# Temporary Duty ( TD ) merged



## Cpl4Life (17 Jul 2006)

Whats the min. km distance of separation of spouse and member to be entitled to TD?  If anyone has a copy accessible via internet could you please post the link, thank you.

Cpl4Life


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2006)

Are you sure you are asking a question or creating something in the Science Fiction literature category?  There is a minimun distance for one to collect TD.  There is nothing in there about separation from spouse.  Separation from spouse is a whole different thing altogether, and it is Separation Allowance.  So are you asking for TD, Separation Allowance or both?  The best person to ask is your Orderly Room.  They have the up to date rulings on all these matters.


----------



## Cpl4Life (17 Jul 2006)

I didn't think they had a seperation allowance anymore? Anyway, what I am looking for specifically is what distance does your spouse have to be from you to retain rations and quarters and receive your TD allowance while you are on course.

I guess it's easier for me to explain rather than people try and guess what the question is.

I am heading to Borden in August for a four month course.  My wife has family close to Borden and its been a while since she was back to visit.  My wife's family is nice, but not so nice to stay with (they are slobs, really bad slobs).  So she is thinking of renting a studio apartment month-to-month in Barrie or somewhere close to Borden rather than stay with family, but doesn't want to screw up my rations and quarters entitlements nor my TD by her renting a place.

I would be staying at the apt most likely on weekends, but not during the week.  I've already spoken with my course super and he could care less about my wife being near by... but I still would rather know the policy than assume anything.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2006)

I am sure that a Clerk is going to tell you that you are going on Course, and you may not be entitled to TD.  If you are getting TD, it will not be enough to support an apartment of any size, let alone a dependant, for that period of time.  Your plan right now looks like you are about to become an Administrative Burden on the CF, as you will be loosing more money than you will be making.  

I have no idea where you get these crazy ideas from?  What Trade are you and how long have you been in the CF?


----------



## Cpl4Life (17 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am sure that a Clerk is going to tell you that you are going on Course, and you may not be entitled to TD.  If you are getting TD, it will not be enough to support an apartment of any size, let alone a dependant, for that period of time.  Your plan right now looks like you are about to become an Administrative Burden on the CF, as you will be loosing more money than you will be making.
> 
> I have no idea where you get these crazy ideas from?  What Trade are you and how long have you been in the CF?



I'm sorry but I'm not here to argue, I just asked questions because I would rather find out than assume anything.  I'm sorry if I upset you in some way.

Cpl4Life


----------



## Shamrock (17 Jul 2006)

The CBI dealing with separation expense.

Obviously, for the four months, you won't be entitled to a pack and move, so any relocation of your partner will be on your own dime.  You won't be entitled to TD but may be entitled to separation expense.  

My wife and I are in a similar situation: she's attending a course in Borden and while she's there, I'm staying with family near enough to permit weekend visits.  Given that I'm on LWOP, we're down to one income.  We've had to tighten our financial strings and paying rent at a second location in addition to transportation costs is rough.  We are not, however, an administrative burden to the CF.  We just value each other over money.

I can't tell how you're wife's proximity to Borden will interfere with your expense.  Good luck.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Jul 2006)

Start here:

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&Section=209.335&Chapter=209

See 

Section 3 - Travelling Expenses
209.30 - ENTITLEMENT AND INSTRUCTION

209.997 - SEPARATION EXPENSE

Google can be your friend.  You can always take a published regulation to the Orderly Room and ask what it means, it tough to do that with an opinion expressed by an anonymous internet poster.


----------



## nodeg (25 Nov 2007)

I'm on TD for a 2 week course in Ottawa and are staying in a hotel.  Last week the tp WO doubled us all up to save the forces a couple bucks(and it's not even our units' fin code, but that's another story).  When asked to his reasoning, he said he was looking for a Mastered under 'Resource Management'.  I was under the understanding that according to QR&O I-28 we were all entitled to a single room if available(our ranks go from CPL 3 to WO).  Am I right, or is a hotel not considered single quarters?  Is there any other doc that would clarify this at all?  Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks. 

Edit to merge. mm


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2007)

nodeg said:
			
		

> ..........  When asked to his reasoning, he said he was looking for a Mastered under 'Resource Management'.



He really sounds like an a$$hat to me.  That was a stupid thing for him to say, and if true, I hope his superiors think so too and nail him for it.



			
				nodeg said:
			
		

> I was under the understanding that according to QR&O I-28 we were all entitled to a single room if available(our ranks go from CPL 3 to WO).  Am I right, or is a hotel not considered single quarters?  Is there any other doc that would clarify this at all?



Hotels are not single quarters, and you are not necessarily "entitled" to a single room.  Not being a RMS Clerk, I will have to defer to their expertise, but you may at this very moment have the document in your hand stating what you are entitled to, or not entitled to.   Just be glad he didn't book you into quarters out at Connaught Ranges.   >


----------



## dapaterson (25 Nov 2007)

The CFTDI dictates what CF members are entitled to.  Look it up on the DIN (I don't have it memorized).

I've also doubled up in rooms on TD, but not for a number of years.

And on a related note:  Fiscal prudence has nothing to do with "whose fin code is paying".  Ultimately, every penny the CF spends comes from taxes *  - regardless of the fin code.  So the fact that it may be another DND/CF budget paying is irrelevant - you should spend as if it's your own money.


(* Yes, yes, I know DND generates some respendable revenues through a variety of means, but the legal authority for that is still through Parliament.  Let's not confuse the issue...)


----------



## nodeg (25 Nov 2007)

I just found the CFTDTI, which seems to say that I'm entitled to a single room when available:

http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/dcba/engraph/download_e.asp?docid=67&sidesection=2&sidecat=7


----------



## PO2FinClk (26 Nov 2007)

No your not, as a member of the CF all you are entitled to is to be provided a roof over your head with a bed and facilities. So if the good WO wanted he could of put 4 of you in a room using cots. 

Crying foul because you had to share a room, give me a break.


----------



## nodeg (26 Nov 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> No your not, as a member of the CF all you are entitled to is to be provided a roof over your head with a bed and facilities. So if the good WO wanted he could of put 4 of you in a room using cots.
> 
> Crying foul because you had to share a room, give me a break.


Could you give me a source for that?  I can't seem to find it in any CF directive or order.  In actuality if he put us 4 to a room in cots when they had single rooms(in barracks) available, he would be going against an entitlement in the QR&Os... assuming we were entitled to single quarters.  You can't waive an entitlement without cause just because you want to.  

*That being said, from what I can see in the CFTDI's the standard for TD in commercial accommodation is a single room at government rate if available(which it was before we got kicked out by our CofC).  If the CFTDI's say that is the standard, then can they go against the CFTDI for the sake of budget at the detriment of the troops?
*
I know this seems like I am crying over having to share a room, but you only see the tip of the ice.  This whole trip has been a bit of a circus, and I'm just looking to see if I can add this to a long list of things going on a redress of grievance I am preparing on behalf of the Junior Ranks.  Under normal circumstances I would be more than happy to share a room... even with 3 other guys on cots.  For the record we all just came back from Wainwright sharing 12 to a mod-tent, or crammed in a AFV so most of us would consider sleeping in any place with plumbing pretty sweet.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2007)

Stop Right Now!  Do you realize what you have just said and put into print on an OPEN SOURCE Internet Site?



			
				nodeg said:
			
		

> ........... and I'm just looking to see if I can add this to a long list of things going on a redress of grievance I am preparing on behalf of the Junior Ranks.



You have gone past the point of whining, and are now to the point of conspiring to commit Muntiny, a Chargable Offence under the NDA.  Perhaps it is time for you to come to your senses and stop being a `Barrackroom Lawyer` and stop trying to twist the CFAOs, QR&Os, and DAODs to suit your warped ideas of how a junior member of the CF should be treated or what entitlements they are entitled to.  It is time for you and your fellow `Mutineers` to stop and return to being `Professional`Soldiers, before you are indeed charged.


----------



## nodeg (26 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Stop Right Now!  Do you realize what you have just said and put into print on an OPEN SOURCE Internet Site?
> 
> You have gone past the point of whining, and are now to the point of conspiring to commit Muntiny, a Chargable Offence under the NDA.  Perhaps it is time for you to come to your senses and stop being a `Barrackroom Lawyer` and stop trying to twist the CFAOs, QR&Os, and DAODs to suit your warped ideas of how a junior member of the CF should be treated or what entitlements they are entitled to.  It is time for you and your fellow `Mutineers` to stop and return to being `Professional`Soldiers, before you are indeed charged.


*sigh*  There is nothing illegal about placing a redress of grievance.  To clarify, I am considering submitting this grievance based on actions I have observed effecting myself and junior ranks members of the CF.  Mutiny would be convincing these junior ranks to submit their own grievances.  I appreciate your stance against Barrackroom lawyering(though calling me the ring-leader of a mutiny is no better), but I assure you I have no "warped" ideas of how a junior member of the CF should be treated.  If I KNEW that I was entitled to my own room (or wasn't), I wouldn't be here.

I'm beginning to think this will turn into a flame fest, but I'll try my question again:

According to CFTDI's members staying in commercial accommodations "Where available, the standard for accommodation is a single room."  Does this constitute an entitlement?


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (26 Nov 2007)

Disregard, beat me to the punch


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2007)

nodeg said:
			
		

> *sigh*  There is nothing illegal about placing a redress of grievance.  To clarify, I am considering submitting this grievance based on actions I have observed effecting myself and junior ranks members of the CF.  Mutiny would be convincing these junior ranks to submit their own grievances.



I guess you didn`t read what you wrote and what I quoted:




			
				nodeg said:
			
		

> ........... and I'm just looking to see if I can add this to a long list of things going on a redress of grievance I am preparing on behalf of the Junior Ranks.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Nov 2007)

It's a two week course.

Get over it!

Lots worse stuff will happen in the rest of your career. 

Guaranteed!


----------



## navymich (26 Nov 2007)

PLUS the fact that you get TD and meals for 2 weeks AND you get someone else to make your bed and clean your bathroom for you!


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Nov 2007)

There's no such thing as a "Class Action Redress".  

Who appointed you to act "on behalf of" the JR's?  Did they all take a vote?  If not, did the sky open up and a great booming voice tell you to act on their behalf?

