# Eligibility date for free R & Q due to marriage?



## MamaBear (20 Oct 2008)

My daughter was posted to PRETC after her BMQ to await a course.  She managed to get temporarily posted back to the base in our hometown.  During that time (3 months) she got married and is now back in Borden awaiting course.  She filed all the paperwork regarding her change in status, but has been told by the Orderly Room that she will still be charged R & Q (and not get Separation Allowance) because she got married after her change of strength to Borden.  Apparently she can apply for these benefits 1 year after her date of marriage.

That's a large chunk of money.  I don't understand the logic of waiting one year after marriage to get those benefits.  Can someone explain this to me?


----------



## formerarmybrat23 (20 Oct 2008)

Ah PRETC.......they love to do this to people.
date of COS should make no difference shes married and therefore must now support another person and a home. Im not sure of the exact references but i will search the qr&o's and other texts tomorrow at work. if she submits a memo with the references to back it up they cant  really deny her. worst comes to worst when she goes on course she will have to fill out all the same papers she did on PRETC and may be able to get paid back what pretc isnt paying her now. at our units we just fought and won for some sappers that were being charged for rations and quarters during there ql3s and got them alot of money back. in either case i will look it up. this kind of stuff kills me.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2008)

Unfortunately the rules for Separation Allowance are quite clear cut.  It was her decision to get married after her posting to Borden.  The fact that it was her decision is the central factor here.  Had she been married before her posting and was "forced" to be separated from her spouse, then she would be eligible.  As she was not "forced" to do so, but "made the decision to do so herself", she is not.  She may have to wait until her next posting to be eligible, if her spouse does not join her in the meantime.

I have been separated from my spouse for several years, and not eligible for IR or Separation Allowance for just those reasons.  It was our choice in our search for employment, and not due to CF postings.


----------



## Grunt_031 (20 Oct 2008)

It is the same for Furniture and Effects as well. I was posted to Gagetown and married my first wife 3 months later who was in a second location. No R&Q or separation expense and when I did move her down we had to pay for it out of our own pocket. Its all about the timing.


----------



## MamaBear (20 Oct 2008)

Pte Brat - I would really appreciate any checking you can do - somehow it doesn't make sense to me.

George - I do understand that the decision to marry was hers (and his too - no shotgun wedding here  )  But they purposely took the opportunity to get married now without much pomp and ceremony because of the uncertainty of future postings, etc.  She would have loved to have done the whole big wedding thing, but that's rather hard to plan around courses, OJT and postings.

I think the sticking point for them is the rations and quarters she still has to pay.  They own a home together here now and that mortgage still has to be paid.

Thank you all for your input.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2008)

MamaBear said:
			
		

> George - I do understand that the decision to marry was hers (and his too - no shotgun wedding here  )  But they purposely took the opportunity to get married now without much pomp and ceremony because of the uncertainty of future postings, etc.  She would have loved to have done the whole big wedding thing, but that's rather hard to plan around courses, OJT and postings.
> 
> I think the sticking point for them is the rations and quarters she still has to pay.  They own a home together here now and that mortgage still has to be paid.



As have so many others.  Again, it was not the CF that made this decision, it was the young couple.  The CF is well regulated.  I can be crass and say that CF is not a Welfare Plan.  In today's CF, even more so than in the past, the "Bean Counters" are there to save as much as they can.  They enforce the regulations that were put into place a long time ago.  If your daughter gets a break, then all the rest of us want one too.  Do you see where that takes us?

Just as a matter of interest, MamaBear, when I was separated, I was paying two mortgages, as well as all my utilities, etc.  All part of life and learning to manage your finances.


----------



## Run away gun (20 Oct 2008)

Regardless of being married or single, if you have proof of a mortgage you are paying in one location (ie where you enlisted) while being posted to another, you can claim your quarters expense and get reimbursed for it.


----------



## Strike (21 Oct 2008)

There is also the issue as to whether or not your daughter has taken her initial move from her place of enrollment.  This may affect the whole R & Q thing wrt her now being married.  I don't know.  I'm not a clerk.  Just throwing ideas out there.


