# Class "A" duty Status



## Hotwire (14 Mar 2017)

So.. let's set the scenario... Class "A" reservist is on the way to a weekend exercise. Less then 1km from the place of duty they are involved in a head on collision for which they are 100% not at fault and cannot return to their regular full time employment or parading. This is directly attributable to their duty and training/service as directed and authorized by the CO.

The Chief clerk is denying the member of the reserve force compensation benefit.

Are reservist not covered under the "door to door" clause, where their on active duty while on direct route to their place of duty??


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2017)

Just off the top of my head, on the way for training or weekend ex is not 'active'. That may throw a wrench into the way you're looking at things.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (14 Mar 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just off the top of my head, on the way for training or weekend ex is not 'active'. That may throw a wrench into the way you're looking at things.



I've heard the exact opposite.

Reservists in transit for duty/training, both to and from, will be provided assistance/coverage.

We definitely need a definitive answer on this.


----------



## Hotwire (14 Mar 2017)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I've heard the exact opposite.
> 
> Reservists in transit for duty/training, both to and from, will be provided assistance/coverage.
> 
> We definitely need a definitive answer on this.



That's the thing... The soldiers CoC believe the same. The "door to door" clause. As long as it was travel directly to your place of duty. A CF98 was done, and signed off by the PL WO and CO. VAC paperwork also started as well as medical appointments at the local base hospital. There, they imposed restrictions  "light duties" on the soldier. With direction to follow up later.

This isn't me, I'm reg f. But it's a situation I'm involved in. And no one seems to want to give any answers, and the QR&O's are not very clear on the subject. Kind of "open to interpretation" .


----------



## dapaterson (14 Mar 2017)

QR&O 9.06:


> 9.06 - CLASS "A" RESERVE SERVICE
> 
> (1) A member of the Reserve Force is on Class "A" Reserve Service when the member is performing training or duty in circumstances other than those prescribed under articles 9.07 (Class "B" Reserve Service) and 9.08 (Class "C" Reserve Service).
> 
> ...



Therefore, per 9.06(2), if they were proceeding to their local HQ, then they are not covered; if they were headed elsewhere, they would be covered.

However, the term "local headquarters" is not defined anywhere, which can lead to challenges.

That said, however, the chief clerk does not determine who is covered by RFC (or GECA for that matter).  If he/she is refusing to prepare & submit the paperwork, order them to do so; if they disobey the order, that's what volume II of the QR&Os is for.


----------



## Hotwire (14 Mar 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> QR&O 9.06:
> Therefore, per 9.06(2), if they were proceeding to their local HQ, then they are not covered; if they were headed elsewhere, they would be covered.
> 
> However, the term "local headquarters" is not defined anywhere, which can lead to challenges.
> ...



Thank you, this was my "assumption" as well. The members units Chief clerk is the one who seems to be dictating what is and is not covered. Although I am NOT sure if that clerk is 100% sure of the process. We will be contacting the Local JPSU for further insight today.

I will keep this thread updated.


----------



## CampCricket (14 Mar 2017)

You are covered. I was blocked by the chief clerk at my unit. She would not initiate the paperwork and when I did, she prevented the commanding officer from receiving it. Her reason was she felt that any action should come from base health services which is wrong - but her not knowing and my showing her the policy - challenged her "authority" so she blocked it and convinced my OC that I was being a problem and didn't know what I was talking about. 

So you need to first try and escalate this through your chain of command to the CO. If the CO does not initiate the paperwork / do the investigating portion of the forms - send a complaint up to the military ombudsman. 

The ombudsman went to bat for me and I got my RFC plus a case manager to ensure local health services looked after me because you are likely to be dicked around by them because you are class A and no matter what veterans tells them - they fixate on that and try to redirect you to civilian care - which can be a problem as if this leads to a medical release - paper trail problems will occur which will impact benefits you maybe entitled to from VAC.  I was so thankful for my military case manger. Things could have went so sideways without her.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Mar 2017)

CampCricket said:
			
		

> You are covered.  . . .



The OP who provided the limited details of the scenario is not the individual involved in the accident.  The OP, according to his posts, is Reg Force.

Back when the Earth was cooling and I was the Adjt/DCO/CO (not all at the same time) of a reserve unit, there were a few incidents following which members requested RFC, including one which "may" be similar to the OP's scenario.  In that case the individual was involved in an accident on the way to the armoury.  As the incident had occurred prior to the scheduled reporting in time and he had not signed in, it was determined he was not on Class A service at the time of the accident and thus was not entitled to RFC.

