# Found out someone defrauding the ir system



## Markopolo (8 Apr 2018)

Hello,

So I just found out that my husband's captain has been separated from his wife for about eleven months.  This came out while my husband and I were out for drinks with the captain and he had a bit too much and let it slip.  He has been getting the ir/se benefit this whole time, even though he would not qualify for it due to the impending divorce.

My question is what to do?  How in good conscience do I just leave it?  He's getting a benefit that he does not deserve.  The worst part is people like him who abuse the system could potentially ruin it for everyone else.  However at the same time, why should we get involved?  Why are there not more checks and balances in the program which requires both the member and the spouse to sign off on the ir every year so that people can scam thousands from the caf?

What would you do in my position?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (8 Apr 2018)

Eventually he will get audited, but, ethically your husband has a duty to report.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Apr 2018)

Would one still be entitled to an SE in the middle of proceedings?  Not knowing the policy and the law, I would assume that eligibility would cease once the divorce is signed and the member removes the ex-spouse as a dependent from their MPRR.  Just a guess.


----------



## ballz (8 Apr 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Would one still be entitled to an SE in the middle of proceedings?  Not knowing the policy and the law, I would assume that eligibility would cease once the divorce is signed and the member removes the ex-spouse as a dependent from their MPRR.  Just a guess.



I don't think so. Divorces can take years. There is an actual marital status of "separated" which means you are legally separated but the divorce is not finalized so you are therefore still legally married.

CBI 208 on separation expense...

*Spouse* in relation to a member, does not include a spouse who is living separate and apart, within the meaning of the Divorce Act, from the member.

From the Divorce Act...
"(a) spouses shall be deemed to have lived separate and apart for any period during which they lived apart and either of them had the intention to live separate and apart from the other"

*dependant*
means:

a member's spouse or common-law partner;
a member's, their spouse's, or their common-law partner's child – including a stepchild, legal ward, adopted child or child adopted under a Canadian aboriginal custom adoption practice – who is dependent on the member because the child is:
under 18 years of age;
mentally or physically disabled; or
under 25 years of age and in fulltime attendance at a school or other education institution that provides training or instruction of an educational, professional, vocational or technical nature; or
a member's, their spouse's, or their common-law partner's relative – a parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew or grandchild – who is dependent on the member because the relative is mentally or physically disabled.

Snipped from eligibility...


> the member does not move their (D)HG&E to the new place of duty;
> the member occupies an accommodation at a new place of duty; and
> a dependant occupies the principal residence on a full-time basis.



In order to be eligible, you must have a dependent who lives in your principal residence on a full-time basis (by principal residence they mean the one you were just posted away from). Since his spouse no longer meets the definition of a spouse, they are not a dependent.

So the remaining question is... does the Captain have a child (or, other dependent I guess) living at that primary residence (like their ex-partner and their child live there full-time or something) and would that child (or other person) count as a dependent? A lawyer could convince me otherwise, but drawing on my knowledge of the income tax act (certainly not a perfect parallel), they would not be.


----------



## ballz (8 Apr 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Eventually he will get audited, but, ethically your husband has a duty to report.



I would suggest he goes out for another beer and has a face-to-face talk with him about it, and gives the guy the opportunity to sort himself out. It's a pretty ugly situation, especially since her husband appears to be the Captain's subordinate. But, if they are good enough friends to go out for dinner and drink beers together, they can be good enough friends to have the hard talks, too.

There easily could be a lot more to it and there is nothing underhanded going on, and sometimes people in rough spots are just having a momentary lapse in judgement. Jumping right to reporting him without this opportunity is probably going to make the situation worse for all involved.

As for eventually getting caught on an audit... I have my doubts to be honest.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (8 Apr 2018)

Even if you're not officially/legally separated/divorced, if you're not living in the same house when you otherwise would be, youre not eligible for Separation Benefits.


----------



## Ostrozac (8 Apr 2018)

A lot of it would hinge on the occupancy of the principal residence (the family home). If it's vacant, that's pretty clear. But if the spouse is still living in the principal residence, even if the messaging is "don't bother coming back, I'm divorcing you" -- that probably isn't legally separated (separate and apart implies different primary residences), and the member may still have a dependant spouse until the divorce and the splitting of assets.

And as noted, children can also be dependants, regardless of the status of the parents.

So yeah, without more details, I wouldn't necessarily be immediately dropping a dime to the NIS and claiming fraud. The member may still be entitled to iR.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

Markopolo said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> So I just found out that my husband's captain has been separated from his wife for about eleven months.  This came out while my husband and I were out for drinks with the captain and he had a bit too much and let it slip.  He has been getting the ir/se benefit this whole time, even though he would not qualify for it due to the impending divorce.



First off, I'm assuming your husband is in the CAF and you are a civilian spouse.  I've based my reply on that...the way you wrote this doesn't strike me that you're a MSC.

Do you, definitively, what the policy is on this?  If they haven't signed a formal agreement to separate, etc yet what is their actual status as far as the CAF is concerned?  Do you know he hasn't already let his CofC/immediate superior officer know what the 'status' is?



> My question is what to do?  How in good conscience do I just leave it?  He's getting a benefit that he does not deserve.  The worst part is people like him who abuse the system could potentially ruin it for everyone else.  However at the same time, why should we get involved?  Why are there not more checks and balances in the program which requires both the member and the spouse to sign off on the ir every year so that people can scam thousands from the caf?



You're making a lot of assumptions here.  Notice I highlighted the word "we"...

How in good conscience do I just leave it?  Easy - this is a CAF issue and unless you're in the CAF and know more facts, etc it isn't your responsibility, is it?



> What would you do in my position?



I hope you're ready for an honest answer to that...