----------



## MamaBear (21 Oct 2008)

George - I appreciate your take on it, and in part, agree with you.  I found it strange that a married person would not have to pay for rations.  They have to pay to eat somewhere - either back at home (increasing the grocery budget) or on base.  But as the rule DOES exist that married people don't have to pay for rations, I can't fathom the difference in being married before or after you are enrolled.  Either way, you eat.  And this particularly sticks in my craw because my daughter (all 115 lbs of her) MAY eat about $100.00 in food a month.  But she pays $425 a month at Borden.  I know, I know.... it's like insurance.  You are paying for all the 6'5", 200 lb guys...and for all the married people (of which she is now one) who are exempt from paying R & Q.   I will say though George, that you must have been living on macaroni (without the cheese) during your double mortgage days!  And you are indeed correct.  Life is about planning for the unexpected and managing those finances.

Run Away Gun - Thanks for the information about the quarters expense.  I'll mention that to her the next time she phones.

Strike - She just enrolled in February of this year and after finishing BMQ and SQ is awaiting her trade training.  So, no, she hasn't moved anything.  

Thanks again for everyone's expertise and opinions.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

MamaBear said:
			
		

> My daughter was posted to PRETC after her BMQ to await a course.  She managed to get temporarily posted back to the base in our hometown.  During that time (3 months) she got married and is now back in Borden awaiting course.  She filed all the paperwork regarding her change in status, but has been told by the Orderly Room that she will still be charged R & Q (and not get Separation Allowance) because she got married after her change of strength to Borden.  Apparently she can apply for these benefits 1 year after her date of marriage.
> 
> That's a large chunk of money.  I don't understand the logic of waiting one year after marriage to get those benefits.  Can someone explain this to me?



The first thing she should do is ask for the reference that clearly states this policy they are going off of.

As an example, CFLRS has tried to pull fast ones on SE entitlements and free R & Q.  Once it involved an ex of mine, and after I involved the Comptroller from my unit as a SME, the problem went away and the benefits were paid retro.  This was AFTER she was sworn in, had already been in SJ for a few months, and the Common Law Status papers that were signed by my CO 2 months after her swearing-in were dated 'effective Date X' which was previous to her even being sworn in.  The whole issue of SE entitlement was the result of a CFLRS policy that did NOT follow DCBA/CF policy.  I can only imagine the amount of inexperienced CF mbrs who have wrongly had an benefit/entitlement denied them because they didn't know how the system works, or how to work the system.  This is a pet peeve of mine and it drives me out of my mind.

Bottom line, until it is shown in black and white in a current policy, the rest of the stuff you've read is opinions only, until such time as someone provides a reference to back up their words.

However, as a starting point, she can look at the DCBA (Directorate of Compensation Benefits Administration) website.  There is a ton of info on the site, however, they do have the DCBA Aide Memoire.

I have a friend who is an RMS Clerk MCpl in Borden, I will email her tomorrow and see what she says, she's always up on the current policy.  

As I said, the best thing she can do is request a copy of the DCBA policy they are getting this from, as DCBA is ever-changing creature and policies exist that haven't made it to all places/mbrs.  It should be easy enough for them to provide that, and if they can't/don't, then something sounds wrong.

Lastly, PRETC doesn't have the best reputation for looking after its people, and thats speaking from several cases I have researched and provided references to where troops there were getting screwed by their own CoC.  Thats not on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

Pte  Brat said:
			
		

> Ah PRETC.......they love to do this to people.
> date of COS should make no difference shes married and therefore must now support another person and a home. Im not sure of the exact references but i will search the qr&o's and other texts tomorrow at work. if she submits a memo with the references to back it up they cant  really deny her. worst comes to worst when she goes on course she will have to fill out all the same papers she did on PRETC and may be able to get paid back what pretc isnt paying her now. at our units we just fought and won for some sappers that were being charged for rations and quarters during there ql3s and got them alot of money back. in either case i will look it up. this kind of stuff kills me.



I know there is a seperate policy WRT Seperation Allowance and mbr's not yet QL3 qualified, I've seen it.  If a mbr does not have their F & E in storage at public expense, they were entitled to SA/SE whichever you call it.  Ring a bell?  In my ex's case, she didn't maintain a residence so she was not entitled to free R & Q but did get retro SA/SE.

My former Comptroller dug it up for me but that was 2 years ago now, I no longer have that.