On a tangential point, if RFC is processed for the member involved in this incident, he should be aware that the crown "may" make a claim against any settlement he receives from the other party to the accident or their (or his) insurance company.


----------



## Lumber (14 Mar 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, the term "local headquarters" is not defined anywhere, which can lead to challenges.



"Local Headquarters" has been assumed, from what I've seen, to take on the same meaning as normal workplace, or place of duty. However, this could also include a "temporary workplace" inside the member's place of duty. 

In any case, if the member wasn't heading to his home unit (armoury) for regular training and/or admin, then they should have been on Temporary Duty travel, in which case, he'd be travelling on duty, and he'd be covered, so long as he was taking the approved method of travel, as chosen by the approving authority.

No?


----------



## Lumber (14 Mar 2017)

CampCricket said:
			
		

> You are covered. I was blocked by the chief clerk at my unit. She would not initiate the paperwork and when I did, she prevented the commanding officer from receiving it. Her reason was she felt that any action should come from base health services which is wrong - but her not knowing and my showing her the policy - challenged her "authority" so she blocked it and convinced my OC that I was being a problem and didn't know what I was talking about.



Jesus man, do you not have an Adj at your unit? If I found out my Chief Clerk was stonewalling legitimate paperwork, or going past me straight to the CO/DCO with something like this, I'd be having some serious words with him. 

Also, and I don't mean to turn this into a Officer vs NCM debate, but in my 11 years in, in my opinion, for the most part, Officers are better at interpreting policy than NCMs (even Chief Clerks). Again, I'm not trying to take a dig at NCMs; it's not a matter of intelligence, just a matter of exposure. If anyone at the unit wants an understanding, interpretation, or official opinion on policy, it comes through me, not my Chief Clerk. Chief Clerks are great at applying policy, but they like to set-up little empires and don't like to move a lot.


----------



## runormal (14 Mar 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> "Local Headquarters" has been assumed, from what I've seen, to take on the same meaning as normal workplace, or place of duty. However, this could also include a "temporary workplace" inside the member's place of duty.
> 
> In any case, if the member wasn't heading to his home unit (armoury) for regular training and/or admin, then they should have been on Temporary Duty travel, in which case, he'd be travelling on duty, and he'd be covered, so long as he was taking the approved method of travel, as chosen by the approving authority.
> 
> No?



I've got two "what if's" for you.

Senario 1 Unit x hosts a DVR WHL at their local armouries for the brigade and invites units y,z,a,b and c to attend. A member from unit Z drives a member from unit X and they get into an accident on the way. Would only the member from unit Z be covered?


Scenario 2
Unit X is hosting a Recruitment event at a local HighSchool. 2 hours before the events starts it is discovered that the second LSVW will not start that Cpl  Bloggins was going to drive. Ops calls Cpl Bloggins and tells the member to meet at the local HighSchool instead. On the way to the highschool the member gets in a collision. The member would not be on TD. 

Would Cpl Bloggins be covered?


----------



## Hotwire (15 Mar 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The OP who provided the limited details of the scenario is not the individual involved in the accident.  The OP, according to his posts, is Reg Force.
> 
> Back when the Earth was cooling and I was the Adjt/DCO/CO (not all at the same time) of a reserve unit, there were a few incidents following which members requested RFC, including one which "may" be similar to the OP's scenario.  In that case the individual was involved in an accident on the way to the armoury.  As the incident had occurred prior to the scheduled reporting in time and he had not signed in, it was determined he was not on Class A service at the time of the accident and thus was not entitled to RFC.
> 
> On a tangential point, if RFC is processed for the member involved in this incident, he should be aware that the crown "may" make a claim against any settlement he receives from the other party to the accident or their (or his) insurance company.



You are correct, I am not the member involved. I have 18 years of service as a reg force member, so this reserve force stuff is very hazy to me. And trust me, I have done a LOT of research, and things are not getting any easier. AS some policy contradicts others, or are unclear or rescinded. 

Here is the story:

Cpl A was on her way to a Friday muster for the weekend exercise. She had all of her kit with her as per SOP. She was heading down a 4 lane divided highway, when someone crossed the grass median and collided with her head on. She was only 600m from her units armories. She was rushed to the hospital with injuries and in and out of consciousness. Her unit was notified, and the CSM and his driver immediatly came to the hospital. Within the next few days her OP's WO had her fill out and sign a CF98, along with statments from police and the CSM. The CO, CSM, OP's WO all indicated on the CF98 that it was directly attributed to duty.

Since then, The chief clerk has contradicted everything all 3 of her CoC has said, and has refused to initiate any medical paperwork. In one email she was told to apply for EI threw her full time employer. She has had appointments with the local base CDU, and was directed to contact VA and the JPSU. But to continue medical treatment via her family doctor. JPSU told her to contact VA right away.