If I were you, I'd mind your own business.  It seems to me you're making assumptions and treating them as facts.  If the worst part of the system is people who abuse the system, then the second worst part are the people who are holding a Scarlett Letter and looking for someone to hang it on before knowing facts, which they probably aren't entitled to/in the position to know in the first place because it's really none of their business.


----------



## Gunner98 (8 Apr 2018)

I would certainly need more facts before reporting anything:
- where does the Capt's spouse live - is the distance significant enough that he is able to claim a reunion visit
- does he go home for visits - where does he stay when he goes home
- are there children that live in his house
- has separation documents actually been legally filed or is the IR sufficient for now
- has he declared the home his wife lives in as his IPR - intended place of residence
- how long has he been on IR and when will it end

I spent 4 years living in a hotel in Ottawa while my family remained in Petawawa, in many ways it felt like we were 'separated'.  In fact when I was finally reunited with my family separate master bedrooms in our family home was the result.
I would not want other IR residents of the hotel to report things that I (or they) said and did during those 4 years without all of the facts.
I would not report things that I heard while drinking with someone as fact, alcohol affects your clarity of thinking and remembering.

I know many people who stayed the same amount of time on IR and in many cases there marriages were affected.  The decision to go on IR often results from some instability in the marriage and it is not always about the spouse's employment or children's schooling which was the reason stated to the chain of command.  This sort of trial separation can be brought on by someone being quickly posted out to accommodate a service couple being posted in and the IR family as a whole does not sufficient time to react.  Since the member has no choice, off they go and they, the non-service couple, are left to decide if this is the life for them.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How in good conscience do I just leave it?  Easy - this is a CAF issue and unless you're in the CAF and know more facts, etc it isn't your responsibility, is it?
> 
> If I were you, I'd mind your own business.


Wow.  Someone asks a question based on what they believe to be an ethical dilemma, and gets bitch-slapped for it.  

Sure, the details provided may not be up to Sherlock Holmes' standard.... and _maybe_  some of the issues facing the CAF today are because too many people think Pontius Pilate is a role model, or doing the right thing is just too darn tough.

"Leadership" indeed.     :not-again:


----------



## Markopolo (8 Apr 2018)

So a bit more info from the conversation...

She broke up with him almost a year ago when she found out about his girlfriend at his current posting.  He attempted to go back once but she would not let him in.  She apparently packed all his things and sent them to him.  He's still with the girlfriend and the wife just served him with the divorce papers because the year separated is almost here.

It pissed me off that he still isn't planning on changing his ir situation and was almost boastful about getting the benefit while not having to contribute to another house. 

While it might not be my place to say anything my husband may have a duty to report.  I'm just trying to gather info to help him with a decision.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If I were you, I'd mind your own business.  It seems to me you're making assumptions and treating them as facts.  If the worst part of the system is people who abuse the system, then the second worst part are the people who are holding a Scarlett Letter and looking for someone to hang it on before knowing facts, which they probably aren't entitled to/in the position to know in the first place because it's really none of their business.



This is the kind of thinking that got us to Op HONOUR....


----------



## McG (8 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How in good conscience do I just leave it?  Easy - this is a CAF issue and unless you're in the CAF and know more facts, etc it isn't your responsibility, is it?
> 
> I hope you're ready for an honest answer to that...
> 
> If I were you, I'd mind your own business.  ...


See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, eh? This is not an internal CAF matter when it is fraud with tax payer money. “What if-ing” from your position of ignorance and playing barracks room lawyer does not does not change things. A member in receipt of separation expense looses that entitlement when they arrive at the conclusion that they will never move back into the share residence with their spouse. It does not matter that the children are there - it is the spouse’s residence now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Wow.  Someone asks a question based on what they believe to be an ethical dilemma, and gets bitch-slapped for it.
> 
> Sure, the details provided may not be up to Sherlock Holmes' standard.... and _maybe_  some of the issues facing the CAF today are because too many people think Pontius Pilate is a role model, or doing the right thing is just too darn tough.
> 
> "Leadership" indeed.     :not-again:



Based on what the poster said in the first post...really?  What is your blessed, perfect DS Solution then?  Is it an 'issue' when a civilian spouse gets involved without knowing policy and facts?   :

Because in this case, the 'ethical dilemma' isn't for the poster, it may be for her husband.  Should he be discussing personal information about superior officers over drinks with his wife?  No ethical dilemma there?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

Markopolo said:
			
		

> So a bit more info from the conversation...
> 
> She broke up with him almost a year ago when she found out about his girlfriend at his current posting.  He attempted to go back once but she would not let him in.  She apparently packed all his things and sent them to him.  He's still with the girlfriend and the wife just served him with the divorce papers because the year separated is almost here.
> 
> ...



That would have been helpful in the first post, but thanks for posting the extra info.  IAW the QR & O, regardless if your husband is another Officer or a NCM he has a duty to report.  He likely knows that though.  

I've highlighted the important part here - not sure your husband's rank or how much experience he has with this stuff;  there are various people he could go to at his unit to discuss and get advice without mentioning names initially.  If he is 'friends' with the Capt outside of the work relationship, Ballz already mentioned the 'you really should do the right thing here, Bob' conversation over a beer.  I've had relationships with Jnr Officers who I could have done that with, and others that I couldn't have.

I was in a situation once as a Snr NCO where my direct superior, a Capt, had a made a decision to allow something to happen that clearly should not happen IAW a specific policy.  I spoke to the Capt, gave him/her the option to consider the relevant policy (a national one, where there was no black/white).  He/she refused to reverse the decision in spite of clear policy, and told me 'the authority is mine not yours'.  I felt my responsibility was more to my CO and unit than it was to this specific Officer;  I approached the Ajdt and asked him to schedule a meeting with myself and a SME Jnr Officer from our next HHQ and reported what was going on and what steps I'd taken to date.