----------



## MamaBear (21 Oct 2008)

Hi Eye...gee that rhymes  

Thanks for the suggestions.  I'll have her ask for the documentation supporting their ruling regarding her being married after her COS.  Although she (being an untrained private) will have to work up the nerve to ask again as she thinks she's making waves.

If you find anything that will help, I'll certainly appreciate it.  I really don't mind rules. They're there for a reason. But when there is such a divergence in opinions and loopholes, that makes me crazy.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Oct 2008)

MamaBear, I would suggest your daughter to dig up the references herself with the help of her staff.  However, I would not just go to the staff and ask a reference.  If she can build up a good case for her, then it should be no problem to get things straighten out.  

Generally, people don't like being asked things that the requestee could do him/herself.


----------



## MamaBear (21 Oct 2008)

Well, I did some reading as Eye suggested.  The Aide Memoire from 07 does actually have the rule.  In paragraph 7.4 under the Temporary Relocation heading it reads:

7.4 Marriage or Common Law after COS date:
There is no entitlement to SA except for service couples as per paragraph 3.2 above.  Since they aren't a service couple, I guess that means she must pay rations.

I guess the only hope now is the rule that Eye in the Sky mentioned in his post - 





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know there is a seperate policy WRT Seperation Allowance and mbr's not yet QL3 qualified, I've seen it.  If a mbr does not have their F & E in storage at public expense, they were entitled to SA/SE whichever you call it.  Ring a bell?  In my ex's case, she didn't maintain a residence so she was not entitled to free R & Q but did get retro SA/SE.
> 
> My former Comptroller dug it up for me but that was 2 years ago now, I no longer have that.



And Max... good suggestion!


----------



## exgunnertdo (21 Oct 2008)

MamaBear - you mentioned in one of your posts that your daughter and her husband own a house together.  Were they living together before she enrolled?  How long?  

If they were common law for a year prior to enrolling, then she should have been treated as married the whole time.  

If she owned the house before enrolling, then she shouldn't have been paying the "Quarters" part of R&Q.  If she has purchased the house since enrolling, she may be out of luck.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Oct 2008)

MamaBear, according to the same section of the DCBA Aide Memoire you quoted, she may be entitled to the low rate of separation allowance only.



> *3.2 Service Couple (SC) Married or Common Law After the Change of Strength (COS) Date*
> 
> When the marriage or common law partnership recognition is after the COS date, the benefit is limited to the low rate of SA. There is no reimbursement for accommodation or meals. Only one member of the SC may claim SA at any time, while the other possesses the HG&E in their principal residence.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> MamaBear, I would suggest your daughter to dig up the references herself with the help of her staff.  However, I would not just go to the staff and ask a reference.  If she can build up a good case for her, then it should be no problem to get things straighten out.
> 
> Generally, people don't like being asked things that the requestee could do him/herself.



NO NCO worth the air they breathe should turn away an untrained Pte asking for assistance.  I said ask for the reference because on PRETC, it is safe to assume that this person doesn't have a Forces account and access to the DIN, or even a lick of a clue where to start...hence why I gave a link to the DCBA site and the Aide Memoire.   

I know normally in the case of young Officers, they are expected to be able to do this on their own and it is something they should be able to do for themselves (and their subordinates), which is where I think the message in your post comes from, but life as a Junior Officer and a Pte(R) are very different and the expectations of both are equally different.

Junior Officers have the abililty to pull in their Snr NCOs/WOs expertise, that of peers, and that of more experienced Officers...a young Pte(R) does not have those tools in his/her belt as readily.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> MamaBear - you mentioned in one of your posts that your daughter and her husband own a house together.  Were they living together before she enrolled?  How long?
> 
> If they were common law for a year prior to enrolling, then she should have been treated as married the whole time.
> 
> If she owned the house before enrolling, then she shouldn't have been paying the "Quarters" part of R&Q.  If she has purchased the house since enrolling, she may be out of luck.



And if that is the case, CFAO 19-41 covers the CF policy on Common Law Relationships.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Oct 2008)

At the looks of it, there may be some information that was omitted in this discusion.  

When the issue of Common-Law is brought into the picture, there may be justification.  Again the dates of the Common-Law relationship must be proven with documentation, such as Utility Bills and Mortgage papers clearly showing "joint" possession of a home or apartment.  Those dates will have to predate her enrolment and posting to Borden and be according to the legal definition of when a Common-Law relationship becomes fact.  