See how confusing this is getting??


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 Mar 2017)

Hotwire said:
			
		

> Here is the story:
> 
> Cpl A was on her way to a Friday muster for the weekend exercise. She had all of her kit with her as per SOP. She was heading down a 4 lane divided highway, when someone crossed the grass median and collided with her head on. She was only 600m from her units armories. She was rushed to the hospital with injuries and in and out of consciousness. Her unit was notified, and the CSM and his driver immediatly came to the hospital. Within the next few days her OP's WO had her fill out and sign a CF98, along with statments from police and the CSM. The CO, CSM, OP's WO all indicated on the CF98 that it was directly attributed to duty.
> 
> ...



I'll preface my comments by saying that I am long retired, regulations have undoubtedly changed and the interpretation of same may have been modified since my time in the mob.

However, with your scenario taken at face value, at the moment I'm more in agreement with the interpretation of the Chief Clerk, however without further and complete information about the method said clerk is countermanding the wishes of her CO, I refrain from condemning her or suggesting she should be reprimanded.

My thought process:

The applicable CBI
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-210-misc-entitlements-grants.page#sec-72


> 210.72 - Reserve Force - Compensation During A Period Of Injury, Disease Or Illness
> 
> 210.72(1) (Definition) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this instruction:
> 
> ...



There are two specific elements in a claim.  Whether the individual was on "duty" (i.e. actually authorized to be on Class A service at the time of the accident) and whether the injuries sustained in the accident is attributable to military service.  My past experience was that weekend exercises in the Mo' were scheduled so that individuals were not authorized to sign in until a specific time (to keep Friday in the half day pay rate).  If the soldier in question was in an accident prior to signing in, then she was not on Class A reserve service at the time.  If her COC changed the circumstances of her pay to accommodate the difficulties she encountered, then they are probably wonderful gentlemen.  Wonderful gentlemen, yes, but liars all the same and should be charged for falsifying documents.

As to it being attributable to military service, unless things have changed since I last conducted an SI involving a member in an accident which occurred while commuting to/from work (and that was what your scenario involved), such accidents are not usually attributable to military service.  Your time to and from work is your time and what results during that time is not due to military orders.  While I wasn't able to find anything specific as a reference, this grievance was "somewhat, sorta" close.
https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2014-093.html


> The grievor was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving her child to daycare before proceeding to her workplace. Upon completion of a summary investigation (SI), the Director of Casualty Support and Administration (DCSA) ultimately concluded that the grievor was not on duty at the time of the accident, contrary to the SI finding, and that her injuries were not attributable to military service.



Now if her CO is adamant that she was on duty and her injuries were attributable to military service (in other words does not accept the interpretation of the Chief Clerk) then it is his prerogative, indeed his duty to order that the processing of the claim proceed.  However, he should have already received input from a legal officer who should have been immediately (within 48 hrs, anyway) notified IAW DAOD 7004-1 of the circumstances of the accident and the potentiality of a claim by the crown.


----------



## Lumber (15 Mar 2017)

IAW CF Temporary Duty Travel Instructions:



> 2.02 — DEFINITIONS — CFTDTI
> 
> “temporary duty (TD)” means:
> (a) an attachment — for less than 181 days — outside a member’s place of duty and includes duty travel for the purposes of that attachment; or
> ...




So, if the member was proceeding to a temporary workplace (i.e. the field) then the travel _to_ the temporary workplace would be considered Temporary Duty travel, and she would be covered.

However,

Temporary Duty travel must be approved in advance, and it can only be approved by an appropriate Approving Authority. For travel within 100km, that can be the RC Manager, for all other travel, only the CO can approve such travel. Now, the Approving Authority doesn't just "approve" the travel, they:



> (2) (Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode — or combination of modes — of transportation on duty travel



An approving authority cannot select a personal vehicle as the approved method of travel; they can only "request" that a member use their own vehicle, if for whatever reason the CO thinks that's the most appropriate method. However, 





> (4) (Refusal of request) A member cannot be ordered and is never obliged to use a PMV for duty travel.



If the approving authority selects a different mode of transportation (say, he organizes a bus to drive everyone to the Range), and the member requests to use their personal vehicle, then a cost comparison can be drawn up, and the member can be permitted to take their personal vehicle on duty travel (although they won't get the full kilometric rate). The key thing is, this has to be done in advance!

However, if the Approving Authority selects one method of travel (say a bus), and the member decides to drive themselves in their own car without receiving permission in advance, then they would not be considered to have been on duty while traveling, because they did not utilize.

