# Question regarding Casual Civillian Dress Allowance



## Hurricane (11 Nov 2011)

I am curious to know if CCDA has truly been abolished, or if the orderly room clerk simply did not want to deal with my question.

I was on course in Texas about a year ago, 5 days long. On this course, civilian clothes was the ordered dress. I received 5 days CCDA.

I am now going on course in North Carolina, 2 days long. Also civilian clothes only, however the clerk has informed me that CCDA no longer exists.

Could someone in the Clerk world shed some light on this for me?

I looked up the CBI, and I believe the instance would relate to Table A of CBI 205.575 Serial 7:

205.575 - CASUAL CIVILIAN DRESS
ASSISTANCE
205.575 - INDEMNITÉ DE TENUE CIVILE
OCCASIONNELLE
205.575(1) (Eligibility) Subject to paragraph (4),
an officer or non-commissioned member of the
Regular Force or Reserve Force who is required
to wear civilian dress for at least 70% of their
normal working hours for a period of less than 365
days is entitled to Casual Civilian Dress
Assistance Allowance (CCDAA) in the amount of
$6.30 for each day when the member performs
duties or service as per Table "A":

Serial 7: "Military service on secondment to another government department, agency or
private sector organization in a civilian setting in which the wearing of uniform
dress is unacceptable to the employing organization."


----------



## ballz (11 Nov 2011)

Are you seriously trying to get $12.60 because you are going to be wearing civies for 2 days?


----------



## Hurricane (11 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Are you seriously trying to get $12.60 because you are going to be wearing civies for 2 days?



Its the principle.


----------



## medicineman (11 Nov 2011)

Weirdness - never been given a civilian clothing allowance for ANY course I've been on that required me to wear civilian clothes...I was just happy not to have to tote around two separate wardrobes and to be able to relax a bit...but that's just me.

There's an old saying about picking your battles - you might want to think about it.  Clerks have long memories.

MM


----------



## Cansky (11 Nov 2011)

Serial 7: "Military service on secondment to another government department, agency or
private sector organization in a civilian setting in which the *wearing of uniform
dress is unacceptable to the employing organization*."

This is the catch all phrase.  If the organization running the course is willing to put in writing that your wearing of the uniform is unacceptable then you would get the allowance.   I would be surprised if any organization would state this in this day and age. Went thru this with my 6B student who spend the entire 2nd year of the course in civilian settings wearing civilian clothes.  Posed the question and guess what not one organization was against this.  Thus my students wear civilians with no allowance or DEU's their choice.  No has since asked for the allowance.


----------



## Hurricane (11 Nov 2011)

So, say an email from the organization stating that the dress is civilian clothes ONLY would suffice?


----------



## Cansky (11 Nov 2011)

I would talk to the orderly room first before you send an email out.  Remember that this may have been given out to you in error the previous time and if you push this issue you may have to pay money back.  Careful where one treads.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (11 Nov 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> So, say an email from the organization stating that the dress is civilian clothes ONLY would suffice?


It would be better if they said that the "wearing of uniform dress is unacceptable" for reason xyz.  Removes any doubt as to the entitlement.  I'm curious why the CF is sending you somewhere that won't permit uniform?


----------



## xena (12 Nov 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Clerks have long memories.



Just as much as the Clerks' bosses have long memories too.  Regardless of whether the OP is entitled or not, any clerk that was just too lazy to _*even try*_ to get a member any sort of benefit, big or small, would've had my size 12 up their backside for a very long time!  And it would fit, provided the requisite amount of _*force*_!

If any CF member got short-changed, it was professional.  If it was a member of my unit, it was personal.  I truly hope their are clerks out there who still take pride in what they do...


----------



## medicineman (12 Nov 2011)

ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> Just as much as the Clerks' bosses have long memories too.  Regardless of whether the OP is entitled or not, any clerk that was just too lazy to _*even try*_ to get a member any sort of benefit, big or small, would've had my size 12 up their backside for a very long time!  And it would fit, provided the requisite amount of _*force*_!
> 
> If any CF member got short-changed, it was professional.  If it was a member of my unit, it was personal.  I truly hope their are clerks out there who still take pride in what they do...



Demanding 12 bucks and change that you may not in fact be entitled to, based solely on "it's the principle", isn't going to win you any friends in the clerk world (or any other) - and yes Ivan, I've read your profile.  If you can look me in the eye and say that you haven't at least thought about sending someone's pay docs to Sioux Lookout (when we had both) accidentally on purpose at one point in your life, I'd still call you a liar, because we all commit thought crimes - just that most of us do our best to work around them.  

Your job isn't to cater to people's whims, it's to ensure that regulations are met regarding what they get as a result of a given TD and to aid them in successfully getting there and back.  If they're entitled to something, sure they should get it...but the "I got it last time, so I should get it this time" syndrome that happens alot (and it happens in my job all the time too BTW) will create a relationship where nobody wants to talk to the customer ever again, or worse, mistakes get made...sometimes to the detriment of the member, sometimes the clerk, sometimes both.  Also, it wastes time doing mentally challenged pub searches when other things need doing.