I don't know the details or merits of your Redress (nor am I terribly interested) - but get it into your head that it is YOUR redress - not the JR's.  Redresses are about what happened to YOU, NOT/NOT you and your buddies.

As far as "the standard" goes, that's nice.  Nowhere in your link did I see where it states that a single room is "the *minimal *standard"

Besides which, you must have missed THIS part, on page 2 of the document:



> (2)	The CFTDTI was developed within the Travel Modernization framework implemented throughout the Government of Canada.  It increases the level of discretion and latitude of commanding officers, while providing the required flexibility to accommodate legitimate travel circumstances that, in their opinion, justify the reimbursement of actual and reasonable expenses to a member on TD/travel.



Sounds to me like your Warrant is just exercising discretion on behalf of your CO, as it is his duty to do, and in his opinion sharing a room constitutes a reasonable expense.

Pick a good room mate, learn lots on your course, and don't be a barrack room lawyer - it never solves anything.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Nov 2007)

You're not in a hoochie out in the field....be happy!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2007)

This whole thead can be summed up with...

 :brickwall:

Try thinking of it this way:  "The less money I waste on my own hotel room, the more money we have for operations, new kit, bullets, or...." and be happy.  Was the WO sarcastic in his response?  If it were me, I would have had a different answer for you...most Snr NCOs/WOs aren't too keen on being questioned on this stuff.  The Crown is putting you up in a hotel, with TD to boot (tax free $).  Entitlement?  As a tax payer myself, I would prefer to see my $ go to operational things for all Environments rather than 'private hotel rooms'.  Here's an idea;  go to the Legion and ask the guys with grey hair around the place what they think you should do.  I am sure they had this problem in WWII or Korea.   :

As for your "Unit Legal Advisor"  : aspirations...perhaps reading all of QR & O Vol 1, Ch 7 is in order.  

QR & O Vol 1, Article 7.04 (3) states: _*A grievance may not be submitted jointly with any other member.*_

If you haven't yet...read http://admfincs.mil.ca/qr_o/vol1/tofc07_e.asp

And...I hope your WO isn't on this site...you provided enough info about where you have been and where you are going now to show up on the radar to anyone in your CoC (perhaps).

I have put my own people in seperate rooms "when I could" and I have also put them in shared rooms "when I couldn't".  Did you consider that...its getting close to the end of the FY and...maybe the unit's (one providing the Fin Code) unit budget is starting to get tight and they adjusted for this??


----------



## PO2FinClk (27 Nov 2007)

nodeg said:
			
		

> According to CFTDI's members staying in commercial accommodations "Where available, the standard for accommodation is a single room."  Does this constitute an entitlement?


Yes if by yourself - meaning that a person travelling by themselves cannot get a double room or a penthouse. Seriously, give your head a shake as I am not which organization you believe you are part of.

As far as SQ's, if Ottawa had any available and for examples sake they were dorms, that's where you would be staying as that is all that is required.

Instead of whining on internet forums, why not ask your claims people and see what they say.


----------



## PO2FinClk (27 Nov 2007)

nodeg said:
			
		

> Could you give me a source for that?  I can't seem to find it in any CF directive or order.  In actuality if he put us 4 to a room in cots when they had single rooms(in barracks) available, he would be going against an entitlement in the QR&Os... assuming we were entitled to single quarters.  You can't waive an entitlement without cause just because you want to.



Funny, it was located in the very same reference you providing on this forum, conevient isn't it. If you are going to quote something, quote it in its entirety and not just paraphrasing in attempt to meet your selfish indlugences:


> (1)	In accordance with CFAO 28-1 and 209-4, http://admfincs.mil.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/028-01_e.asp and http://admfincs.mil.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/209-04_e.asp, when travel is related to activities held on a military or government facility where accommodation is available, such accommodation shall be utilized.  If accommodation is not available, the Government Hotel Directory shall serve as a guide for the cost, location and selection of accommodation.  Where available, the standard for accommodation is a single room.  Members shall request the government accommodation rate at the time of booking.



However as you gratiously state the entitlement in QR&O's would you be so kind as to provide that very reference? 

Unlike others though, I will encourage you to submit that redress you mention. Seriously, please do and then do provide us with feedback from its outcome.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Nov 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Unlike others though, I will encourage you to submit that redress you mention. Seriously, please do and then do provide us with feedback from its outcome.



You're evil.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Nov 2007)

Is he entitled to have his ears repaired after they get pinned back by his RSM? ;D


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Nov 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Is he entitled to have his ears repaired after they get pinned back by his RSM? ;D



He may get them repaired, but he would then be charged with "Self Inflicted Injuries".


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Yes if by yourself -* meaning that a person travelling by themselves cannot get a double room or a penthouse*. Seriously, give your head a shake as I am not which organization you believe you are part of.
> 
> As far as SQ's, if Ottawa had any available and for examples sake they were dorms, that's where you would be staying as that is all that is required.
> 
> Instead of whining on internet forums, why not ask your claims people and see what they say.



I'm no expert, but the ref seems clear that he is entitled to a single room, or at least can be easily interpreted that way.  And nowhere it states that this policy applies when only  1 pers travels.  

Personnally, I've never been on TD with someone else in my room.

EDIT:  If you tell me it is intented for 1 guy/gal traveling, please find me the document that lay the entitlements for more than 1 pers traveling.

Max


----------



## nodeg (27 Nov 2007)

Wow.  This has turned a bit comical.  I'm going to clear up a few misconceptions.

1. As I clarified a few replies up, I have no intention of filing a group grievance.  I also have no intentions of inciting a mutiny.  I realize that this misconception was caused by bad phrasing on my part, and I apologise.

2. The grievance actually had little to do with room entitlement.  If there was an entitlement, it would have been mentioned in the grievance but only anecdotally. 

3. I realize that living 2 to a room is not a hardship, and am very happy with my room-mate.  You people are going off without knowing the whole story.   I was only asking a simple question.  The answer was either "yes it's an entitlement," or "no it isn't."  I'm honestly not a whining brat.

Anyway, I agree that it likely isn't an entitlement(though it is ambiguous) . Thanks to those of you who tried being helpful instead of flaming... heck, even those of you who tried being helpful and then flamed.  The rest of you are trolls   I'm going to go swim in the pool.  Have a good one guys.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I'm no expert, but the ref seems clear that he is entitled to a single room, or at least can be easily interpreted that way.  And nowhere it states that this policy applies when only  1 pers travels.
> 
> Personnally, I've never been on TD with someone else in my room.
> 
> Max



Max, i dont have the reference handy as i am not at work but i have had to deal with this recently. Submariners and Aircrew are entitled to a room by themselves. Base or hotel is irrelevant.


----------



## PO2FinClk (27 Nov 2007)

nodeg said:
			
		

> You people are going off without knowing the whole story.   I was only asking a simple question.  The answer was either "yes it's an entitlement," or "no it isn't."  I'm honestly not a whining brat.


Then know that if you do not want to be misinterpreted you should provide the whole story. And I gave you the answer but you went on about it, so don't try to blame anyone other then yourself on this forum for the lack of either intent or clarity of your posts.

As far as clarity, it is there and if anyone has doubts please go ahead and query through your respective chains. Just don't forget that any TD is to be conducted in the most practical and economical means even if it means sharing a room with 3 other guyz at the sleazy motel.

What Aviator mentions is due to the living conditions they must endure in the conduct of their duties away from home, not TD in the purist form.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Then know that if you do not want to be misinterpreted you should provide the whole story. And I gave you the answer but you went on about it, so don't try to blame anyone other then yourself on this forum for the lack of either intent or clarity of your posts.
> 
> As far as clarity, it is there and if anyone has doubts please go ahead and query through your respective chains. *Just don't forget that any TD is to be conducted in the most practical and economical means even if it means sharing a room with 3 other guyz at the sleazy motel.*
> 
> What Aviator mentions is due to the living conditions they must endure in the conduct of their duties away from home, not TD in the purist form.



I personnally think the policies are designed in a way to have a balance between member's QOL and Economical means for the CF.  

Extract from the CFTDTI, Section 1, policy Framework:



> (4)	As leaders and managers, COs are accountable under the Financial Administration Act for the decisions made regarding the reimbursement of travel expenses.  COs are responsible for exercising their authorities in accordance with the framework and the FAA *in the best interest of the CF and its members*.



To be as economical as possible is not the only factor in CF's financial policies.

Max


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> To be as economical as possible is not the only factor in CF's financial policies.



Quite right but it is often the overriding concern.  To use your argument of "balance" , in this case, the unit CO may have very well established financial concerns as a priority as seems to be his/her prerogative.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Quite right but it is often the overriding concern.  To use your argument of "balance" , in this case, the unit CO may have very well established financial concerns as a priority as seems to be his/her prerogative.



My interpretation of all that is that the CO cannot give less that what the policies outline.  Am I right or right out in the left field?

Max


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> My interpretation of all that is that the CO cannot give less that what the policies outline.  Am I right or right out in the left field?
> 
> Max



Left Field.

Your CO has budget that he must keep.  If it looks like he is going over budget, he has to cut somewhere.  Money still makes the world go round.  Money still does not grow on trees.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> *My interpretation * of all that is that the CO cannot give less that what the policies outline.  Am I right or right out in the left field?
> 
> Max



I understand what you are saying Max. I'm not arguing with you. My interpretation  is different than yours and i do not think that what was posted here as far as extracts from the policy, is clear enough to determine which one of us is right. This is one of those cases where i walk to my SOR and ask the CC.

What i do know is that i am entitled to my own room, wether on base or comercial lodging. We dealt with this last year when i went to Sicily for exercise. Aircrew and submariners are entitled to their own rooms.  I cant speak for others therefore i wont. When CFB Halifax tried to stick me in A-block with 6 other people, they had to change their tune when they figured out i was aircrew. They even showed me the policy that applied.  They did not have any single rooms available so they had to give me a 2-man room all by myself.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Left Field.
> 
> Your CO has budget that he must keep.  If it looks like he is going over budget, he has to cut somewhere.  Money still makes the world go round.  Money still does not grow on trees.



Then policies are just suggestions?

