specific unit already.  Not knowing your specific situation (trade? school?) makes it a bit difficult to definitively say whether you may have slipped through the cracks and something can be worked out, or not.  That said, I know of members who are now on their MOC-500 QL3s in Borden, and who were posted to their parent unit, then Attach Posted back to CFSATE to complete their QL3s.  The difference between Prohibited and/or Restricted Posting and Attach Posting is notable enough that it is worth following up to see if your situation could be addressed by the Unit Posting/Att Posting back to School course of action.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Thanks for the advice, G2G, I fully intend to follow it.  In the interests of full disclosure, I am training to be an Ammo Tech, and so am at CFLTC.  Truth be told, I am pretty sure there is a plan afoot to post me back to where I did OJE - it would be a zero-cost move, and I, the unit, the trade advisor, and (outgoing) career mgr are (as I understand it) on board.  But nothing has been seen yet.  I am a little leery of being too squeaky a wheel, as I really want to get posted to my OJE unit, and want to give time for the unit and trade advisor to make it happen.  I understand and accept that going back might not happen, as the needs of the service dictate.  But it would just be good to know one way or the other.  I have  feeling that I may have to wait a bit for the posting plot to be done, and then apply for reimbursement and potentially owed TD.


----------



## Bigglesworth (5 Oct 2015)

Retired from the Reg Force-Army in the last year, so I figured I knew the answer to this question.

Recently my son reenlisted to the AF, arrived in Borden for training and was told by clerk that he must pay Room and Rations, even though he is Common Law (verified).  

Is this new? And when did it change (Canforgen)?  Has he been misinformed?

Out of the loop on this, but don't ever remember a change like this happening where a course bound member had to pay Room/Rations as a married member.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## TCM621 (5 Oct 2015)

Bigglesworth said:
			
		

> Retired from the Reg Force-Army in the last year, so I figured I knew the answer to this question.
> 
> Recently my son reenlisted to the AF, arrived in Borden for training and was told by clerk that he must pay Room and Rations, even though he is Common Law (verified).
> 
> ...



IAW  CBI I 208.977,  Pers on Separation expense are entitled to lodging but not rations. In theory one could delink rations but last I checked the Comd Air Force had a rule that pers could be kept on rations for "training" which has been interpreted as QL3 students.


----------



## Lost Sheep (6 Oct 2015)

So here is what happened in my case, over two years ago now.  Basically everyone who was married/common-law and joined/transferred into the regular force prior 1 Sep 12 was "grandfathered".  Everyone who came on board after that date paid rations, married or not.

So on my course we had several guys, myself included, who having joined prior to the deadline, were actually posted to other bases.  In my case I was posted to Meaford (from Borden) sometime in April of 2013, backdated to 1 Jan 13, although I never stepped foot in the place while I was posted there.  I was then attach-posted from Meaford back to Borden, where I actually was.  So I did not have to pay rations, because I was technically on TD, though no incidental TD allowance was authorized.  I wasn't too worried about the $17/$11 bucks a day, so long as I wasn't paying the $600 per month for rations.  

Another married guy on course, who transferred from the Mo after the deadline, had to pay rations, which was shitty for him, obviously.  

Note that this only really applies to those coming off the BTL and posted to training bases for QL3 training.  If posted to another (non-training) base and attending training you would be entitled to rations as part of being on TD.  In my trade, people are no longer posted to Borden before QL3.  They are now sending people directly from St Jean to units, so those attending QL3 will be on TD the whole time, lucky buggers.

As for de-linking, forget it, especially in Borden.  Since the shacks in Borden do not have any kitchen facilities (besides a mini-fridge, if allowed), there is no food prep ability, therefore no way to feed oneself in a healthy manner.  As well, the academic thing, because some idiot in the distant past obviously claimed that he/she failed a course because of inadequate nutrition because they were not on ration strength.  Thanks a lot, whoever you were, way to frig it up for everyone else.  Funny enough, there were people who while awaiting training in Borden tried to de-link based on the fact that they were not actually on course yet, but were still refused.


----------



## Pusser (7 Oct 2015)

In simple terms, this all hinges on your posting status.  If you are posted elsewhere and sent on training on Temporary Duty (TD), you receive free R&Q by:

a) living in quarters and given a meal card at the mess;

b) living in commercial/non-commercial (but non-CF) accommodation and drawing daily allowances for meals and incidentals; or

c) a combination of the above.

However, if you are attach posted to your training course, you have to pay for rations and quarters (one way or another), except that if you are maintaining a residence elsewhere, you should not have to pay for CF sigle quarters.

Attach posting (other than to operations, which is a different kettle of fish*) is most often used for new members on training who have not yet settled into their careers.  Attach posting is the biggest shaft we have...

*personnel attach posted to operations get free fish - you don't have to pay for rations when on an operation.