My working relationship with that Capt never did recover;  but I've never had trouble looking at myself in the mirror shaving.  Your husband has options in his workplace;  there should be a Unit Ethics Coordinator he can go to, his CofC, the unit CWO/CPO or Adjt.  Lots of options on how to go forward if there is no ability to have 'the talk over a beer'.


----------



## Gunner98 (8 Apr 2018)

Markopolo said:
			
		

> So a bit more info from the conversation...
> 
> It pissed me off that he still isn't planning on changing his ir situation and was almost boastful about getting the benefit while not having to contribute to another house.
> 
> While it might not be my place to say anything my husband may have a duty to report.  I'm just trying to gather info to help him with a decision.



Ethical decision making options:
- When the individual was boastful, did your husband raise the issue of fraud?
- Since the conversation has your husband discussed the issue of fraud with his superior?
- If your husband or you know his wife then it could be a simple as having the wife report the matter to his chain of command or their spouses.
- The fraud is bigger than just the fact that he is receiving the IR benefits, it is the fact that he is lying to his chain of command and the CAF about his marital status. The Military Police have offices and a tip to them could be initiated: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/contact-us/military-police-contact-us.page  Your husband believes a crime of fraud of fraud is in progress, could report it to them rather than the chain of command.

In the end your husband is aware of evidence that indicate fraud and lying is taking place.  He could:
- Confront the individual and encourage them to report the matter.  
- Report the matter to the member's chain of command,
- Encourage the spouse who has filed for divorce to contact the chain of command or the military police, or 
- Contact the military police himself.  

Doing nothing does not make him an accessory after the fact, but it may make him feel as such.  Doing the right thing is not always easy, doing the the thing right requires discretion, courage and confidence in purpose.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, eh?



Where did I say that?  



> “What if-ing” from your position of ignorance and playing barracks room lawyer does not does not change things[/color].



Likewise   :not-again:


----------



## Gunner98 (8 Apr 2018)

DND and CAF Code of Ethics:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/code-of-values-and-ethics.page

6.2 CF Members
6.2.1 CF members are expected to abide by DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics and demonstrate the values of this code in their actions and behaviour.

6.2.2 CF members who are also in a leadership role have a particular responsibility to exemplify the military values of the Canadian Forces and the common values and expected obligations of the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics.

6.2.3 CF leaders, at all levels, are expected to create a healthy ethical culture that is free from reprisal, ensure that all subordinates are given every opportunity to meet their legal and ethical obligations to act, and to proactively inculcate the values of the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics.


----------



## Markopolo (8 Apr 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Ethical decision making options:
> - When the individual was boastful, did your husband raise the issue of fraud?
> 
> No as we were both shocked at the conversation.  Hubby didn't know what to do so we just sat there and listened.
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

if you want to get into the regs/policy side, let's go right to the core:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-04.page#cha-004-02

4.02 - GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICERS

(1) An officer shall:
a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce:i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act,
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the officer's duties;

b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all subordinates;
d.ensure the proper care and maintenance, and prevent the waste, of all public and non-public property within the officer's control; and
e.report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline when the officer cannot deal adequately with the matter.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-05.page

5.01- GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

A non-commissioned member shall:
a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act, (5 June 2008)
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;

(See articles 1.22 – Accessibility of Regulations, Orders and Instructions and 4.26 – Publicity of Regulations, Orders, Instructions, Correspondence and Publications.)

b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all who are subordinate to the member;
d.ensure the proper care and maintenance and prevent the waste of all public and non-public property within the member's control; and
e.report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.


----------



## McG (8 Apr 2018)

Since you are ready to look at the regs, try this one: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/ch-208-relocation-benefits.page#sec-208-997

From the decision to separate, he had 90 days (not 11 months) to sort his shit and get off IR. All the speculating you did on his behalf was irrelevant rabbit hole.

A crime is happening (fraud) and you counselled someone to mind their business. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> Since you are ready to look at the regs, try this one: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/ch-208-relocation-benefits.page#sec-208-997
> 
> From the decision to separate, he had 90 days (not 11 months) to sort his shit and get off IR. All the speculating you did on his behalf was irrelevant rabbit hole.
> 
> A crime is happening (fraud) and you counselled someone to mind their business. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.



The duty to report is the posters husbands;  he is duty bound, not the civilian in question.

I stand by what I said, but could have explained it better i.e. "your husband has a situation to deal with, so support him in that".

Assuming he has not already reported - he may have and it hasn't caught up yet.  We don't make decisions, or good ones, in the military based on assumptions, do we?  I think I read something about that in the Mil Admin Law Manual once.


----------



## Stoker (8 Apr 2018)

Perhaps the husband should be posting here instead of the wife?


----------



## McG (8 Apr 2018)

And yet you go back to assumption so much to build your arguments. Maybe the policy allows flexibility for other circumstances that maybe exist? Well, no it does not. Maybe he already told his CoC?  OP indicates he was an officer and understood himself to not be entitled to money he was still collecting 11 months later - he is clearly not trying very hard to do right. Maybe he husband reported? Fine, but that does not measure up her being told to mind her business.  His military duty to report does not mean that a civilian cannot have an ethical responsibility to do the same.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Apr 2018)

Markopolo said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> So I just found out that my husband's captain



Let your husband decide or decide not to deal with it.


----------



## ballz (8 Apr 2018)

Markopolo said:
			
		

> While I'm sure the spouse would love the chance to stick it to a cheating husband, unfortunately I don't know anyone who actually knows who this woman is.  Thanks for the info, I will pass it along to him.