Max


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Then policies are just suggestions?
> 
> Max




Max.....my personal feeling is that alot of fiscal policie are written vaguely for a reason. It leaves room for managers / COs to make decisions depending on their budget situations.


----------



## armyvern (27 Nov 2007)

nodeg said:
			
		

> *sigh*  There is nothing illegal about placing a redress of grievance.  To clarify, I am considering submitting this grievance based on actions I have observed effecting myself and junior ranks members of the CF.  Mutiny would be convincing these junior ranks to submit their own grievances.  I appreciate your stance against Barrackroom lawyering(though calling me the ring-leader of a mutiny is no better), but I assure you I have no "warped" ideas of how a junior member of the CF should be treated.  If I KNEW that I was entitled to my own room (or wasn't), I wouldn't be here.
> 
> I'm beginning to think this will turn into a flame fest, but I'll try my question again:
> 
> According to CFTDI's members staying in commercial accommodations "Where available, the standard for accommodation is a single room."  Does this constitute an entitlement?



I suggest that you ask any CAP candidates whether they are entitled to single rooms while TD'd to Gagetown for their course. Or many other course candidates who find themselves 8 per room ... despite their possibly being a vacant single room in singles quarters. You ARE NOT entitled to a single room as a student on course simply because there is one available.

Fact is ... you are on course. You stay in whatever accomodations are arranged for the students on that course.

I'd also respectfully suggest to you that you scroll up a tad bit from the quote that you keep pulling out of the CFTDI and read the entireity of it:

Section 3:

"Accomodations"



> ·	"semi-permanent accommodation" – accommodation obtainable at weekly or monthly rates which provides sleeping, meal preparation and refrigeration facilities, i.e. Les Suites Ottawa.



Now, I may be mistaken, but I'd argue that the location where you are actually taking your course ... arranged your accomodations for you. I'm also quite sure that they booked them on a weekly/monthly rate (such as Ottawa does for members posted to that location IR).

Hint: Les Suites ... is a hotel facility.

Now, please don't pull the "but my  our hotel room doesn't have 





> meal preparation and refrigeration facilities


 card because, if that's the case, then your entitlement to the meal rate kicks in (if the course has not already arranged to have your meals provided by other means) as per this same CFTDI.

Long story short -- you are a student on course. If that course finds it more cost effective to accomodate you in a pre-arranged hotel room, more than one per room ... that's quite acceptable -- and you are certainly being treated NO differently than thousands of other CF members who proceed on course.

BTW ... some roto zero pers a few years ago, upon initial deployment, were accomodated in hotel rooms overseas for an extended time period .... many of them double up in those hotel rooms.

Good luck with your "class action" ...  :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Nov 2007)

He tuned out and went to lie by the pool in his sub standard accomodations after calling us all a bunch of trolls....is there any use keeping this inane conversation going? :


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Nov 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Max.....my personal feeling is that alot of fiscal policie are written vaguely for a reason. It leaves room for managers / COs to make decisions depending on their budget situations.



IIRC, on the joining instructions for Sea Survival there is some verbiage to the effect that a specific exemption to the policy has been requested and approved in order to house candidates in lower-than-entitled standard (in that case 2 per room).  In my mind, that suggests that a specific exemption is required, not just a WO's discretion (which is what was suggested).  Unless perhaps the Aircrew policy is written differently (??)


----------



## Sub_Guy (27 Nov 2007)

Last year while on course in Ottawa with 3 other people from my unit I was place in my own room in a Best Western, even had a rental car!

I was also forced to share a cabin at the Tigh-na-mara in parksville with 2 other people while doing sub trials....  2 OTHER PEOPLE!!

I had to share my closet in Comox with another guy while on sea survival

I had to share my accommodations with a squirrel on BSERE

Does any of that matter?  No.

This guy needs some kleenex  :crybaby:  you get what you get and that's it.  My feeling is that he dislikes his roomie!  He is also leading his junior personnel down the wrong path.


----------



## PO2FinClk (27 Nov 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> My interpretation of all that is that the CO cannot give less that what the policies outline.  Am I right or right out in the left field?
> 
> Max


I do not completely agree with George, I think you are somewhere in the middle. Your rright, if the policy states you are entitled then so be it the CO must agree to expend the funds accordingly or not send you. However, no where is it stated that each individual is entitled to a single room. CFTDTI's are written in the singular term and are intended to adress an individual proceeding on TD (as its name implies). 

The policy for lodgings is meant to provide with commercial lodgings only if Military or Government accommodations are not available. Therefore not leaving you without any accomodation entitlement in the event SQ's were not available.

Aviator recommends you ask your CC and I am telling you just that as a CC myself. If you want to challenge the regulations then do so as ranting about them in an internet forum won't get you anything. Fact is you would and will get the very same answer I provided here and will only result in being perceived as someone who is attempting to bend the interpretation of the rules to suit your personal agenda as they are clear to everyone else out there (except maybe those by the pool).

Seriously though, all who seem to be confused by this entitlement should consider that SQ dorms are suitable accommodations for CF members, let alone a hotel room. You make the pick.

Not pointing anyone out, but hopefully the self-serving attitudes as displayed in this thread are not indicative of the general attitude throughout their service. Those who normally display these traits are all people I would not want to trust to cover my back with any type of weapon.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> I do not completely agree with George, I think you are somewhere in the middle. Your rright, if the policy states you are entitled then so be it the CO must agree to expend the funds accordingly or not send you. However, no where is it stated that each individual is entitled to a single room. CFTDTI's are written in the singular term and are intended to adress an individual proceeding on TD (as its name implies).
> 
> The policy for lodgings is meant to provide with commercial lodgings only if Military or Government accommodations are not available. Therefore not leaving you without any accomodation entitlement in the event SQ's were not available.
> 
> ...



PO2FinClk, I agree with your post, however, I find it somewhat unusual that there is nothing written (to my knowledge) about sending multiple members on TD.  All it says is if a member goes on TD, he is entitled to a single room accomodation if SQs aren't available.  With my interpretation, it doesn't matter if you're by yourself or with other members, you are still entitled to what the policy outlines.  But that's just my interpretation.

EDIT:  I'm not ranting about the policies, just trying to clarify it.  I'm not doing it to support the original poster.  

I have nothing against SQ dorms.

Max


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Nov 2007)

Personally, I wouldn't/didn't care and I think the original poster needs to seriously reconsider which fights he chooses. Nonetheless, this part of his post (assuming it's the whole truth) smacks of careerism, and might be a legitimate gripe:



			
				nodeg said:
			
		

> When asked to his reasoning, he said he was looking for a Mastered under 'Resource Management'.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Nov 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Personally, I wouldn't/didn't care and I think the original poster needs to seriously reconsider which fights he chooses. Nonetheless, this part of his post (assuming it's the whole truth) smacks of careerism, and might be a legitimate gripe:



sounds like sarcasm to me.....he might of also said "because I said so"...
When I was a young subbie our XO used to say "the answer is no......now you go and find out why and come back and tell me....he knew his stuff and wanted us to know ours as well."


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Nov 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> sounds like sarcasm to me.....he might of also said "because I said so"...
> When I was a young subbie our XO used to say "the answer is no......now you go and find out why and come back and tell me....he knew his stuff and wanted us to know ours as well."



That did occur to me, but at the same time I found it harder to believe that a sarcastic comment would be the subject of grievance (then again, even I have seen things far more petty than that ....  :-\ )


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (28 Nov 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> That did occur to me, but at the same time I found it harder to believe that a sarcastic comment would be the subject of grievance (then again, even I have seen things far more petty than that ....  :-\ )



Oh man, we are living in the "age of petty." We had an Admin Assistant when I was in Pet was going to file a grievance with the Union because all us males in the office left the toilet seat up and she considered that a workplace hazard! Then there was a guy I worked with at an unnamed base who was an officer (commissioned from the ranks too not a snotter) who filed a harrassment complaint against his boss (a busy major) because he didn't say good morning to him and ask him how he was doing on several occassions? Man in the old days I was glad if the "two and a half" ignored me.....it meant he wasn't going to download any crap on me that day.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (25 Apr 2009)

I've been trying to figure out how the whole TD system truely works and no one in my CoC has been able to give me a straight answer with regards to TD.

My question is, if my employing unit is in city A, and I am require to commute to city B on a daily basis for work by PMV, first, am I eligible for TD? Secondly, am I eligible for the high kilometric rate?

I've read the CFTDTIs and was told that the information in there is not applicable if you're not on TD. When I look up the definition of TD in CMP 20/04 it states:

d. Temporary Duty – Reserve Force (TD – Res F). TD is used when a
member is required to attend a course or perform a duty, for a period of
six months or less, at a place outside the location of the member’s home
unit. TD includes the travelling time to the place of TD and return;

My home unit, and, according to my Class B Statement of understanding, is in City A. Would that not mean that I am eligible for TD? Is there any other documents I should look up in order to understand how the system works?


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Apr 2009)

If you're using your own vehicle daily to perform your duty, I'd think that's enough justification for you to get your own CFR'd vehicle to use. I believe TD is used when you're sleeping away from home, as compensation for increased meal and incidental costs, not daily trips.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (25 Apr 2009)

I wish it were as simple as that. If it is not provided?


----------



## aesop081 (25 Apr 2009)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> I wish it were as simple as that. If it is not provided?



You do not get TD for daily comutes.


----------



## GAP (25 Apr 2009)

> required to attend a course or perform a duty



This is what you need to define....are you "required" and if so does it qualify....


----------



## dapaterson (25 Apr 2009)

No high rate.  Not TD.  You are eligible for a commuting allowance at low rate.

Look at CBI 209.045 - http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/doc/209-01.pdf

You are entitled to low rate both ways for the shortest possible distance.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (25 Apr 2009)

> This is what you need to define....are you "required" and if so does it qualify....



I am required as I am teaching a course in city B, whereas my employing unit is in City A.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (25 Apr 2009)

> No high rate.  Not TD.  You are eligible for a commuting allowance at low rate.



When does the high rate apply?


----------



## dapaterson (25 Apr 2009)

High rate is for TD with an overnight stay, when it's the most cost-efficient option.