So, what this boils down to in this situation is:

1. What was the approved method of travel selected by the approving authority for the members of your unit to proceed to this temporary workplace?;
2. Did the member request in advance to use PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation?
3. Was any or all of this arranged in advance?


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Mar 2017)

1. I think QR&O 9.07 applies.

2. The CO needs to initiate an SI. There needs to be a clear determination between being on duty and a military nexus.

3. You need a new Chief Clerk. Someone needs to say "You will forward the paperwork and let the experts decide. End of discussion."

4. See if you can reach out to someone at DCSM for some unofficial advice.

5. You need a new clerk.


----------



## AirDet (15 Mar 2017)

I'm not an expert on reserves, however... the chief clerk has no say in this. It's VAC who will determine what the member is eligible for or not.

The member should submit his CF98 and keep a copy.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Mar 2017)

The issue could be that if the member is getting medical treatment for a duty-related injury, they're entitled to sign paysheets to cover that time. The CC in this case is likely not allowing the member to be paid for the medical treatment.


----------



## AirDet (15 Mar 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The issue could be that if the member is getting medical treatment for a duty-related injury, they're entitled to sign paysheets to cover that time. The CC in this case is likely not allowing the member to be paid for the medical treatment.



I could see that. We have redress of grievance for just such reasons.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Mar 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The issue could be that if the member is getting medical treatment for a duty-related injury, they're entitled to sign paysheets to cover that time. The CC in this case is likely not allowing the member to be paid for the medical treatment.



The Chief Clerk is not the arbiter of who gets paid. That falls to the CO, and in this case, the regulations are  crystal clear.

Has either of the member's OC or RSM gone directly to the CO? I am challenged to understand how this situation has persisted.


----------



## Flavus101 (15 Mar 2017)

I also am very confused why this is still in limbo...

It is absolutely ridiculous that situations like this even occur. I think that there needs to be a sit-down with the relevant people all in the same room so that all the details can be properly aired and a decision reached. This bullshit does absolutely nothing to help the injured member and tarnishes the CAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Mar 2017)

There are a few things about this, centered around the C Clerk.

- the unit has a 'full time staff'.  My experience is the Adjt, usually the RSS O, runs the show when the Cl A CofC isn't around and communicates regularly with the CO for decisions that he/she can't look after.

- if the CO doesn't find clear answers, has anyone went to the Bde HQ G1, etc for guidance?

- RSS types usually reported (informally?) to the Reg Force folks at the Bde for career management stuff when I was at the CBG HQ; if there was a Reg F RSS WO/Sgt at a cbt arms unit, they were tied formally, or informally, to the Bde G3.  There was also a Superintendent Clerk (was a Reg F MWO) at the Bde HQ.  If the C Clerk is not playing nice in the sandbox, the Adjt could also make formal/informal inquiries to that person as well, for their professional opinion on the conduct/actions of the C Clerk.

Last comment, if the chief clerk is being an idiot and not following orders, are we that scared of ourselves now we are reluctant to take disciplinary/admin action against a mbr, Reg or Res, who clearly is demonstrating conduct and/or performance deficiencies?  Why just fire the tool (if they are being a tool), only to hand them over to the next unit who then has to deal with them?  If its broke...fix it.


----------



## Hotwire (13 Feb 2019)

There has been NO movement in this situation, VAC has actually come back to her to ask about the progress. She has had 2 or 3 different assisting officers. The ball keeps getting passed around. Were 2 years into this now, and Still not sure where to go or what the status is of ANY of the paperwork. And its not a matter of just walking up to the RSM or CO, as they are in two different Cities... one of them on an island.


----------



## brihard (13 Feb 2019)

Hotwire said:
			
		

> There has been NO movement in this situation, VAC has actually come back to her to ask about the progress. She has had 2 or 3 different assisting officers. The ball keeps getting passed around. Were 2 years into this now, and Still not sure where to go or what the status is of ANY of the paperwork. And its not a matter of just walking up to the RSM or CO, as they are in two different Cities... one of them on an island.



Grievance time. Should have happened two years ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Feb 2019)

Hotwire said:
			
		

> There has been NO movement in this situation, VAC has actually come back to her to ask about the progress. She has had 2 or 3 different assisting officers. The ball keeps getting passed around. Were 2 years into this now, and Still not sure where to go or what the status is of ANY of the paperwork. And its not a matter of just walking up to the RSM or CO, as they are in two different Cities... one of them on an island.



Is the Bde HQ not involved/tracking this?  It seems above a simple unit level issue now.  Just wondering if it has gone on to the Bde and / or Div yet...


----------