I would recommend against the advice of getting the former spouse involved to do the dirty work on your behalf. Not only is it trying to pass off the dilemma to someone else, it's probably going to cause a lot more drama. Who the hell calls up someone's ex-spouse and feeds them ammo to "get back at their husband," in order to avoid doing the hard thing themselves. It will likely cause far more grief than the current dilemma. If your husband doesn't have it in him for whatever reason, for the love of God neither of you should be calling up ex-spouses and getting involved in the drama.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> And yet you go back to assumption so much to build your arguments. Maybe the policy allows flexibility for other circumstances that maybe exist? Well, no it does not. Maybe he already told his CoC?  OP indicates he was an officer and understood himself to not be entitled to money he was still collecting 11 months later - he is clearly not trying very hard to do right. Maybe he husband reported? Fine, but that does not measure up her being told to mind her business.  His military duty to report does not mean that a civilian cannot have an ethical responsibility to do the same.



- The OP is a civilian who was at a dinner a few nights ago where everyone was consuming alcohol.  You, nor I, know what was said and with no offense to Markopolo, are you suggesting that everything people post on here in a 'what if' scenario, is taken at face value as accurate?  You don't see a need to exercise caution when giving advice to the spouse of a service member who is of a lower rank than the Captain who may be taking funds he isn't entitled to?

- Markopolo's first post was her first post on the sight.  ever.  We've no idea who she is, really - perhaps there is more to the story and we just don't know it.  We don't know, do we?

- If you're suggesting that, if a Captain was accused of doing something by a subordinates wife, officially, and that nothing was actually going on illegally on behalf of the Capt, based on a dinner talk that involved alcohol, and that nothing possibly could reflect negatively on that subordinate - boy do you ever live in a dream world.  I can think of 1 incident where a MCpl thought a Capt had done something quite clearly against regulations, reported it in good faith and then was hung out to dry by the same CofC he reported it to, all based on what he knew, or thought he knew and some reasonable 'assumptions' on his part.  If people want to pretend that 'oh report, the wagons will never be circled' because of Op "pick a name" and all that, by all means, suggest that.  Those of us down in steerage have that have seen the circling of the wagons in the Officer Corps before aren't going to take a bite of a log of shit painted yellow and agree that, yes, it is a banana.

I suggest you are the one actually making assumptions here.  NCMs making allegations such as this against superiors, especially Commissioned Officers, based on assumed facts that stem from a dinner party involving alcohol - I suggest to step cautiously;  I've witnessed (not personally) what can happen when they do so in good faith and the CofC then turns on them - even when there was no malicious intent.  THAT is why I suggested to Markopolo that her husband has a few avenues (if he doesn't already know that) he can use when she provided some more context.

NCMs making allegations against Officers based on comments made at dinner when people were drinking - I say tread lightly.  Spouses thinking "I can do or say what I want, it can't negatively affect my husband/wife at work in the military"...my experience says think again.  Let the service member engage their CofC and get advice from them - they've done their duty to report, essentially, at that point.

Unless, of course, you want every single military spouse, who has heard something they think is against a policy, to be calling the MPs and COs.  I can't see anything going off the rails there...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

Markopolo,

Honestly, the best thing I think you can do, if you haven't, is talk this over with your husband.  We've no idea who he is, what his experience is, etc.  He could be a new Cpl and have no idea what to do, he could be a MWO who hasn't said anything to you because he knew, during the dinner, he would have to talk to his Capt and hasn't said anything to you because he knows what to do and what has to happen.

If he is that new Cpl or somewhere in between that and the experienced MWO, or he is a new Lt...and not sure what to do, he has a WO, or a Adjutant or someone is his unit that he can talk to for advice.  

As I said, true story I've witnessed a MCpl who did his duty to report based on things he thought were happening - he did what he thought was right and the chain of command turned on him for it.  There is a way to do this if what you've said is correct and factual - I just would advise him to exercise caution; there are ways to do this professionally and the best people to advise him on that are the ones he works for at his current unit.  the know the lay of the land, demographics, unit politics, call it what you want of where he is posted now.


----------



## McG (8 Apr 2018)

Defrauding SE for 11 months is at least a few thousand if not several thousand dollars of stolen tax payers' money.  EITS, for all the backpedaling and re-writing of your position that you have done, your initial reply to the OP was ethically bankrupt.  But I will entertain you for one last reply ... 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I suggest you are the one actually making assumptions here.


Let's see:
You assumed that somehow there was leeway in the regulations for the described behavior, I knew there was not.
You have pontificated about if the capt "hasn't already let his CofC/immediate superior officer know what the 'status' is" but I know that is irrelevant if he has not caused those the payments be stopped despite 11 months.
You have assumed that because the information has come from a civilian spouse, it is clearly can't be trusted and she should just mind her business, but I know a serious criminal allegation like that needs to be investigated by the proper authorities.
hmm....



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is it an 'issue' when a civilian spouse gets involved without knowing policy and facts?   :


You are right.  Clearly it is better for a service member who knows neither the policy nor the facts to get involved. (Note: You are the service member who demonstrably does not know the policy.  Everyone else seems to recognize that there are enough details here that a proper investigation is required.)



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Because in this case, the 'ethical dilemma' isn't for the poster, it may be for her husband.


A crime has happened.  They both know about it.  They both have an ethical responsibility to do something. He has an additional service obligation to report.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Should he be discussing personal information about superior officers over drinks with his wife?  No ethical dilemma there?


Right.  No ethical dilemma.  The "he" who discussed the personal information about the captain was the "superior officer" himself.  It is his personal information to share as he wants.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ... are you suggesting that everything people post on here in a 'what if' scenario, is taken at face value as accurate?


No, but this is not a "what if" scenario.  This is a specific allegation of a criminal offense.  Again, it is not to be taken at face value but it aught be treated with seriousness.  It must be reported.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You don't see a need to exercise caution when giving advice to the spouse of a service member who is of a lower rank than the Captain who may be taking funds he isn't entitled to?