In this case, your entitlement is for Reserve Commuting Allowance.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Apr 2009)

PMV Travel Waiver and Cost Comparison Worksheet



> Where a member requests to take a PMV in lieu of the most cost efficient
> and practical mode of travel (usually commercial air plus taxi/bus) as determined
> by the CO, the member may be reimbursed the high kilometric rate up to the cost
> of the most efficient and practical mode of transportation. Members receive the
> ...


----------



## Occam (25 Apr 2009)

You'll have to wait until Monday for proof of this, but I do recall a group of members who successfully managed to get high kilometric rate paid for some (or all) of their travel costs when they were directed to attend a civilian course in the same city, but at a different location of work than normal.  To be precise, they attended training at a civilian institution.  Whether they were paid none, some or all of their kilometres at high rate depended on where they lived in relation to both their normal place of work and their temporary place of work.  I'm going off memory here but I think I have all the facts correct.

Stand by until Monday and I'll give you a DWAN link to the precedent for this one.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (25 Apr 2009)

Alright, thanks in advance Occam.

Does anyone know at what point overnight stay (and thus TD) is supposed to be granted? For example, is there a distance or something which, if you're required to work past away from your home unit/emoloying unit, you are entitled to TD/over night stay?

At which point is TD entitled? and if its only entitled if you stay overnight, at which point is overnight stay entitled?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2009)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Alright, thanks in advance Occam.
> 
> Does anyone know at what point overnight stay (and thus TD) is supposed to be granted? For example, is there a distance or something which, if you're required to work past away from your home unit/emoloying unit, you are entitled to TD/over night stay?
> 
> At which point is TD entitled? and if its only entitled if you stay overnight, at which point is overnight stay entitled?



A couple of points that have been bothering me.  One:  I am under the impression that when one is on TD, there is no longer a "LOW" rate.  There is only ONE rate.

Second:  To be on TD you will require a Fin Code.  That is given to you in one of several ways.  Two ways may be: it was either given to you by your Command, for example: LFCA, or from your Unit who will have Fin Codes for Training Events that they have budgeted for when drawing up their Training Plan and Budget for the Next Fiscal Year.  That means that last year, your Unit would have had to "budget" for such an event.  Other sources of the Fin Code you may receive for this TD, may be from another Command, such as the CFRG, or from perhaps from a National source tasking.  

If you have NO Fin Code, then everything is out of your pocket.  Even with a Fin Code, you may still have to pay for some of the expenses out of pocket.  We have three pers who are going on a Crse in Toronto.  They have a Fin Code that covers the Crse fee of $800, but they must pay for their own accommodations out of their pockets.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Apr 2009)

Just because he hasn't been given financial consideration and a Fin Code for travel expense to be billed against doesn't means he's not entitled.  Finding the right regulations is often the first step in approaching admin staff on such an issue.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Just because he hasn't been given financial consideration and a Fin Code for travel expense to be billed against doesn't means he's not entitled.  Finding the right regulations is often the first step in approaching admin staff on such an issue.



Basically that is the advice he should be given.  To fo to his OR staff and OPs Staff and find out what regulations, authorization, Fin Codes, Route Letters, etc. he requires for this.  We can speculate all we want here, but we have no idea of what Message or such may have been given, to send him on this 'tasking'.


----------



## Occam (25 Apr 2009)

Things should be a bit clearer when I'm able to post the link to the e-mail trail/message dealing with this issue on Monday.  It's bookmarked at work.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Apr 2009)

Are you traveling from A to B for a course ?

If so, check your course loading message from the phrase " pers attending subject course from the ___________ area will do so without the benefit of TD allowance" or words to the effect.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (25 Apr 2009)

Well, no. Whats happening is, I signed onto the contract to teach on some courses in city A and myunit of employment is in city A. The first course finished, no problems there. The second one started, but this time, its being run in city B and I travel there daily to teach. Im wondering what I'm eligible for. 



> Basically that is the advice he should be given.  To fo to his OR staff and OPs Staff and find out what regulations, authorization, Fin Codes, Route Letters, etc. he requires for this.  We can speculate all we want here, but we have no idea of what Message or such may have been given, to send him on this 'tasking'.



The reason I braught it to the site is because the only thing the OR would tell me is that I'm not eligible for TD because accomodation is not provided and said the reference to this is probably somewhere buried within the DIN, but they could not point me to a reference. 

As for the kilometric rate, myself and others whos employing unit is in City A are driving our own vehicles to city B for employment, and a CFRd vehicle is not often provided to us for this so I was wondering whether we were entitled to the high kilometric rate or not.


----------



## exgunnertdo (25 Apr 2009)

One factor that could be at play is the geographic region for the cities in question.  One can drive from one city to the other and still be in the same geographic region.  If you leave the geographic region, you should be on TD, and be given R&Q.  You'll have to find the geographic region for your normal workplace (treasury board regs, I think?).  If the loc of the course is within that region, then no TD.  But, you should be entitled MTEC, I think.  Where I work, we get MTEC for mileage (high rate) if we're working away from our normal location.

But at the very least, you should be getting commuting assistance (low rate), I would think.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (25 Apr 2009)

The two cities are over 100km appart. I've been trying to figure out how the regions are split up but I had no success.



> Where I work, we get MTEC for mileage (high rate) if we're working away from our normal location.



That makes sense to me. I was told by OR that the high rate only applies if I am on TD though, hence throwing me back into my initial conundrum.


----------



## Zoomie (25 Apr 2009)

You took this Class-B contract right?  You weren't forced into taking it, and you're not being sent on a TD tasking to Meaford, Petawawa or Gagetown, right?  TD = sent away on a tasking, provided with accomodations or a FIN code to provide rations and quarters.

If you are on a regular PRes contract to instruct on a full time CO-OP course,etc - you're not on TD.  If you have to drive a long way - ask for commuting assistance.  

If you have to drive 100kms each day - maybe you should reconsider this tasking.  That's a long commute.


----------



## Biohazardxj (26 Apr 2009)

Without all the details it is hard to give a proper answer.  But, from what I can glean from the above posts, I would have to say that you should be submitting an MTEC (Minor Travel Expense Claim) for each day.  This would give you high rate round trip each day plus a meal or two depending on the time of departure and return.  If you are not staying overnight (past midnight) you are not on TD, therefore not entitled to the benefits that go with TD status.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (26 Apr 2009)

Thanks for the info Sgt. Would you be able to point me to something I can print off to substantiate this? Without substantiation it'll get denied right in the OR.


----------



## Occam (27 Apr 2009)

Found it - and it was also on this site all along as well.  I was close, but not entirely correct.

See the message posted at http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70878.0.html.

The message can also be found on the DWAN at http://halifax.mil.ca/TRADES/NAVCOM/Documents/GeneralAllowanceClaimUpdate.doc

The way I read it, if your temporary place of employment is beyond (as in more distant) than your regular place of employment, you are entitled to high rate for the total distance less the distance between your home and regular place of employment.

If your temporary place of employment is closer to your home than your regular place of work, then you get nothing as it is along the way to your regular place of work and you're expected to foot the bill for travel to your regular place of work.


----------



## Occam (27 Apr 2009)

Here's the applicable section of the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Instruction (CFTDI) located at http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/dgcb/dcba/engraph/download_e.asp?docid=67&sidesection=2&sidecat=7



> 5.13	Temporary Workplace Change
> 
> (1)	A member is normally responsible to get to and from work on a daily basis.  However, if a member is assigned to a temporary workplace, i.e., on training, promotion board, short term work assignment, etc., the member is entitled to be reimbursed additional transportation costs over and above the normal commuting distance when transportation is not provided.  The provisions of this directive shall apply for the duration of the workplace change, to a maximum of sixty (60) calendar days. If transportation is provided and the member does not want to use the government provided transportation, there is no further entitlement to transportation expenses.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (27 Apr 2009)

Thanks Occam. I asked about that refere in the CFTDTI because it referenced the high rate and they told me that the CFTDTI only applies for when I'm on TD, which I'm not, so it doesnt apply to me.


----------



## Occam (27 Apr 2009)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Thanks Occam. I asked about that refere in the CFTDTI because it referenced the high rate and they told me that the CFTDTI only applies for when I'm on TD, which I'm not, so it doesnt apply to me.



I think they have it backwards.  You're on TD because you meet the criteria of having to perform a duty at a place outside the location of your unit.  It's not a case of not being on TD simply because they don't want to call it that.

If you were hired on contract to carry out training at a particular location, and then they temporarily change the location at some time after you've started your contract, that's temporary duty.  Here are the definitions, again according to CFTDI:



> “temporary duty (TD)” means the time spent to attend a course or perform a duty for a period of six months or less (excluding CF members on BTL training), at a place outside the location of the member’s unit, including travelling time to the place of TD and return.
> 
> “workplace”
> 
> ...


----------



## CountDC (27 Apr 2009)

First - smack your clerks that are not taking care of you.

CFTDI definitions:

temporary duty (TD)” means the time spent to attend a course or perform a duty for a period of six months or less (excluding CF members on BTL training), at a place outside the location of the member’s unit, including travelling time to the place of TD and return.

Section 5 of CFTDI Travel within Headquarters Area – No overnight stay

enough said on paragraph title - pretty straight forward. 

How about this from CFTDI:

5.13	Temporary Workplace Change

(1)	A member is normally responsible to get to and from work on a daily basis.  However, if a member is assigned to a temporary workplace, i.e., on training, promotion board, short term work assignment, etc., the member is entitled to be reimbursed additional transportation costs over and above the normal commuting distance when transportation is not provided.  The provisions of this directive shall apply for the duration of the workplace change, to a maximum of sixty (60) calendar days. If transportation is provided and the member does not want to use the government provided transportation, there is no further entitlement to transportation expenses.

Bloody clerks that don't want to do their jobs.  You are entitled to high rate of mileage no matter how they try to slice it. You are either on TD or you are on Temporary Workplace Change.  Tell them to choose and pay you your money.  Bet if it was one of them they would find this quick enough.

If it was me I would simply log into Claims X, raise the mtec using the unit fin code and submit for approval.  Section 32 approval - CO/RSM hand delivered (pick the one you think will get the best response).

if they paid you high rate for 100kms it would be somewhere in the range of $50 a day tax free.  Using the estimate 20 work days a month that is $1000.