BTW, I'm married to an RMS clerk who works like a demon, as does her co-worker and a majority of the clerks and other support trades in the service.  The problem lies in the fact that their client base, IMHO, has become increasingly more demanding and has developed a deep sense of self-entitlement.

To the OP and to amplify Lex - unless it breaks OPSEC/PERSEC of course - out of curiosity, what course would an MSE Op be doing  in North Carolina for 2 days in civilian clothing only?  

MM

Edited for spelliing and content.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Nov 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> Its the principle.



And not because you have a hard-on for clerks?



> Military Administration / Re: Promotion Requirements (OSB -> AB)
> « on: July 13, 2011, 18:52:16 »
> If there is one thing I have learned in my career so far, you need to stay on top of ALL of your Admin by yourself. The RMS trade has its fair share of gluebags as well. I could go on about that in an entire new thread but I will leave it at that. (PS that was not intended as an insult to the RMS trase as I know some excellent clerks, only to the gluebags.)


----------



## Occam (12 Nov 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> To the OP and to amplify Lex - unless it breaks OPSEC/PERSEC of course - out of curiosity, what course would an MSE Op be doing  in North Carolina for 2 days in civilian clothing only?



Wild stab in the dark, but CP comes to mind...


----------



## Pusser (12 Nov 2011)

Casual Civilian Dress *Assistance* does still exist, so if a clerk is tell you otherwise, he/she is wrong (which is a problem which should dealt with by the clerk's supervisor).  Regardless of actual entitlement, members should not be given incorrect information

However, based on the information the OP has given, I'm not convinced it would apply in this case.  Without more detail, it is difficult to determine if the member is prohibited from wearing a uniform or merely being given the option of not wearing one.  My reading of CBI 205.575 is that uniforms must be prohibited, not merely discouraged.  This would also be an issue for discussion between the "employing agency" and the applicable Base Commander (the approving authority).  Furthermore, is an agency providing a course, which the CF presumably pays tuition for, an "employing agency" for the purposes of this CBI (since they're providing a service and not actually employing the member).  I also find it difficult to believe that any organization in the US, particularly one with which the CF would be dealing, would prohibit a military uniform.  That country is absolutely enamoured, particularly in its corporate culture, with all things military.

Another thing to keep in mind with CCDA is that in reading the whole regulation, it is clear that you are expected to actually buy or alter clothing.  If you don't actually use it, you have to report it as income to CRA and pay taxes on it.  Dry cleaning doesn't count (says so in the regulation).  Not so lucrative now.

Having said all this, I do recall the SHARP training we did years ago in Halifax where uniforms were definitely prohibited (people who arrived in uniform were sent away).  None of us received CCDA, but it appears now that we should have...


----------



## Hurricane (12 Nov 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And not because you have a hard-on for clerks?



No actually quite the opposite, I have had many helpful clerks. On the other hand, I have had many that would rather check status updates on facebook, help with your issue. I did not go in "demanding" anything. Nor did I use the "I got it last time, why not this time?" line either. That was merely included in my post to put the situation into context.

What in fact happened was, I simply inquired about CCDAA when picking up my claim and pasport. To which the clerk replied, "what is that?" That right there tells me I am not getting it because they have no clue what it is, however after telling her what CCDAA stands for. She fumbles around with some words and then says "No they got rid of that, and its not long enough anyway." 

It's not so much about the 12 and change, it's about telling people you don't know if you do not. Not try and find an answer that seems to sound believeable.


----------



## Scott (12 Nov 2011)

I'm starting to feel reminiscent of the socks-required-in-the-mess debate...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Nov 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> No actually quite the opposite, I have had many helpful clerks. On the other hand, *I have had many that would rather check status updates on facebook,* help with your issue. I did not go in "demanding" anything. Nor did I use the "I got it last time, why not this time?" line either. That was merely included in my post to put the situation into context.
> 
> What in fact happened was, I simply inquired about CCDAA when picking up my claim and pasport. To which the clerk replied, "what is that?" That right there tells me I am not getting it because they have no clue what it is, however after telling her what CCDAA stands for. She fumbles around with some words and then says "No they got rid of that, and its not long enough anyway."
> 
> It's not so much about the 12 and change, it's about telling people you don't know if you do not. Not try and find an answer that seems to sound believeable.



Is this wild speculation or can you get FB on the DIN now?


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is this wild speculation or can you get FB on the DIN now?



Yes, if you have iAccess.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Nov 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yes, if you have iAccess.



And how common is that for lowly clerks?


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Nov 2011)

Don't know.  It seems to be on most computers now.