I do, and hopefully in the future you will too.  Exercising caution when giving advice is not telling somebody that a potential criminal act is "a CAF issue and unless [they]'re in the CAF and know more facts, etc it isn't [their] responsibility" nor is counseling them to "mind their own business".  It is certainly not exercising caution when you then lay into the individual, accusing them of being the second worst feature of "the system."



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - Markopolo's first post was her first post on the sight.  ever.  We've no idea who she is, really - perhaps there is more to the story and we just don't know it.  We don't know, do we?


And yet, it is still possible that you could have given appropriate advice right from the get go.  Oh well for lost opportunities.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - If you're suggesting that, if a Captain was accused of doing something by a subordinates wife, officially, and that nothing was actually going on illegally on behalf of the Capt, based on a dinner talk that involved alcohol, and that nothing possibly could reflect negatively on that subordinate - boy do you ever live in a dream world.  I can think of 1 incident where a MCpl thought a Capt had done something quite clearly against regulations, reported it in good faith and then was hung out to dry by the same CofC he reported it to, all based on what he knew, or thought he knew and some reasonable 'assumptions' on his part.  If people want to pretend that 'oh report, the wagons will never be circled' because of Op "pick a name" and all that, by all means, suggest that.  Those of us down in steerage have that have seen the circling of the wagons in the Officer Corps before aren't going to take a bite of a log of shit painted yellow and agree that, yes, it is a banana.
> 
> ...  NCMs making allegations such as this against superiors, especially Commissioned Officers, based on assumed facts that stem from a dinner party involving alcohol - I suggest to step cautiously;  I've witnessed (not personally) what can happen when they do so in good faith and the CofC then turns on them - even when there was no malicious intent.  THAT is why I suggested to Markopolo that her husband has a few avenues (if he doesn't already know that) he can use when she provided some more context.
> 
> ...


So, if you are concerned about a backlash for a power differential, why did you not mention it in your first post?  Why did you not offer any advice or guidance on how or to whom to make complaints known so as the protect the service spouse?  Why is it only seeing the light of day after several posters commented on the morally reprehensible position that you first posted?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> Defrauding SE for 11 months is at least a few thousand if not several thousand dollars of stolen tax payers' money.  EITS, for all the backpedaling and re-writing of your position that you have done, your initial reply to the OP was ethically bankrupt.  But I will entertain you for one last reply ...



Backpedalling.  Please, show me where.  I added a reply AFTER the 2nd post.   :


> Let's see:
> You assumed that somehow there was leeway in the regulations for the described behavior, I knew there was not.
> You have pontificated about if the capt "hasn't already let his CofC/immediate superior officer know what the 'status' is" but I know that is irrelevant if he has not caused those the payments be stopped despite 11 months.
> You have assumed that because the information has come from a civilian spouse, it is clearly can't be trusted and she should just mind her business, but I know a serious criminal allegation like that needs to be investigated by the proper authorities.
> hmm....



What you suggest you KNOW is from an unverified source, a spouse who is repeating her version of a conversation at a dinner where everyone was drinking.  



> You are right.  Clearly it is better for a service member who knows neither the policy nor the facts to get involved. (Note: You are the service member who demonstrably does not know the policy.  Everyone else seems to recognize that there are enough details here that a proper investigation is required.)



Try going back and reading other people's post.  I wasn't the only one who didn't run to round up the lynch mob. 



> A crime has happened.



And here is where we go down different sides of the track.  You've already decided a crime has and is happening, and ASSUMING the source and info are both credible, and accurate.  I think that is irresponsible and dangerous.  (again no offense Markopolo, I have no idea who you are, if what you're saying is accurate).

Here's a question - why is the service member himself not on here asking what he should do?  Doesn't that strike you as odd?  It does me.  



> They both know about it.  They both have an ethical responsibility to do something. He has an additional service obligation to report.
> Right.  No ethical dilemma.  The "he" who discussed the personal information about the captain was the "superior officer" himself.  It is his personal information to share as he wants.
> No, but this is not a "what if" scenario.  This is a specific allegation of a criminal offense.  Again, it is not to be taken at face value but it aught be treated with seriousness.  It must be reported.
> I do, and hopefully in the future you will too.



Please, take a step off the soap box.  Seriously.  



> Exercising caution when giving advice is not telling somebody that a potential criminal act is "a CAF issue and unless [they]'re in the CAF and know more facts, etc it isn't [their] responsibility" nor is counseling them to "mind their own business".  It is certainly not exercising caution when you then lay into the individual, accusing them of being the second worst feature of "the system."





> And yet, it is still possible that you could have given appropriate advice right from the get go.  Oh well for lost opportunities.



Advice and opinion given on partial information;  not so unusual around here is it?

I'd of said more, but, if you go back and read before mine, Ballz and a few others had already covered a lot of the bases.  Should I just have repeated their words?




> So, if you are concerned about a backlash for a power differential, why did you not mention it in your first post?  Why did you not offer any advice or guidance on how or to whom to make complaints known so as the protect the service spouse?  Why is it only seeing the light of day after several posters commented on the morally reprehensible position that you first posted?



Your posts are far from anything close to the light in my day on this thread, trust me pal. 

Why would I make a post, to a spouse, about what her husband should do?  Because he should already know what to do.  And, he wasn't the one on here making accusations - a reminder that they are just that - accusations.  Why add the part about 'be careful when it is a superior officer, more so if a commissioned officer'?

For all I know, her husband is newly promoted Cpl Bloggins.  He is likely reading stuff, right?  If not, his wife is on here making statements that may, or may not, be true.  If he's reading on the side, it gave him some advice, considerations and flip side of the coin to think about.  If he is not reading it, it gave her the other side of the coin to thing about as well.

Our biggest difference;  you're already deciding a crime has been committed and found the mbr guilty, and I've not gone past the 'information has indications of being credible' stage.  So to me, ya - it's still a what if scenario.  If Markopolo had a history of posting in here and the credibility that goes along with it...I might be leaning more towards you and the 'crime may have been committed'.