Now go get them and force them to do their jobs.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Apr 2009)

Small observation if I may.  They will only pay mileage *above and beyond* what the member usually incurs, yes?  So they will not pay the full 100 kms (or whatever) but the difference between this and the normal work commute.

Eg:  New commute 100 kms - Normal commute 15 kms = 85 kms x 2 (round trip).


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2009)

CountDC

This is a serious problem; Clerks who don't want to do their job, or want you to do it all for them, and we have seen many of them, but it is by far not the most serious of the whole.  In many cases we have Clerks who honestly don't have the knowledge, nor the experience, to do their jobs.  FRP has come home to roust in the RMS Trade.  It is bitting everyone in the CF, no matter the Element or Component.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Apr 2009)

George:  Less FRP than the grand concept that Fin and Admin could be crammed into a single clerk, who could be moved from job to job and never developing the depth of knowledge to provide the needed service level.

Add to that a slow to react school in Borden (RPSR has been around for more than a decade - maybe time to start training clerks to use it?) and you have the unfortunate current situation.


----------



## CountDC (27 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> CountDC
> 
> This is a serious problem; Clerks who don't want to do their job, or want you to do it all for them, and we have seen many of them, but it is by far not the most serious of the whole.  In many cases we have Clerks who honestly don't have the knowledge, nor the experience, to do their jobs.  FRP has come home to roust in the RMS Trade.  It is bitting everyone in the CF, no matter the Element or Component.



and for us clerks that don't have the knowledge we are taught on every course we do how to look up and find the information - it is called Pub Searches.  This members clerks gave him an answer without providing the regulations and then when confronted with one they fluffed it off instead of checking it fully.  Lack of knowledge or experience does not wash in this case - this is something that even a QL3 clerk should have been able to answer.


----------



## Occam (27 Apr 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Small observation if I may.  They will only pay mileage *above and beyond* what the member usually incurs, yes?  So they will not pay the full 100 kms (or whatever) but the difference between this and the normal work commute.
> 
> Eg:  New commute 100 kms - Normal commute 15 kms = 85 kms x 2 (round trip).



Now, to completely muddy the waters...

Hypothetical situation - if the member resided 30 km from normal place of duty, but 100 from the temporary workplace, would they then be eligible for 70 km at high rate, plus (30-16 = 14 km) at the low rate for Transportation Assistance, as dapaterson mentioned above?  The reservist is allowed to claim TA for anything over 16 km to perform duty.  The mind boggles...


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> and for us clerks that don't have the knowledge we are taught on every course we do how to look up and find the information - it is called Pub Searches.  This members clerks gave him an answer without providing the regulations and then when confronted with one they fluffed it off instead of checking it fully.  Lack of knowledge or experience does not wash in this case - this is something that even a QL3 clerk should have been able to answer.



True, but I am seeing a lot of "Other Trades" filling Clerk postions these days.  Not too many Infanteers getting their RMS QL Crses.


----------



## Snakedoc (27 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> True, but I am seeing a lot of "Other Trades" filling Clerk postions these days.  Not too many Infanteers getting their RMS QL Crses.



This I have often seen at my unit as well.


----------



## CountDC (27 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> True, but I am seeing a lot of "Other Trades" filling Clerk postions these days.  Not too many Infanteers getting their RMS QL Crses.



and if that is the case then they should be asking a clerk to verify the info rather than giving an answer they do not have the knowledge to give. When I started in the fin office as a private in the infantry I hounded the crap out of the HQ clerks, dug through the pubs and went through the cabinets in the office to see what had been done prior.  Sorry but I do not like excuses when it comes to money regardless of trade - if you don't know the answer then admit it and at least contact someone else to get it.

Are not the units still given a Reg F RMS Clerk? When I check as far as I can see each unit still has the RSS posn.

As for not getting the RMS 3's - why not?  If they are doing the job might as well do the course. Is it a case now where they will not give the training unless the member remusters? (sounds like something they would do, I was still infantry when I did my QL5 Fin and Fin when I did QL5 Admin).

Myself, I see one of the biggest problem is within the trade.  It used to be that it was instilled (still is by some) that if you worked in the OR then everyone on the other side of the counter was a customer and it was your job to take care of them.  More and more I see clerks showing up that are never taught this - instead they have the attitude that the member is privileged to have them serve them. A lot of supervisors seem to just want to protect their staff rather than correct a short coming. Protecting staff is important but not at the expense of the customer. 

Guess I am just too old for the modern clerk world - I still believe it is our job to take care of the customer. Mind you I also believe that amalgamation was a bad move, fin course standards should never have been lowered and CEP Techs should still exist.  Does it not scare any of you that the people now doing pay are only required to score a 70% accuracy rate?  What ever happened to 90%?


----------



## dapaterson (27 Apr 2009)

Positions do not equal people - last time I checked, under 75% of RFC (used to be RSS) postions were filled within the Army.  In addition, it takes more than a single clerk to keep a unit running - particulalry in the Reserves, where pay admin is a much more complex and time consuming task than in the Reg F (I remember a course in Borden in the 90s, where Reg F pay was covered in a week, and Res pay in an afternoon).


----------



## Zoomie (27 Apr 2009)

It's good to see the RMS clerks wading in here and setting us right.

This situation is not quite so cut and dry methinks.  The original poster accepted a B-Class job with the understanding that the workplace was going to be 100kms away, correct?  He is not a RegF augmentee that is being tasked for 3 months to work out of a new workplace 100kms away.

With the above references and the rationale posted.  Any PRes soldier could apply for and accept a B-Class that is hundreds of KMs away from his current armoury and then claim high rate for the commute.  A 48th Highlander could apply for and be accepted for a job in Ottawa working days and claim the 1000kms total distance each day.  A bit far-fetched I admit, but where does the grey area begin?


----------



## dapaterson (27 Apr 2009)

For extreme distances a cost move would be authorised, or the member would request SCA in lieu of a cost move.  In your example, the 48th soldier's normal workplace would be Ottawa for the class B - and therefore would only be eligible for commuting assistance (though I can't see anyone in Ottwa authorising such a hiring).

In this case:  Normal work place form the position he accepted was local (more or less), now there is a tasking to deliver training ~100km away.  As with anyone, the job location is different; the member's responsibility is to get to their normal workplace; the Crown is responsible for the extra distance.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (27 Apr 2009)

> First - smack your clerks that are not taking care of you.
> 
> CFTDI definitions:
> 
> ...



That is exactly how I interpreted the reference. I've been researching the subject since February and that is the conclusion I came to. I'm not sure how do procede from here, as I dont think the MTEC would get anywhere. They'll tell me that I'm not eligible for high rate because I'm not on TD. I'm not on TD because I am not provided overnight accomodation. 

Further, when bringing this up to my chain of command, the response I got was "Its probably in some obscure reference somewhere you'll never find on the DIN that says that in order to be eligible for TD you must have overnight stay".


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (27 Apr 2009)

> This situation is not quite so cut and dry methinks.  The original poster accepted a B-Class job with the understanding that the workplace was going to be 100kms away, correct?



When I accepted the job, I accepted it being in city A. Half way through my contract (not even actually) it got moved to City B, which is 100km away from city A.



> Any PRes soldier could apply for and accept a B-Class that is hundreds of KMs away from his current armoury and then claim high rate for the commute.  A 48th Highlander could apply for and be accepted for a job in Ottawa working days and claim the 1000kms total distance each day.  A bit far-fetched I admit, but where does the grey area begin?



In that case, the employing unit would be Ottawa and the 1000km would constitute his normal commute, no?


----------



## Occam (27 Apr 2009)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> This situation is not quite so cut and dry methinks.  The original poster accepted a B-Class job with the understanding that the workplace was going to be 100kms away, correct?  He is not a RegF augmentee that is being tasked for 3 months to work out of a new workplace 100kms away.



Nope, that's not what he said (and I hope he got it correct the first time).  



			
				Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> "Whats happening is, I signed onto the contract to teach on some courses in city A and myunit of employment is in city A. The first course finished, no problems there. The second one started, but this time, its being run in city B and I travel there daily to teach."





> With the above references and the rationale posted.  Any PRes soldier could apply for and accept a B-Class that is hundreds of KMs away from his current armoury and then claim high rate for the commute.  A 48th Highlander could apply for and be accepted for a job in Ottawa working days and claim the 1000kms total distance each day.  A bit far-fetched I admit, but where does the grey area begin?



No, that scenario isn't possible because that would be the member's normal place of employment ("the single permanent location determined by the CF at or from which a CF member ordinarily is expected to perform the work of their position") , and would not be TD.  He would be eligible for Transportation Assistance, but that's moot if he has 10+ hours of commuting each day, right?


----------



## Occam (27 Apr 2009)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> That is exactly how I interpreted the reference. I've been researching the subject since February and that is the conclusion I came to. I'm not sure how do procede from here, as I dont think the MTEC would get anywhere. They'll tell me that I'm not eligible for high rate because I'm not on TD. I'm not on TD because I am not provided overnight accomodation.
> 
> Further, when bringing this up to my chain of command, the response I got was "Its probably in some obscure reference somewhere you'll never find on the DIN that says that in order to be eligible for TD you must have overnight stay".



All you can do is escalate the problem.  Eventually, someone in your chain of command will call someone in the Compensation and Benefits world (who can speak authoritatively), and find out that you are indeed eligible for the high rate of travel.  If you get stonewalled, a grievance is the next step.  The initial authority (IA) for that is your CO, and I'm sure he'll get to the bottom of it in short order.


----------



## CountDC (28 Apr 2009)

Submit the claim with a copy of the the CFTDI 5 which clearly states NO OVERNIGHT STAY attached.  Then challenge them to show you where in there it says you are not entitled.

I am sitting in Ottawa and we pay these MTECs all the time.  I have just arranged for one of our members to work at another location for almost a month and we will be paying for the additional mileage which may only be 10kms a day. I just paid 2 claims for a mbr that was sent on a local course as it was not at his regular place of employment.  We have members that have to drive from their regular work site to my location once a week for a meeting and we pay on an mtec. All these claims are raised by RMS Clks or Log O's, approved sect 32 and 34 by clerks and Log O's. My previous section had days where 2 of us had to to travel to Kingston for the day and again we were paid on MTEC.