----------



## Wild_Rover (3 Nov 2015)

If not already said, as that you are married and have a second household, being that your posting is 6 months or longer you are entitled to a permanent posting therefore if you are on IR you are entitled to Separation expenses as long as you are to be posted elsewhere to be reunited.  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/ch-208-relocation-benefits.page


----------



## CountDC (3 Nov 2015)

there is that wonderful entitled word so often misused.

entitled to a permanent posting?  No such thing in the military, we can be posted anytime the military decides.  You can also be attach posted or sent on TD.

IRs require you to request IR status if you are posted and have a reason you do not want to move your family rigth away. The first request will authorize a maximum of one year and then you have to request an extension.  If approved it will have a new end date.  You can continue to request extensions but the military does not have to approve.  At some point the answer should be no, fix your problem and move your family or cover it yourself.  Don't know if anyone has ever gotten IR for going on course.

The link you provided is in regards to Relocation Benefits and has no bearing on the subject.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2015)

IIRC you can be APd for up to 364 days.  I would bet a bag of money you can be attach posted or TD for +6 months.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Nov 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Don't know if anyone has ever gotten IR for going on course.



I was on IR for my Basic Flying Training (pre-MOC qual course).


----------



## Loachman (5 Nov 2015)

It's changed since then.


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Don't know if anyone has ever gotten IR for going on course.



Yep; I was entitled to low-rate SE when posted to a different base than my spouse for attendance on SLT (not officially "IR" as we are a MSC).

My son was also sent to Trenton as official "IR" status from Gagetown to undergo his QL3 Postal Trg this year (his wife was a civilian in Gagetown and he was CTing from Res Inf to Reg F Postal).


----------



## Griswald (1 Dec 2016)

Hello all,

I have read through much of this thread but not every message. Apologies if the question I am asking has already been asked, if so please tell me and I will read more. 

I understand that a married/common-law member attending BMQ at CFLRS is required to pay for rations, but not quarters. 

My questions regards the requirement of recruits to continue to pay for rations over the Christmas/New Years leave period. It was my understanding that when members are on leave that either their rations deduction was ceased or the member was entitled to claim for meals that could not be provided (with receipts) because of a mess closure. 

Can anyone point me at the order/policy that allows rations deduction to continue over a leave period and/or the order/policy that prevents recruits from being able to claim meals that can not be provided by the mess during a block leave period?

Thank you.


----------



## MJP (1 Dec 2016)

Griswald said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> I have read through much of this thread but not every message. Apologies if the question I am asking has already been asked, if so please tell me and I will read more.
> 
> ...



They don't cease payment because leave days are accounted for in the overall payment for rations.  

I can't access the CFAO right now but I think it is CFAO 208-1 and it says words to the effect below:

9. Living-in members on monthly pay deduction for rations are not entitled to meals at no charge while on annual leave. This is because their monthly meal plan is already abated by a value equal to 69 days per year to account for various types of leave (annual leave, stat and special leave). Therefore, to prevent public subsidization, meal cards shall be withdrawn /voided during each of these periods. The member may still use public dining facilities to access meal service, but only on a cash basis.


----------



## Pusser (5 Dec 2016)

What MJP said above is correct.  You can only be reimbursed for meals if not available from a CAF/Public source (e.g. if the mess is closed over Christmas) if you are NOT on leave.  This is a very unlikely scenario for someone on BMQ as the school will likely be closed and everyone will be ordered on leave.

As an aside, meals reimbursed in this manner (CFAO 36-14 is the reference BTW) are limited to "actual and reasonable" costs, which means you must provide receipts (the actual cost) and reimbursement will be limited to the applicable TD meal allowance (i.e. what the government considers reasonable).


----------



## Bbmoveup (8 Jun 2017)

Hey im trying to find up to date info for BMQ deductions etc as i have seen conflicting answers. 

1. Married and with a dependent and a home owner, do I pay rations? I understand I wont be paying for a room with owning a house. 

2. Again I have seen conflicting answers as well... this is less of a wonder but i came across it on the forums here. Do we get extra allowance for being away from the family?

Thanks in advance all.. hoping to get into BMQ this fall.


----------



## Jayjaycf (8 Jun 2017)

When I was in St-Jean in 2014, married folks weren't paying for quarter but had to pay for the food and there was no way around that. It did surprise some of them because some were not expecting to pay for the ration. Maybe things have changed but I doubt it. Good luck for your BMQ.


----------



## mariomike (8 Jun 2017)

Bbmoveup said:
			
		

> Hey im trying to find up to date info for BMQ deductions etc as i have seen conflicting answers.