I've seen people, myself included, fucked over with the 'guilty until proven innocent' stuff before, and one time for me personally that was because a few people took on statements someone made as FACT and ran with it.  You're coming across like one of those 'march the guilty bastard in!' types I've seen before in time in the mob.

I'm not the only one who didn't run for the pitchfork and torch.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I would suggest he goes out for another beer and has a face-to-face talk with him about it, and gives the guy the opportunity to sort himself out. It's a pretty ugly situation, especially since her husband appears to be the Captain's subordinate. But, if they are good enough friends to go out for dinner and drink beers together, they can be good enough friends to have the hard talks, too.
> 
> There easily could be a lot more to it and there is nothing underhanded going on, and sometimes people in rough spots are just having a momentary lapse in judgement. Jumping right to reporting him without this opportunity is probably going to make the situation worse for all involved.
> 
> As for eventually getting caught on an audit... I have my doubts to be honest.





			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I would certainly need more facts before reporting anything:



Then the 'further info' post.



			
				Markopolo said:
			
		

> So a bit more info from the conversation...
> 
> She broke up with him almost a year ago when she found out about his girlfriend at his current posting.  He attempted to go back once but she would not let him in.  She apparently packed all his things and sent them to him.  He's still with the girlfriend and the wife just served him with the divorce papers because the year separated is almost here.
> 
> ...



Wow, someone added more info and, based on that, I posted an additional comment.  Stop.  The. Press!


----------



## Infanteer (8 Apr 2018)

:boring:

Ok.  Take the jousting to the PMs.


----------



## Underway (8 Apr 2018)

The leadership answer here is obvious.  You don't need references, or examination of the QR&O's or the financial policies to know what the right answer is. The fraudster (alleged) gets reported.  Does anyone on this board want a leader like that running around the CAF?  A dishonest Captain abusing/defrauding the system for his own advantage?  

Will it maybe come back to bite your husband in the ass?  Perhaps.  No one said leadership is easy.  That's why leadership is so valued.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> Ok.  Take the jousting to the PMs.



 done


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2018)

The junior member should make a report outside the chain of command. While he might be called to testify at any subsequent CM, his identity would be protected while the investigation was being conducted. 

It doesn't matter how you parse this, there is a responsibility to report. After all, if it's found out later that someone knew and didn't say, then that person becomes liable for that omission. 

This page provides further guidance:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/contact-us/whistleblowing-submit-a-disclosure.page


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Apr 2018)

Yes, reporting wrongdoings is the right thing to do.  Having said this, you better have you facts straight and be confident in your allegations: they will have career effects on the alleged offender. 

I find, in situations like this, talking to the person (sober) and getting their full (sober) side of the story and provide advise goes a long way.  Or talk to the member's supervisor directly.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Apr 2018)

I think maybe we need the input of a lawyer. Just a thought,
I don’t know the regulations for IR, but if I would research this extensively first.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Apr 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Yes, reporting wrongdoings is the right thing to do.  Having said this, you better have you facts straight and be confident in your allegations: they will have career effects on the alleged offender.
> 
> I find, in situations like this, talking to the person (sober) and getting their full (sober) side of the story and provide advise goes a long way.  Or talk to the member's supervisor directly.



 :goodpost:

That's sage advice.


----------



## Underway (9 Apr 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Yes, reporting wrongdoings is the right thing to do.  Having said this, you better have you facts straight and be confident in your allegations: they will have career effects on the alleged offender.
> 
> I find, in situations like this, talking to the person (sober) and getting their full (sober) side of the story and provide advise goes a long way.  Or talk to the member's supervisor directly.



Difference here is that you are an officer with all the "power" in such relationships.  Either as a peer or a superior.  The power dynamics in this specific situation don't sound optimal for that kind of conversation (might be wrong, the info is intentionally vague).  Hence why the whistleblower website exists.


----------



## Strike (9 Apr 2018)

So, here's a situation that might just make all of this somewhat moot.

Does the Capt have kids?  If so, and custody has yet to be determined via a separation agreement or the courts, then the Capt, as the father, is still considered as having custody of the children, even if he and his wife are separated. (As is she, mind you, but that's not being disputed.)  So, his IR would still be valid, would it not? Especially if the reason for IR was for the kids' sake.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Apr 2018)

Plot Twist: Markopolo is the the ex wife


----------



## Pusser (9 Apr 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Yes, reporting wrongdoings is the right thing to do.  Having said this, you better have you facts straight and be confident in your allegations: they will have career effects on the alleged offender.
> 
> I find, in situations like this, talking to the person (sober) and getting their full (sober) side of the story and provide advise goes a long way.  Or talk to the member's supervisor directly.



The trouble with talking to the person, even when sober, is that depending on the power dynamic between the two, it could make the working relationship difficult - regardless of the outcome of the conversation.  Irrespective of the words used, there is no way to politely and gently work a possible accusation of a crime into a conversation.  I would only have this conversation with an actual friend, not just a work colleague.  From what I can see from this, I would think the very best solution would be to report this either through the whistleblowing process or even directly to the Military Police.  They will conduct an investigation.  If charges are warranted, they will lay them. In which case the whistleblower definitely did the right thing.  If the investigation concludes that everything is OK, then no harm.  Being investigated only means that something appeared amiss.  It does not mean that something wrong actually happened.  If this does not result in a trial, then the identity of the whistleblower need never be known.


----------



## McG (9 Apr 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ok.  Take the jousting to the PMs.


Roger.  I'll switch tack to just giving better advice to the OP myself. 