Who ever you are dealing with is wrong on this matter and also have the procedure wrong.  It is their job as SME to provide you with the regulation that shows you are not entitled, not yours to provide the regulation that you are (which you already have and they just ignored).


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (28 Apr 2009)

Ok, thanks a lot CountDC. Now, these MTECs, they give you the high rate? Does this still apply after that 60 calendar days you mentionned in your previous post?


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (28 Apr 2009)

CounterDC, I've got a question. To whom does the CFTDI apply to? I just braught up everything to my Chain of Command and they told me that that reference is irrelevant because the CFTDI doesnt apply to me (due to me not being on TD).


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2009)

Your CoC needs a little education.

By virtue of sending you 100km away they have placed you on TD, whether they realize it or not.  The CFTDI describes the conditions under which TD occurs - you are "travelling outside the local area, no overnight stay" and therefore chapter 5 applies.

Your CoC wouldn't, by any chance, include the numbers 3 and 3?  That would explain a lot.


----------



## Occam (28 Apr 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Your CoC wouldn't, by any chance, include the numbers 3 and 3?  That would explain a lot.



Unless he's changed units since then, his very first post gives that away.  And you'd be correct.   ;D


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (29 Apr 2009)

Depends how high you go... Why does it matter?

And again, Im told the CFTDI doesnt apply to me so they wont accept it as a reference.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Apr 2009)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Depends how high you go... Why does it matter?
> 
> And again, Im told the CFTDI doesnt apply to me so they wont accept it as a reference.



Well.  It looks like it is Redress of Grievance time.  You have all the References to back you up.  It will take time, but you may receive a great Christmas bonus in a few years time.


----------



## Occam (29 Apr 2009)

Unbelievable.  A simple phone call or e-mail to DCBA is all it would take for them to realize that they're wrong, and they're going to force you to grieve it.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (29 Apr 2009)

Ok. And just to clarify, is it TD _or_ the high rate that I'm eligible for or is it both?


----------



## Occam (29 Apr 2009)

TD isn't a rate.  TD is a duty/travel status.  While on TD (which is defined in CFTDTI), you're allowed to claim reasonable travel costs IAW CFTDTI 5.12.

OR

You're on Temporary Workplace Change (as defined in CFTDTI), and are paid travel costs over and above your usual costs, IAW CFTDTI 5.13.

Both situations are at the employer-requested high rate of reimbursement.


----------



## CountDC (29 Apr 2009)

Bloody ell - I can't believe they are saying the CFTDI does not apply to you. Redress it please - someone needs a kick in the arse.  This is paid at high rate.  Your other option is to inform them that your car is not for DND use so they have to provide you with transport from your regular work site to the temp location - then show up at work and ask if your transport is ready.

To figure out the amount you are looking at check the rates here: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/tbm_113/b-eng.asp


----------



## MedTechStudent (23 May 2010)

Ello, please to remove if this has been asked elsewhere, did a search but couldn't find it.

Can anyone here tell me how TD claims are given on arrival back to your home unit after an attach posting?  Is it just attached to your next pay, or is it direct deposit?

I only ask because that $2,500 is going towards a shiny Tacoma so I need some sort of time frame as to when I can expect it.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Occam (23 May 2010)

If the claims office has banking details on record (ClaimsX), then it's deposited directly to your account (in other words, get in and submit the info if you already haven't - bring a void cheque to make it easy on the pay bobs).  

Otherwise, expect a cheque a few days after your claim is processed.


----------



## George Wallace (23 May 2010)

MedKAWD said:
			
		

> Ello, .........
> 
> I only ask because that $2,500 is going towards a shiny Tacoma so I need some sort of time frame as to when I can expect it.


 :

No Ellos here.

How many times must we advise people not to spend money that they don't have in their hand/bank account?  Your Claim can go into the Bank at any time.  It can also be delayed for an unspecified amount of time as well.  Do no spend your money, until you actually have it.  Don't make youself an "Administrative Burden" and create a reason for your own Release.


----------



## MedTechStudent (23 May 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> No Ellos here.
> 
> How many times must we advise people not to spend money that they don't have in their hand/bank account?  Your Claim can go into the Bank at any time.  It can also be delayed for an unspecified amount of time as well.  Do no spend your money, until you actually have it.  Don't make youself an "Administrative Burden" and create a reason for your own Release.



George I'm a bloody Brit don't censor my heritage.  

Secondly, you're misunderstanding me completely.  I don't spend money I don't have, hence the harmless inquiry as to when I can *expect*to see it, so I can spend it.  I'm not totally new to this game, I fully understand that holdups can arise.  And with no disrespect intended, I wasn't asking for financial advice, my question was about my claim and it was answered.  So lock er up if you like.

Cheers, Kyle


----------



## Occam (23 May 2010)

One note, since I didn't mention it in my first post.

The ClaimsX system is independent of the pay system.  Even though you may have direct deposit for your pay, ClaimsX is a separate system and you need to make specific arrangements for your claims payments.  Bring in a void cheque whenever your deposit info changes.


----------



## Biohazardxj (23 May 2010)

Here is the Reader's Digest condensed version of the claim process.  

1.  The member brings his claim with all the receipts and itinerary to the OR
2. The clerk takes that info and finalizes the claim in ClaimsX
3. The clerk has the member sign and sends the claim for Section 34. (Electronically)
4. The Section 34 Authority then reviews the claims and certifies it. (at this point it is electronically sent to the Cashier)  This should happen the same day but may not if he/she is not available. 
5. The Cashier uploads the claim to Ottawa, who then sends the payment to the bank electronically.  (This may take 3 to 7 business days to happen.)

Now, you mentioned an Attached Posting.  Chances are this was not done through ClaimsX but with a Movement Claim.  The same process happens but it can be a bit slower because the claim has to go to the Cashier through the mail system instead of electronically.  So tack a few more days on to it.

Also, make sure that your OR and the Cashier have your proper banking info.  A DFT reject can be a long process.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2010)

Mine (I am on my 2nd Att posting this calendar year) have been approx 5 business days to get the claim processed, and approx. 5 days after the cashiers where I am process the finalized claim for payment, the DFT drops in my account.

Same goes for my monthly Sep Expense claims; approx 5 business days after I take the paperwork to the cashier, the DFT drops in my account.

If you don't want to wait for a DFT, you could ask for a cheque.  The guys here (Winnipeg) get the cheques when they bring the finalized claim to the cashier, no wait for the DFT involved.


----------



## MedTechStudent (24 May 2010)

Thanks a lot for the input everyone!
 :nod:


----------



## kratz (25 May 2010)

While SGT-RMSCLK nailed your query,

Please remember others will read this thread. With that in mind, George's post is not unwarranted for future readers of this thread.  :nod:


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Dec 2010)

Good day admin gurus.  I have a few questions regarding a claim I am currently in the process of filling, but my OR did not provide me with clear explanations on a few things.

I was on TD at a location 750 km away from my workplace.   They were initally going to fly me there but requested to take my PMV to the TD location.  They provided me with a Cost Comparison worksheet  and I have a few questions regarding this.  The cost comparison worksheet only uses cost as a discriminator, when the policy is more liberal in their wording:



			
				http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/db-as/pmv-dbv/index-eng.asp said:
			
		

> Where a member requests to take a PMV in lieu of the most cost efficient and practical mode of travel (usually commercial air plus taxi/bus) as determined by the CO, the member may be reimbursed the high kilometric rate up to the cost of the most efficient and practical mode of transportation.



It clearly says the most cost efficient but also says and practical mode of travel.  If they were going to book me on a plane instead of driving a rental, then why is the Commercial Air travel not the more cost efficient and practical mode of travel?

Second question is with the Car Rental section of the worksheet.  I was at my TD location for 5 days.  Had I used a Rental, it would have taken me 2 days each way to drive (500 km a day), for a total of 9 days with the rental vehicle, yet they only used 7 as the number of days and told me that it's because with a rental, I can drive for 8 hours a day.  However, the CFTDI clearly states, in section 7 : 



			
				CFTDI said:
			
		

> (6)	In the interests of safe driving, if PMV or rental vehicle is used a member shall not normally be expected to drive more than:
> 
> a)	250 kilometres after having worked a full day;
> b)	350 kilometres after having worked one-half day; or
> c)	500 kilometres on any day when the CF member has not worked.



Last question is why do the worksheet use the same incidentals for Rental and Commercial Air?  I understand that I am only entitled to 1 day of incidental if I use my PMV, however if I used the Rental, I would necessarily be on incidentals for the duration of the travel and back.  I though the cost comparison was for that, to compare which method is the cheapest, independantly of each other.  I looked through the orders, policies and instructions and nowhere does it mention that with a rental, you can only have 1 day of incidental each way.

Anyways, I am a bit confused with what my OR tells me and what the documentation says.  If someone can clear this up for me I'd much appreciate it.

Thanks,

SSM


----------



## PiperDown (26 Mar 2012)

Question for the admin gods here.

I am on TD in the states for a couple weeks as funded by a CF national project ( vice my unit TD funds)  I am with 8 other pers from units across the CF.
We have been booked in suites at a hotel that have a full kitchen ( full sized appliances).  Although the hotel does provide a continental breakfast , everyone makes their own breakfast in their suites.

On our claims, they have provided the estimate for the full meal allowance for the duration of this course. ( daily rate for breakfast, lunch and supper )

The discussion amongst my course mates ( most of which are higher rank than  me ) , is that we claim all meals.   A couple of us are under the impression that because there is a continental breakfast ( even if we don't use it ), we shouldn't be claiming breakfast.  ( which is my unit policy...but alas, my unit is not paying for this TD )

Is there a CF policy regarding claiming meals, and more specifically one that pertains to having a full kitchen ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2012)

Continental breakfast is not a breakfast. It's a way of passing off day old buns and out of date jam packets.

You're in North America (I presume) have a *real* breakfast.

There should also be nothing wrong with buying groceries with the meal allowance and preparing your own meals with the kitchen in your suite.


----------



## PiperDown (26 Mar 2012)

They have a waffle maker  and something that looks like eggs.  :-\


----------



## Zoomie (26 Mar 2012)

Even if they had a full breakfast - like Holiday Inn Express offers - it is up to the member to decide if he availed himself of the complimentary breakfast and it proved sufficient.  In the end, it is a test of your ethics.