If she provides all the information to the NCO who is helping her, then perhaps a solution to the problem will be found.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

Mamabear,

I just got off the phone with my RMS clerk friend (she is in a cell that deals with PRETC troops to some degree or the other as it turns out), she pointed me immediately to the exact reference you found in the Aide Memoire.  She then also said if they own a house, she shouldn't be paying for her quarters but will have to pay for rations.  

I then asked about the Common Law status.  If they meet the requirements under CFAO 19-41, and their common law status would be effective prior to her COS date, that would change the entire outcome.

Also, the last point she made was that when she is done of her course, and posted, she will have a new COS date, and on that COS date, she would have been previously married and maintained a residence, and as a now-QL3 qualified mbr of her trade, she will be entitled to posting allowance, etc which she will get all the details from this via CF IRP.

There are many many many rules and regulations, some of them covered in CBIs, some in the QR & Os, some in the DAODs, CFAOs, etc etc and to be properly informed, you should always have the reference that states clearly if there is/is not an entitlement.  

While I was on the phone, I asked my friend if they get annoyed if/when people ask for the reference that states where there is no entitlement and she said "no, we don't get annoyed at that, we do get pissed off at the people that try to get around what the reg's say once we have shown them to them though".  

So, now the question is...do they qualify for Common Law Status?  It is important to note Para 5 of CFAO 19-41, which states:

_5.     The continuous period of at least one year referred to in subparagraph (2)(c) of  QR&O 1.075 may include periods of involuntary separation for such reasons as temporary duty, attached posting or unaccompanied posting (eg, a six-month UN tour). However, the couple must have resided together as husband and wife during the remainder of the one-year period ._

So, short version of that, if they were living together before she left for BMQ, the time they lived together AND the time they have lived apart involuntarily (i.e. since she has been away on training) counts.

However, also very important is the wording of Para 3:

_A commanding officer *may*, upon application by a member in the manner prescribed in orders issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff, recognize the member's common-law relationship where the member establishes by affidavit or statutory declaration signed by both persons in the relationship that they..._

The *may* means its the CO's decision, period.  

Hope this helps some.

Worst case scenario is this is a temp situation that will (should) not happen again after she completes QL3 and is posted.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

MamaBear said:
			
		

> I guess the only hope now is the rule that Eye in the Sky mentioned in his post -



Mamabear,

I did some digging and wasn't able to find the specific policy I was speaking about after a goodly amount of time, and I just found out why.  Reference the DCBA 3 POLICY MSGS CANCELLATION - 2007, Para 1(d), the "CLARIFICATION OF SEPARATION EXPENSE (SE) AND RATIONS AND QUARTERS (R AND Q) AT PUBLIC EXPENSE - ENTITLEMENTS FOR RECRUITS" is now cancelled.

Question...is your daughter *posted* to Borden or *attached posted*?  It is possible she is attach posted, depending on her MOC.  I had a friend who was posted to Kingston and attached posted to PRETC in Borden while he waited for his courses at CFSCE.

If the answer is attached posted, go back to the DCBA Aide Memoire and read Chapter 3...if Chapter 2 (TR) doesn't apply, perhaps Chapter 3 - Attached Postings might if she is even APd.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And if that is the case, CFAO 19-41 covers the CF policy on Common Law Relationships.



You learn something new everyday. 

It seems CFA0 19-41 has been superseded by:

Internet site:  ADM (HR-Mil) Instruction 15/06 (MS Word file)

Intranet/DIN site:  ADM (HR-Mil) Instruction 15/06 (.pdf file)


----------



## MamaBear (21 Oct 2008)

I see that Common Law has been brought up.  My daughter and her hubby were NOT common law before her enrollment, so that information has no bearing upon her situation.  Sorry for not catching that in the conversation sooner, but I just got back into the house.  They only became common law in July (which is less than the required year, I believe ) while she was attach posted or TD'd to her hometown base.  

I will still have her look into all the avenues you have all suggested.  But, as Eye in the Sky said she may just have to wait until her course is done.  Ah well, a year won't kill her I guess.  