Rations and Quarters

The following amounts (subject to change) will be deducted automatically each month from your pay:
a.Non-commissioned members (single): $627,80;
b.Non-commissioned members (married/common law): $527,87;
c.Officers (single): $648,41; and
d.Officers (married/common law): $527,87.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/training-establishments/recruit-school-joining-instructions.page


----------



## Bbmoveup (8 Jun 2017)

I ended up finding that I just wasn't to sure if there was anything about having kids at home, who you still have to feed, vs no children at home.


----------



## SJBeaton (9 Jun 2017)

Bbmoveup said:
			
		

> I ended up finding that I just wasn't to sure if there was anything about having kids at home, who you still have to feed, vs no children at home.



Unless for some reason you are going to BMQ on TD (there is nothing in your original post that would indicate this), you will pay the full amount for rations regardless of your family structure. Also, you will not be getting an allowance for being away from your family for BMQ. Good luck with your application.


----------



## Bbmoveup (9 Jun 2017)

Thanks everyone. Everything you all said is what I could find I just wanted to confirm. 

So far I'm ripping through the process.


----------



## Joker27th (28 Sep 2017)

I've heard from multiple people recently that a new policy has been implemented recently that if you leave you wife (and in my case child as well) behind are are paying for mortgage or rent, and have to live on base temporarily, that your quarters and rations are provided at no charge. I've even heard that's the case at basic. On the recruiting website the only thing i see is that if your married or common law its $100 cheaper per month compared to a single person at basic. But those same people say that's the old policy. 

Wondering if anyone who is currently in basic or finished it within the last year can shed some light on this for me. ~$600 a month is a lot of additional money to spend when you are already paying for a home for your family back home.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Sep 2017)

Joker27th said:
			
		

> I've heard from multiple people recently that a new policy has been implemented recently that if you leave you wife (and in my case child as well) behind are are paying for mortgage or rent, and have to live on base temporarily, that your quarters and rations are provided at no charge. I've even heard that's the case at basic. On the recruiting website the only thing i see is that if your married or common law its $100 cheaper per month compared to a single person at basic. But those same people say that's the old policy.
> 
> Wondering if anyone who is currently in basic or finished it within the last year can shed some light on this for me. ~$600 a month is a lot of additional money to spend when you are already paying for a home for your family back home.
> 
> Thanks in advance!



Right from the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School website.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/training-establishments/recruit-school-basic-training.page

Things you need to know

•For Non-Commissioned Members: If you are single, you must pay rations and quarters throughout your stay at the School at a cost of $627.80 per month. If you are married/common-law, you must pay rations at a cost of $527.87 per month. This will be deducted directly from your pay.

•For Officers:If you are single, you must pay rations and quarters throughout your stay at the School at a cost of $648.41 per month.If you are married/common-law, you must pay rations at a cost of $527.87 per month. This will be deducted directly from your pay.


----------



## Lumber (29 Sep 2017)

Would he be eligible for separation expense?

The only line from the CBI that has me wondering is: 



> 208.997(3) (Entitlement): a member...is entitled to SE if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
> d. the member is entitled to a move of (D)HG&E at public expense to the new place of duty;



Every other line, from a-h, seem to be satisfied. 

Since the member has been attach-posted to CFLRS, I don't think he would be "entitled to a move of HG&E". At least that's my take.

He would be entitled to PLD at his principle residence, however.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Sep 2017)

I think the way of business now is they are posted to CFLRS for trg;  if they were attach posted or TD, they would get free R & Q.  Something like that.  

IIRC, SE also was axed when the policy changes happened a few years back.


----------



## Lumber (29 Sep 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think the way of business now is they are posted to CFLRS for trg;  if they were attach posted or TD, they would get free R & Q.  Something like that.
> 
> IIRC, SE also was axed when the policy changes happened a few years back.



But SE is still in the CBIs? I just looked it up? Or do you just mean that they modified it so that it's very hard to actually be eligible for it?


----------



## BeyondTheNow (29 Sep 2017)

Joker27th said:
			
		

> ...On the recruiting website the only thing i see is that if your married or common law its $100 cheaper per month compared to a single person at basic. But those same people say that's the old policy.
> 
> Wondering if anyone who is currently in basic or finished it within the last year can shed some light on this for me. ~$600 a month is a lot of additional money to spend when you are already paying for a home for your family back home.
> 
> Thanks in advance!



I left CFLRS in Dec of 2015. As of that time, the only benefit in terms of less money being deducted for married or common-law is what you stated. The recruit who was in a married or common-law relationship didn't have to pay for quarters each month (the approx. $100), but still had to pay for rations each month (the approx. $575).

I spoke with a member who is now in their 10th week of course. Nothing seems to have changed.