----------



## cupper (26 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Continental breakfast is not a breakfast. It's a way of passing off day old buns and out of date jam packets.
> 
> You're in North America (I presume) have a *real* breakfast.
> 
> There should also be nothing wrong with buying groceries with the meal allowance and preparing your own meals with the kitchen in your suite.



Some places in the states have "real" breakfast. But I still prefer to have a bit more of a selection that warmed over scrambled eggs and sausage patties.  :nod:



			
				Zoomie said:
			
		

> Even if they had a full breakfast - like Holiday Inn Express offers - it is up to the member to decide if he availed himself of the complimentary breakfast and it proved sufficient.  In the end, it is a test of your ethics.



You just had to play the ethics card didn't you. ;D


----------



## PiperDown (26 Mar 2012)

Canadian Forces temporary duty travel instruction.

section  7.10 - para 9

If a member occupies US Military corporate, government of school residences, apartment hotels or similar type accommodation with cooking facility, the member is entitled to the full per diem meal rate for the first 30 days.

but..... 7.10 para 1,

  Members shall only claim for those meals that they were not provided.  A member is not entitled to reimbursement with respect to a meal that is provided by a third party or other government agency.


I have a kitchen in my suite, but the hotel has a breakfast.  ( cold cereal, scrambled eggs, sausage ) 

which paragraph reigns supreme ??


----------



## AliG (26 Mar 2012)

If the provided breakfast is all you need (and hygienic - I've been places where you would not want to avail...) and you are ethical then you know what the answer is.


----------



## DAA (27 Mar 2012)

NJC Regulations Article 3.3.9 ( http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/travel-voyage/index-eng.php )

"A meal allowance shall not be paid to a traveller with respect to a meal that is provided. In exceptional situations where a traveller has incurred out of pocket expenses to supplement meals provided, the actual incurred costs may be reimbursed, based on receipts, up to the applicable meal allowance.

Where a traveller incurs meal costs that are higher than the established meal allowances in situations outside the traveller's control, the actual and reasonable expenses incurred shall be reimbursed, based on receipts."

DND's interpretation of the regulation as it applies to "Continental Breakfasts":

"Breakfast meals provided by a hotel that are considered insufficient must be supported by a statement from the member and a receipt up to the per diem rate for the meal being claimed."


----------



## Pusser (27 Mar 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> DND's interpretation of the regulation as it applies to "Continental Breakfasts":
> 
> "Breakfast meals provided by a hotel that are considered insufficient must be supported by a statement from the member and a receipt up to the per diem rate for the meal being claimed."



What this means is that you would actually have to spend the money (and provide a receipt) if you were to claim for breakfast when a continental breakfast is provided.  In other words, you can't just claim for breakfast by stating that the continental breakfast was insufficient.  Furthermore, the cost of your supplemental breakfast (second breakfast for all you hobbits out there) can only be reimbursed to the maximum rate for breakfast (cuts out the beluga caviar and champagne).  Having said all this, you could try buying bulk groceries, spreading the cost over the number of days you were there and claiming it that way.  Then it depends on how flexible your CO/Comptroller is.*

*NB:  Although a CO/Comptroller has a reasonable amount of discretion, it should not matter who is paying the bill.  A local CO/Comptroller cannot approve an unauthorized expense, regardless of whose budget eventually pays for it.


----------



## mpdid (27 Mar 2012)

For our claims it depends, a muffin and pastries are normally not sufficient and we will give the member breakfast per diem... in the hopes he used it for a real breakfast.

If you start getting into eggs, bacon/sausage, toast, juice and coffee then that's starting to sound like a breakfast. Even if I didnt like my eggs scrambled but it was offered to me along with other proteins and carbs I wouldn't claim breakfast. I work in a large unit and each member is responsible for filling out a TD worksheet. Unless something is really off we go off what they put down on there. I find that 99.5% of the time people are genuinely honest.

 I have heard of some units making clerks call the hotel to ask what kind of breakfast is offered, we do not do that.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Mar 2012)

Having been on both sides of the claim, I'll say that calling the hotel usually happens when the claimant is someone who, in the past, has been shown to be "less than fully upfront".  And I've done such calls for both military and civilian pers, and taken a red pen to a wide array of things that someone attempted to claim (spousal programs? Movies in the room?  Room service on top of the per diem?)


----------



## mpdid (27 Mar 2012)

Hi dataperson,

Yes sometimes it's.... interesting to see some stuff some people try to claim (you are so right on it being both mil and civ). And of course, if we were in serious doubt, we would have to call to hotel, but as a rule we don't. I have heard of some units making clerks call hotels if anybody claims breakfast while staying at a hotel. Yuck.

Thankfully, most people  are honest. Because when it comes down to it and a claim is falsified, it's not my butt on the line.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Mar 2012)

PDReC said:
			
		

> Hi dataperson,
> 
> Yes sometimes it's.... interesting to see some stuff some people try to claim (you are so right on it being both mil and civ). And of course, if we were in serious doubt, we would have to call to hotel, but as a rule we don't. I have heard of some units making clerks call hotels if anybody claims breakfast while staying at a hotel. Yuck.
> 
> Thankfully, most people  are honest. Because when it comes down to it and a claim is falsified, it's not my butt on the line.



"Interesting" covers so many sins - and is such a great word.

But once you're doing section 34 approvals, arguably it is your butt on the line - so a little due diligence is always warranted.


----------



## CountDC (28 Mar 2012)

Often the receipts submitted will indicate that a continental breakfast was included and sometimes claims x will indicate the meal.  If the member wants to claim the meal then I make a call to the hotel to find out what was provided.  If it is muffins and coffee then I give the meal and include a note on the claim explaining why.  if anything such as eggs is mentioned then the member must do a statement that the meal was not satisfactory and provide the receipt or credit card statement for the meal they claim they purchased.  If the member insists on claiming the meal without documentation I will have the member do a stat dec memo that they purchased the meal at x amount and send higher for approval with the recommendation that the meal not be approved.  Yes I do let the member know I will not be supporting the claim.

You are right not to assume you should claim it and to assume you would get away with it.  People have been caught for claim fraud and some have paid a hefty fee for the sake of a simple thing as claiming $5 for a taxi they didn't take.


----------



## PanaEng (28 Mar 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Often the receipts submitted will indicate that a continental breakfast was included and sometimes claims x will indicate the meal.  If the member wants to claim the meal then I make a call to the hotel to find out what was provided.  If it is muffins and coffee then I give the meal and include a note on the claim explaining why.  if anything such as eggs is mentioned then the member must do a statement that the meal was not satisfactory and provide the receipt or credit card statement for the meal they claim they purchased.  If the member insists on claiming the meal without documentation I will have the member do a stat dec memo that they purchased the meal at x amount and send higher for approval with the recommendation that the meal not be approved.  Yes I do let the member know I will not be supporting the claim.


Really?
you have that much time on your hands? must be nice (yet I'm in here - on my break ;-) )
and willing to put that much effort for $15 (compared to say 2 man/hrs at $25/hr) ???
Of-course, if you really suspect that someone is consistently dishonest and want to make an example of them, by all means...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2012)

I don't ever recall having to even turn in meal receipts. They know I'm away, where I am and that I have to eat. If the meal was provided, I don't claim it. My clerks have better things to do than call around the country\ continent\ world and see what was on the fucking menu.

If someone is going to get their panties in a knot because they don't know if the waffle machine in the lobby constitutes a breakfast, don't friggin' claim it. You shouldn't be allowed out to wander civilization without supervision, if you sit up at nights worrying about such trivial shit.

I'm always amazed at how such simple questions around here get turned into 20 pages of the most difficult administrative exercises this side of D-Day. It's no wonder our military is so disfunctional and hamstrung by bureaucracy :facepalm:

Anyway that's my  :2c: whether anyone likes it or not. I've survived over 35 years in uniform without losing sleep about a TD meal or whether I have to turn my paperwork in to some claims nazi.


----------



## my72jeep (28 Mar 2012)

:goodpost: : :deadhorse:


----------



## Pusser (28 Mar 2012)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Really?
> you have that much time on your hands? must be nice (yet I'm in here - on my break ;-) )
> and willing to put that much effort for $15 (compared to say 2 man/hrs at $25/hr) ???
> Of-course, if you really suspect that someone is consistently dishonest and want to make an example of them, by all means...



As the guardians of the Queen's purse, it's our JOB to do this at least periodically.  If we don't, then folks will simply always claim for things they're not entitled to because "no one ever checks that!"  It may seem like a small amount if it's only one person, but if "everyone's doing it," the costs start to add up and can be significant.  Remember all the bad press the public service has gotten because some idiots have claimed for chewing gum?  It's not about making an example of someone (because most often it's simply stricken off the claim and that's the end of it).  It's about enforcing the rules.  It's kind of like making sure all those "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT" tags are well, removed before flight.


----------



## mpdid (29 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> As the guardians of the Queen's purse, it's our JOB to do this at least periodically.  If we don't, then folks will simply always claim for things they're not entitled to because "no one ever checks that!"  It may seem like a small amount if it's only one person, but if "everyone's doing it," the costs start to add up and can be significant.  Remember all the bad press the public service has gotten because some idiots have claimed for chewing gum?  It's not about making an example of someone (because most often it's simply stricken off the claim and that's the end of it).  It's about enforcing the rules.  It's kind of like making sure all those "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT" tags are well, removed before flight.



I agree. I will always work to the benefit of a member. My job isn't there to screw them, ever. I like my customers. So if they are entitled to something that is clearly written in policy, I will give it to them. BUT if it isn't claimable, or is a gray area I will either say "I'm sorry," or seek clarification.

As I said 99% of the time there is no problem. There is a lot of TD that happens in my unit, domestic and international, so we've seen almost everything.


----------



## CountDC (30 Mar 2012)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Really?
> you have that much time on your hands? must be nice (yet I'm in here - on my break ;-) )
> and willing to put that much effort for $15 (compared to say 2 man/hrs at $25/hr) ???
> Of-course, if you really suspect that someone is consistently dishonest and want to make an example of them, by all means...