Markopolo,
Your initial post presented a concern that a Capt was taking government money to which he is not entitled, and your language implied he was cognizant of what he was doing. Your second post confirms that he is not only cognizant but boastful of his behaviour.  You asked why you and your husband should become involved.  The answer is because if you do nothing, you are allowing the crime to go uncorrected.  If you do nothing you are enabling the crime to continue.  Your husband has a military duty to report while you do not, but ethically you are both involved; you both have an ethical duty to do something.  This is not a moral dilemma; there are clear right and wrong answers.  You can choose to do nothing and facilitate the crime, or you can choose something to make the situation right.

You or your husband could confront the Capt about his behaviour.  While this may cause him to correct his behaviour going forward, it could also facilitate his hiding of previously received unearned money.  Given that you have presented the Capt as being cognizant and unremorseful of his actions, I would suggest that you have an ethical obligation to report this if you believe the allegation that you have posted in this thread.

You have been cautioned in this thread to worry about many things for which you do not need to worry.  You do not need your husband’s permission to report a crime that you believe to have happened. You do not need to consult a lawyer to report a crime that you believe to have happened.  You do not need to confront an individual before you report a crime that you believed they committed.  You do not need to worry about what consequences may come if due process confirms the occurrence of a crime that you reported because you believed it to have happened. You do not need to confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed, you just need to reasonably believe that a crime has been committed and once you hit that threshold you have an ethical obligation to do something.

Your reporting of the crime you believe to have happened will trigger processes that address all the things that others have suggested are your problem to resolve first.  Your complaint will initiate an investigation.  The investigator will have access to the relevant policies and subject matter experts. The Capt will be afforded procedural fairness during a military investigation as even our administrative investigations require people be informed of and given opportunity to respond to adverse evidence against them. Investigators, charge layers, and presiding officers are all required to get advice from a lawyer at various stages of the process.  If after an investigation it is determined that a service or criminal offence if probable, there will still be a trial at which the Capt will be afforded opportunity to defend himself.  If administrative conduct are performance deficiencies are suggested by the investigation, the procedures again require that the Capt be given opportunity to represent his position to the decision maker before sever consequences are applied.  If he feels he has been treated wrongly by either administrative or disciplinary processes, he has recourses available circumstances to have his situation reviewed. So let the system work.

If there is concern about blow-back from a power imbalance, there are still options available.  Your husband can take the problem to the unit chief clerk, talk to the unit ethics advisor, or engage any other officer or sr NCO he trusts.  Either one of you can report this to the MPs or even to the RCMP.  As another option, the whistle blower site has already been linked for you.

… and if the ethical argument is not enough, then do something out of anger as a taxpayer.  If you believe the allegation that you have posted, then this Capt has stolen a few thousand to a few tens of thousands (depending on local entitlement and what he is renting) of money that really belongs to all Canadians.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> So, here's a situation that might just make all of this somewhat moot.
> 
> Does the Capt have kids?  If so, and custody has yet to be determined via a separation agreement or the courts, then the Capt, as the father, is still considered as having custody of the children, even if he and his wife are separated. (As is she, mind you, but that's not being disputed.)  So, his IR would still be valid, would it not? Especially if the reason for IR was for the kids' sake.


Read the policy link that I posted.  This is irrelevant to IR status (and thus to SE entitlement)


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Apr 2018)

Flip side to folks defrauding something like IR generally is that, rather than punish the offender, the machine tends to use it as an excuse to cut the benefits.

You don't get any separation expenses on IR anymore; you get a max rate for your area plus parking, and that's it.  You used to get SE, but they cut that due to the number of folks using IR as a 'paid divorce'.  Spent 18 months on IR recently, hard on the marriage, and cost me a fair bit out of pocket to travel back to see the family once in a while, so there was a big financial and personal cost to the whole thing.

So aside from individual impacts of abusing a benefit, there is also long lasting impacts on a big group of people.  There are lots of people that have perfectly legitimate reasons for IR that struggle it in a worse spot then the knobs that milked it for years after their spouse stopped talking to them.


----------



## McG (9 Apr 2018)

Pers on IR still get SE. The accommodations payments up to maximum local rate are SE. There used to be additional components to SE, but those were cut in about 2011/2012.


----------



## Pusser (10 Apr 2018)

Only the food portion was removed from SE.  The reasoning was that you have to buy your food at home, so buying it while on IR was not a significant hardship.  SE has never included compensation for travel back home (we have LTA for that).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Apr 2018)

Considering divorces can mess with peoples heads, would the Base Chaplin be a useful resource for either of the parties to use?


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> SE has never included compensation for travel back home (we have LTA for that).



Yeah...once a year _if_ you're far enough away.   :

I kind of agree with Navy_Pete.  I do think that fraud was one of the reasons for some of the IR cuts.  Never mind the food (it wasn't much anyway), but they did used to cover basic cable, internet and phone too and that got kiboshed a while ago.

Audits??  I never had one.  Personally, I hope this Capt gets charged if the allegations are true.


----------



## McG (10 Apr 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I kind of agree with Navy_Pete.  I do think that fraud was one of the reasons for some of the IR cuts.


If I can believe a somewhat spiteful commentary from one DCBA civilian officer from the time (I think he was a section head or deputy of some sort), then it was a factor.  He also seemed to be of the view that most members on IR were scamming the system, and everyone else was enabling them.  He trotted out numbers to illustrate the scope of multi-year frauds that were being found.  It is all the more reason these incidents need to be reported when people believe them to be happening.  Fraud needs to be stopped before it gets into the bureaucrats' levels of hysteria (or at least its penetration needs to be minimised if it has already reached those heights), and desirably decision-makers recognize that enablers are a small minority of the CAF community. 

... also, I would not be sad to learn that the mentioned DCBA staffer has moved on to other employment, but there is nothing that we in this thread can do about that.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Apr 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> He also seemed to be of the view that most members on IR were scamming the system, and everyone else was enabling them.  He trotted out numbers to illustrate the scope of multi-year frauds that were being found.  It is all the more reason these incidents need to be reported when people believe them to be happening.