----------



## McG (29 Sep 2017)

I still find it interesting that the PM is compelled to fly on military air but he only has to reimburse to the cost of what he would have paid to fly himself.  In contrast, the military member who is compelled to live in quarters without means to prepare food is compelled to pay not only the cost of food but also the full cost for somebody to prepare the food.  Two people compelled to use a means more expensive than they would have chosen, but only one is subsidized for the imposed expense over which they have no control.  
 :stirpot: 

The rules do not agree with me, but I think troops entitled to free quarters should be subsidized for the cost of food preparation if they are not provided quarters with the means to cook their own food.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Sep 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> But SE is still in the CBIs? I just looked it up? Or do you just mean that they modified it so that it's very hard to actually be eligible for it?



The info starts at Reply 6 from DAA.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/108923.0.html


----------



## Sub_Guy (30 Sep 2017)

Do sailors pay for rations while the ship is alongside?  

They get a free lunch and soup everyday!


----------



## Pusser (4 Oct 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Do sailors pay for rations while the ship is alongside?
> 
> They get a free lunch and soup everyday!



Lunch is provided free of charge to all members of the ship's company on normal working days in home port.  The Duty Watch gets breakfast and supper as well.  Anyone else wanting to eat breakfast/supper or lunch on weekends are supposed to pay (since no one lives on board anymore, this is no longer really an issue).  While at sea or in any port other than home port, all meals are provided.

There is no additional ration for soup - it's part of the lunch ration, just served earlier.  Keep in mind that units are allocated a set amount of money per day to feed their personnel, based on their circumstances.  How that unit chooses to break it up and use it is up to them.

There is actually some sound reasoning for the "free" lunch (is anything really free?) and none of it has anything to do with giving the sailors a break or benefit:

1)  There are no adequate dining facilities in proximity to any of the ships in either of HMC Dockyards. The number of personnel in the ships would overwhelm those facilities that do exist.

2)  Sailors are prohibited from "brown-bagging" because there is no place to store their lunches in such a manner as to not attract vermin.  This is a very real issue as the cost of fumigating a ship (which is a refit-level operation) in order to combat roaches or rats far exceeds the cost of feeding the ship's company.

3)  In theory at least, sailors are not supposed to leave the ship during the workday.  Departments generally have authority to allow it though.

In short, if you can't leave to get lunch (or there is no place to go) and you can't bring your own, then the Crown has an obligation to feed you.


----------



## AbdullahD (6 Jan 2019)

Hi guys a couple questions of things that have me confused. If anyone can indulge me I would appreciate it.

I have seen the payscale for training and promotions after, they make sense all well and good, but I am confused do recruits who have a wife, children and a mortgage get any incentives? I was reading and saw that married recruits were exempt for paying for lodging but have to pay $500/mo for rations while on bmq is that correct?

Now this PLD business, is it only for moves after enrollment? Ie I apply for Navy, put in for east coast... I do not get it because I applied to be there so I eat that living cost difference? Or does everyone get it? From what I read everyone in those cities get it period.. just want to be sure.

When you have a family and are at BMQ do you get to claim it as an "IR posting"? Or is that after BMQ? Is their a similar claim to be made? Aka anything to help someone who has a family at home waiting in limbo for a posting to be made.

Now if I read it correctly the Canadian Forces will pay for my wife, kids and I to move to wherever I get posted after BMQ correct?

Now after I get posted the CF will pay closing costs etc if I sell my house? They will also pay a certain amount if I suffer a loss on it correct? 

Now deployments are not counted as part of your taxable income.. but certain deployments with the RCN do not count towards your away from home time, due to not being a "real" deployment? But regardless of that is that time also not taxable? Or is it only deployments to "operational theatres"?

I have spent a few hours delving into these topics, for fun and it has me all confused a lot of dead links, old info, possibly outdated and I just wanted to clear up these small things. Also not 100% if all or any of these things apply to recruits or only currently serving members for the moves etc.. I did my best to understand but maybe my head has just started spinning trying to figure it all out and it has turned to Greek on me lol I have consulted here and with a Navy vet I work with, he just retired a few short years ago after putting in a respectable career. So I am cross referencing too.

Thanks again and if you feel this is a waste of time I am sorry.
Abdullah

Ps I have no immediate plans to either join or not join. Fact of the matter is I am out of shape (albeit significantly healthier then three months ago), just bought a house and I have a decent albeit unfulfilling job right now. So I am more curious to see if it is even realistic I know within 3-4 yrs the money would be good enough not to worry.. but I'm curious to see if the first couple years will bankrupt me or not.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jan 2019)

Theres no extra money if you have a family. You're correct about R&Q, rations are stupid expensive for no reason.

PLD is only for certain bases, if entitled you'll get it once you're posted with your family.

Named operations are tax free (CARIBEE, REASSURANCE, etc). One of the RCN folks can hop on to explain the uniqueness of a ship deployment, as it's not the same as my 2 day flight to basically any theatre in the world.


----------