Not to mention, a lot of people have internet access on their personal cell phones.


----------



## MJP (12 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And how common is that for lowly clerks?



Very common, I would be more surprised if they couldn't access their FB.


----------



## Occam (12 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And how common is that for lowly clerks?



iAccess is no longer in trial, and should be on all DWAN workstations.


----------



## Hurricane (12 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is this wild speculation or can you get FB on the DIN now?



I don't know what this IAccess is, what I know is when you can clearly make out the facebook log-in page on a Orderly Room, CQ, etc computer.


----------



## Occam (12 Nov 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> I don't know what this IAccess is, what I know is when you can clearly make out the facebook log-in page on a Orderly Room, CQ, etc computer.



iAccess is just a program that gives you relatively unfettered access to the internet via the DWAN (except for streaming video, and blocked sites such as porn and other adult content).  Before iAccess, you couldn't get to a lot of internet sites just because they weren't whitelisted for access.  Now, access to the internet is managed by iAccess, and is restricted by blacklisting and content-based, such as streaming video.

/tangent


----------



## xena (12 Nov 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> If you can look me in the eye and say that you haven't at least thought about sending someone's pay docs to Sioux Lookout (when we had both) accidentally on purpose at one point in your life, I'd still call you a liar, because we all commit thought crimes - just that most of us do our best to work around them.



Of course, I've thought about doing that, and worse!  I've come close to actually sabotaging the lives of some professional pains in the posterior.  Luckily, I've always stopped myself, but I'm no stranger to that temptation.  Just as I will readily admit I've been tempted to "fix" the leave records of my friends when they were nothing more than pencil inscriptions on file folders and would have been tremendously easy to alter and there would have been no way to prove it fraudulent in the first place (handwriting style is easy to falsify if one thinks about it for a while).  So, yeah, I'm no saint.



> BTW, I'm married to an RMS clerk who works like a demon, as does her co-worker and a majority of the clerks and other support trades in the service.



I'm thrilled to hear it's still that way!  I have to admit, from my personal experience, I've met clerks who re-mustered into the trade because they thought it'd be an easy way to pass a parade night with their feet up on a desk, and they actually got upset when work was demanded of them.  I recall an incident when, as a Corporal, I pushed a Master Corporal out of the way (only _kind_ of politely - I was a bit PO'ed because she was either too lazy or too dumb to do her job right) when she was giving a Warrant Officer at the OR counter wrong information and a needless run-around.  Lucky for me, the Chief Clerk at the time saw things from the point of view of the Warrant Officer, and I avoided the hatless dance for insubordination.  That and the fact that she really shouldn't have had the leaf at the time - the only reason she had it was she made that rank as a Musician, and when she remustered to Clerk looking for an easier job (?!?!) the powers that be decided that she could keep the leaf as an incentive to keep regularly parading (IIRC she had an interview later with the C Clk that didn't involve coffee strangely enough...).  But, yes, those clerks that are "better employed as door-stops" are few and far between because the CoC and the clerks themselves get rid of them in short order.

However, lack of competency occurs in all trades.  Just because there was a medic in Wainwright while I was there on my JLC, who wasn't interested in doing any checking, other than listen to my description of symptoms, who told me I had nothing more than a cold and threatened to charge me with malingering if I came back to the MIR doesn't mean all medics aren't doing their job.  Apparently, walking pneumonia can just go away after a while, but it would've been better with anti-biotics.  I had medics on the course with me, and they recognized what it was, but this guy in the MIR seemed to have better things to do.  I can imagine that you, MM, would've taken a dim view of that medic's actions and attitude, but that incident hardly indicates problems with the entire trade.

If the OP is entitled to this benefit, he's entitled.  If he's not, he's not.  The clerk's workload, mood, or Facebook status, or anything else like that, is irrelevant.  If he's told that he's not entitled by someone who isn't terribly convincing that they know what they're talking about, it makes sense to check with the NCO i/c BnOR or Chief Clerk.  That's what I'd do.  If he's still told that he's not entitled to it - the poor muffin will just have to get over it.  I'm just saying any clerk who resorts to making stuff up just to "get rid" of someone at the OR counter doesn't deserve to be a clerk.  I don't know if the clerk was right or wrong in this case.  From some of the answers posted on this thread the answer seems to be a "maybe", dependant on whether this member is truly forbidden to wear uniform on this course or not.  Until that's answered, no one knows whether he's entitled to it or not.


----------



## Scott (12 Nov 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> iAccess is just a program that gives you relatively unfettered access to the internet via the DWAN (except for streaming video, and blocked sites such as porn and other adult content).



Did a lot of trying to find your way around that then, eh?  ;D


----------



## Occam (12 Nov 2011)

Scott said:
			
		

> Did a lot of trying to find your way around that then, eh?  ;D



Ah, no.  My experience in the matter was as the cat, not as the mouse.


----------