Yep.  With the exception of married service members, IR was _supposed_ to be temporary.  How many people with civilian spouses were on IR for years just because the spouse was tired of moving??


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Apr 2018)

Plot Twist: the op is actually the editor  of maple leafs "what would you do?" ethics articles experimenting with a live interactive audience.


----------



## Gunner98 (10 Apr 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yep.  With the exception of married service members, IR was _supposed_ to be temporary.  How many people with civilian spouses were on IR for years just because the spouse was tired of moving??



I resemble that remark.  Family home was in Petawawa and IR was in Ottawa to complete Masters degree and then posted to a HQ.    My wife had lived in Ottawa on two previous postings (one with her father and one with me).  She had a good job in Pembroke and my 3 kids were able to finish up high school.  Both of my sons ended up at university in Ottawa.  I was on IR when the food allowance ceased and that led someone folks to reconsider their restrictions. Earlier in my career I was in NB 1991-93, NS 1993-94 and MB 1994-1998.  When you live in 3 provinces across a span of 16 months with 3 small children it is easy to grow tired of moving.  We used to say once the moving boxes are empty and the pictures are finally hung at the new place, it was time to start packing all over again. I spent the better part of 7 years between pre-deployment training, deployment and IR living away from family.  Then I packed it in and my marriage is still recovering 5 years later.


----------



## garb811 (10 Apr 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yep.  With the exception of married service members, IR was _supposed_ to be temporary.  How many people with civilian spouses were on IR for years just because the spouse was tired of moving??


A Navy friend went on 3 x IR simply because he knew at the end of each posting, he was going back to his home port.  He didn't see the point of moving his family when he knew he was only going to be away for 3, max 4 years at a time.  While I don't fault him for doing that, it certainly isn't something many of us have the luxury of knowing and certainly wasn't the intent of the IR system.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Apr 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> A Navy friend went on 3 x IR simply because he knew at the end of each posting, he was going back to his home port.  He didn't see the point of moving his family when he knew he was only going to be away for 3, max 4 years at a time.  While I don't fault him for doing that, it certainly isn't something many of us have the luxury of knowing and certainly wasn't the intent of the IR system.



HPD (Home Port Division) is a strictly RCN thing.  It puts a tether on sailors.  They will always go back to their list HPD.  Keep in mind, for most hard sea trades there us only 2 base to work at HFX and ESQ.  Everything else is temporary. 

Also the HPD only covers the hard sea trades.  Those of us in Log, MED, MET or any other ships crew who don't wear an anchor are not included.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Only the food portion was removed from SE.  The reasoning was that you have to buy your food at home, so buying it while on IR was not a significant hardship.  SE has never included compensation for travel back home (we have LTA for that).



Fair enough, but I don't really get the same economies of scale cooking for one I do at home.  That's not really a big deal for me, and I generally had at least lunch on the ship, but when a single IR posting cost about $14k/year of the allowances (that go direct to the landlord) and saved two full cost moves at $40-50k each, seems like a petty thing to cut.  The business case on it is pretty easy, as even a 4 year swing saves the CAF a lot.  Also completely screwed the people that had to stay on base that now had to pay the outrageously high meal plan costs, so for anyone on a course on SE it was pretty brutal.  Understand they changed that after about a year, but knew a few people that turned down career courses because they couldn't reasonably afford an extra $800 month for the meal plan on top of the other expenses that wrack up when your spouse is left behind (extra daycare etc).

I don't regret it; it was a high tempo job, with 6-7 day workweeks and lots of time at sea, so made sense.  I basically just banked my sea pay and used that to travel home on a few times and offset the other costs, but figure I was overall still out of pocket, so it's definitely not a way to make any money. 

As an aside, RCMP and other departments have the same benefit, but their capped monthly rate is almost double.  In Halifax that resulted in most of the nice furnished apartments being $800-$1000 higher than what is covered.  I was glad to find somewhere close enough that I could walk that didn't have bedbugs, and had a bbq so it wasn't bad.

Bit of a non-sequitur, but the only upside of the IR place was the bbqs on the back deck, and unwinding over some grill smoke and the odd beer there while chatting to the neighbors doing the same was one of the few bright spots in the series of 12+hour days away from home.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Apr 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but I don't really get the same economies of scale cooking for one I do at home.  That's not really a big deal for me, and I generally had at least lunch on the ship, but when a single IR posting cost about $14k/year of the allowances (that go direct to the landlord) and saved two full cost moves at $40-50k each, seems like a petty thing to cut.  The business case on it is pretty easy, as even a 4 year swing saves the CAF a lot.  Also completely screwed the people that had to stay on base that now had to pay the outrageously high meal plan costs, so for anyone on a course on SE it was pretty brutal.  Understand they changed that after about a year, but knew a few people that turned down career courses because they couldn't reasonably afford an extra $800 month for the meal plan on top of the other expenses that wrack up when your spouse is left behind (extra daycare etc).
> 
> I don't regret it; it was a high tempo job, with 6-7 day workweeks and lots of time at sea, so made sense.  I basically just banked my sea pay and used that to travel home on a few times and offset the other costs, but figure I was overall still out of pocket, so it's definitely not a way to make any money.
> 
> ...



Good post Pete.  I did 4 years on IR, Halifax - Kingston.  I feel your pain.  Its a good program and its very useful.  In my case I lived off base in the extreme west end of Kingston in a basement apartment.  Also there are those people out there who will make snide remarks about you being on IR or your spouses "inability to move".  Just shrug that off. 

I know I may be one of the few, but I really wanted to live in Barracks and eat at the mess, but the BComd had a policy that was a no go for that.  Give me free rations and quarters and let me buy my own net connection and I would be a happy dude.


----------