I suppose I should stop "mothering" her, now that she is all married and stuff.   Nah....never going to happen  ;D

Thanks again everyone!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Question...is your daughter *posted* to Borden or *attached posted*?  It is possible she is attach posted, depending on her MOC.  I had a friend who was posted to Kingston and attached posted to PRETC in Borden while he waited for his courses at CFSCE (he was an ATIS Tech).
> 
> If the answer is attached posted, go back to the DCBA Aide Memoire and read Chapter 3...if Chapter 2 (TR) doesn't apply, perhaps Chapter 3 - Attached Postings might if she is even APd.



MB,

Just wanted to make sure you saw that part...

EITS


----------



## aesop081 (21 Oct 2008)

MamaBear said:
			
		

> I suppose I should stop "mothering" her, now that she is all married and stuff.   Nah....never going to happen  ;D



While i understand fully ( i'm a father of 2) , she needs to learn to fix her own problems, in her own way.


Edit : I dont have the time or the energy to have 20 kids.......well, 20 kids that i know of  :blotto:


----------



## Strike (21 Oct 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> While i understand fully ( *i'm a father of 20  * , she needs to learn to fix her own problems, in her own way.



WOW!  Their poor mother!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

I guess we all know what he's doing when he is not flying, or on Army.ca   


(Great, now I can't get that Monty Python skit out of my head... "_we wouldn't be in the mess were in now_....")


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2008)

Before anyone faints, he means a 20 year old...........aww, Strike beat me to it by mere seconds.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Oct 2008)

I meant "father of 2" but i did have the first one at 20.........

Although i could have 20 kids for all i know  :-\


----------



## aesop081 (21 Oct 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Before anyone faints, he means a 20 year old...........aww, Strike beat me to it by mere seconds.



If i was a father of a 20 year old.......i was having kids when i was 13


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2008)

You are from Quebec........hehehe.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> NO NCO worth the air they breathe should turn away an untrained Pte asking for assistance.  I said ask for the reference because on PRETC, it is safe to assume that this person doesn't have a Forces account and access to the DIN, or even a lick of a clue where to start...hence why I gave a link to the DCBA site and the Aide Memoire.
> 
> I know normally in the case of young Officers, they are expected to be able to do this on their own and it is something they should be able to do for themselves (and their subordinates), which is where I think the message in your post comes from, but life as a Junior Officer and a Pte(R) are very different and the expectations of both are equally different.
> 
> Junior Officers have the abililty to pull in their Snr NCOs/WOs expertise, that of peers, and that of more experienced Officers...a young Pte(R) does not have those tools in his/her belt as readily.



I was raised with my parents telling me "You can't be better served than by yourself" (In French, Tu ne seras jamais servi mieux que par toi même).  Showing initiative and a little research before hand never hurts.  By all mean, request assistance if you need some, but don't expect ALL the work to be done for your.  That's what I would expect from ANYONE requesting something from me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I was raised with my parents telling me "You can't be better served than by yourself" (In French, Tu ne seras jamais servi mieux que par toi même).  Showing initiative and a little research before hand never hurts.  By all mean, request assistance if you need some, but don't expect ALL the work to be done for your.  That's what I would expect from ANYONE requesting something from me.



Sure but...as a Plt, your subordinates, in your environment, are likely to be subordinate Junior Officers.  You'd expect them to be able to find the info themselves, get it from the OR, etc.  Pte's don't have the same doors open to them as Junior Officers, normally.

Take into consideration, an untrained Pte, with little to no access to the DIN...this isn't a lazy Cpl or MCpl.   

Chances are as well, you'll never likely be required to look at things such as this, as Pte's go to their Jnr NCOs, who go to to the Snr NCOs/Orderly Room/look at the regulations online, etc etc, like they are supposed to do.  Now, when I was a Tp WO, if one of my Crew Cmdr's came to me asking me about something, I'd point them in the right direction but let them do the leg work, thats how they learned to look up reg's and policies, doing the work themselves.

Simply put, that policy just doesn't work 100% of the time, and we are both creatures of our experience...so, I guess, depending on the circumstances, we are both *right*?


----------



## MamaBear (22 Oct 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> While i understand fully ( i'm a father of 2) , she needs to learn to fix her own problems, in her own way.
> 
> 
> Edit : I dont have the time or the energy to have 20 kids.......well, 20 kids that i know of  :blotto:



I agree CDN Aviator.  But I am a little guilty of subterfuge on occasion.  :-[


----------