Yes I do make the time to do my job and don't see that as a problem. I know some people see picking up a phone and pressing the numbers as a huge problem and god forbid someone should take 5 minutes to check the facts.  Wouldn't really want people to do their jobs now would we.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Yes I do make the time to do my job and don't see that as a problem. I know some people see picking up a phone and pressing the numbers as a huge problem and god forbid someone should take 5 minutes to check the facts.  Wouldn't really want people to do their jobs now would we.



See, here's the problem. Having to check should be the exception.

You make it sound like the rule and that you do it all the time, not in the odd instance.

You're not the only professional around here, lighten up.


----------



## mpdid (30 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But once you're doing section 34 approvals, arguably it is your butt on the line - so a little due diligence is always warranted.



Good point, thank you.


----------



## CountDC (30 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> See, here's the problem. Having to check should be the exception.
> 
> You make it sound like the rule and that you do it all the time, not in the odd instance.
> 
> You're not the only professional around here, lighten up.



Perhaps you missed the part at the beginning which seems to me to clearly show it is the exception and does not make it sound liike I do it all the time so I will repeat it for you:

*Often the receipts submitted will indicate that a continental breakfast was included and sometimes claims x will indicate the meal.  If the member wants to claim the meal then I make a call to the hotel * 

Damn rights I am going to check when I have the document saying the meal is included or the system says it was and the member is saying it wasn't.   I have to justify on the claim why I am ignoring the receipt or overriding the system to the auditors and simply saying "oh, he told me he wanted to" doesn't wash.

By the way - this also protects the member if their claim gets audited down the road.  Imagine if the member travelled every month, claimed $15 each time that they were not supposed to be paid and then the auditors checked the claims at the end of the year.  Who do you think will be blamed when the member is informed they have to pay back $180?  Of course it will be the clerk that "didn't do his job" again.

Lighten up applies both ways - people should lighten up about others doing their jobs.


----------



## misratah500 (22 Aug 2012)

I'm posted to a ship and I collect sea pay. I am TD'd out to CFNES Halifax for 8 weeks to do some courses. And the west coast fleet school (CFFSE Esq) TD clerk told me I'm not entitled to TD pay because I collect sea duty allowance. 

This is the first I have ever heard of this since I've collected TD pay and sea pay simultaneously on a few occasions, the last being Feb 2011.

I talked to my pay office onboard my ship and they agree with me that I collect both and never heard of any new rule that stops you from getting TD pay. My claim has a hand written note on the corner that says " No advance because he collects sea pay"

WTF is the correct action here. Is the clerk at CFFSE Esq wrong and how will I get this sorted out when I get back?


----------



## aesop081 (22 Aug 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> My claim has a hand written note on the corner that says " No advance because he collects sea pay"



Typical Navy...........

In all my years of receiving AIRCRA, it has never affected receiving TD when I went away on courses and tasks. It may be a quirk specific to SDA bit to me, it sounds more like Navy BS.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Aug 2012)

CFTDI on incidental expenses (section 7.16):



> (3) (No Entitlement) There is no entitlement to an incidental expense allowance if any of the following conditions are satisfied:
> (a) the member is on adventure training authorized by or under the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff;
> (b) with the exception of sick leave granted under QR&O article 16.16 (Sick Leave), the member is on leave under QR&O chapter 16 (Leave);
> (c) the member is in hospital;
> ...



By my read, that means that when you are at sea for 24 hours or more you are no longer entitled to incidentals.  I believe this is a fairly recent change.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Aug 2012)

The OP is going from ship to shore for a tasking on the other coast.


----------



## misratah500 (22 Aug 2012)

Yeah, by reading that description that doesn't apply to me I don't believe. I am posted to a ship but I'm TD'd to the west coast school, which is sending me to the east coast school for a course. I'm getting R&Q and travel incidentals. Again my clerks on ship said this is bullshit and I get TD pay. I think the clerk at the School's OR is confused....


----------



## Sub_Guy (22 Aug 2012)

Print off the reference and bring it in to the School's OR.


----------



## Pusser (23 Aug 2012)

The CURRENT CFTDI (revised Jan 2012) as quoted above is correct; however, perhaps poorly formatted.  It should look like this:

8.16 - INCIDENTAL EXPENSE ALLOWANCE - ADMINISTRATION

(3) (No Entitlement) There is no entitlement to an incidental expense allowance if any of the following conditions are satisfied:

   (a) the member is on adventure training authorized by or under the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff;

   (b) with the exception of sick leave granted under QR&O article 16.16 (Sick Leave), the member is on leave under QR&O chapter 16 (Leave); 

   (c) the member is in hospital;

   (d) the member is in receipt of an allowance under Section 2 (Environmental Allowances) of CBI 205 (Allowances For Officers And Non-Commissioned Members) and is,

          (i) deployed — in the field — on operations or training exercises of 24 hours or longer duration, or 
          (ii) aboard a ship — or submarine — that is out of port for more than 24 hours;

   (e) the member is on leave because the member requested to use a PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation and the member uses that PMV for duty travel.

The situation described by the OP does not satisfy any of these conditions.  The condition that prohibits receiving TD (incidentals) applies only if the member is deployed on board a ship.  With his ship on one coast and him on the other (attending a shore-based school no less), this is clearly not the case.

The purpose of this regulation is to prevent Staff personnel (e.g. Sea Training Staff who also receive SDA, although not actually posted to a ship) who travel on TD to meet ships and who often stay in hotels en route (and are thus entitled to TD allowances) from drawing TD *while living on board*  the ship they are visiting.  The reasoning is simple - when living on board a deployed ship, they have no meal, accommodation or incidental expenses.  The same cannot be said of a sailor on TD for a course and living ashore away from home (sailors home-ported on the same coast as the course don't get anything).

The staff who are telling you that you are not entitled to TD (incidentals) while on course on the other coast are simply wrong and are not interpreting the CFTDI correctly.

Whether someone is or is not entitled to a particular allowance is irrelevant to whether they can draw an advance on the claim.  If there is a value to the claim (and there would be, even if it's for lunch in the airport in Toronto), the member can draw an advance if required.


----------



## DAA (23 Aug 2012)

Your Claims Clerk is NOT reading the "ENTIRE" regulation... :

7.16 (3) (d) contains two parts!!!  Yes you are in receipt of an "Environmental Allowance", however, you do NOT meet one of the other two conditions (ie; deployed in the field or onboard a ship out of port).

Hence, you are entitled to FULL TD benefits while outside your geographical area...it's as simple as that!!


----------



## bridges (29 Aug 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The purpose of this regulation is to prevent Staff personnel (e.g. Sea Training Staff who also receive SDA, although not actually posted to a ship) who travel on TD to meet ships and who often stay in hotels en route (and are thus entitled to TD allowances) from drawing TD *while living on board*  the ship they are visiting.  The reasoning is simple - when living on board a deployed ship, they have no meal, accommodation or incidental expenses.  The same cannot be said of a sailor on TD for a course and living ashore away from home (sailors home-ported on the same coast as the course don't get anything).
> 
> The staff who are telling you that you are not entitled to TD (incidentals) while on course on the other coast are simply wrong and are not interpreting the CFTDI correctly.



 :nod:   A perfect example of why regulations should perhaps include a non-binding explanatory section, laying out the rationale & purpose for the regulation.  Otherwise they're much more likely to be misinterpreted and/or slavishly adhered to, long after their original purpose has been overtaken by events - if anyone who knew what it was is even still available to explain it.

In the meantime, fortunately there's Army.ca.


----------



## DAA (28 Sep 2012)

DND/CF are a subscribing Federal Department to the NJC Directives  ( http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/travel-voyage/index-eng.php ) which can also be referred to as the Treasury Board Directives (TBS).  Which basically means that we adopt (along with many other Federal Departments) our travel policy based on what the NJC publishes.  The content of the NJC Directives forms the backbone for the CFTDI's.  So in my opinion, the NJC directives are the guiding principle to our travel benefits (TD).

Yet, when a group of CF members travels on TD to the same location and are put into transient quarters, why are these people assigned accomodations based on their "rank" (think about Cpl, MCpl, Sgt, WO, Lt, Capt and NOT Snr Offrs)?  Cpl and MCpl get a room with 4-5 bunk beds, Sgt and WO get doubled up and the offrs get a single room.

NJC Directive 3.3.1 states "3.3.1 Accommodation - The standard for accommodation is a single room, in a safe environment, conveniently located and comfortably equipped."

Case in point  -  visit to our unit (Cpl, MCpl, Sgt and Civilian)

Cpl and MCpl were put in a transient room which consisted of 5 bunks beds and nothing more.  The Sgt was put in a room with 4 separate beds and lockers,  The civilian (CR-3) was put in a suite with a queen size bed, big screen TV, fridge, microwave, etc......

Personally, I think they all should have been treated equal....but that is just my opinion.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Yet, when a group of CF members travels on TD to the same location and are put into transient quarters, why are these people assigned accomodations based on their "rank" (think about Cpl, MCpl, Sgt, WO, Lt, Capt and NOT Snr Offrs)?  Cpl and MCpl get a room with 4-5 bunk beds, Sgt and WO get doubled up and the offrs get a single room.



This is not a 'CF" situation. Blame the environment, formation or unit you work in. When I travel on TD with a group from my unit, we all stay in the same accomodations, Private to LCol. 

Well, with the exception of Halifax and Esquimalt ( Waaaaaaait a minute.....that's the RCN......... : )


----------



## Gunner98 (28 Sep 2012)

The civilian can be asked if they will voluntarily stay in quarters but they have the right at any class & level to say no if the quarters do not meet the NJC Directive - comfortable, safe and convenient.  

Local decisions result in different outcomes as someone known as a Responsibility Manager or Administrator is signing off on Section 32 of all claims before the journeys begin, even on bulk claims.  

As a senior officer I have slept in bunk beds and shared bathrooms over the last decade. I have seen civilians volunteer to stay in below standard bunk-bed quarters in the spirit of conserving limited TD funds.  At the same time at the same unit I have seen 'entitled senior officers' whose flight bookings have been approved when the cost is in excess of 5 times the rate of 'non-entitled' personnel flying on the same aircraft to the same destination.


----------



## Shamrock (29 Sep 2012)

In the above, for us innocent bystanders, one should note CR-3 is (I believe) equivalent to a Cpl Clerk.   However, to avoid a lopsided discussion, we should compare the compensation the Cpl receives to that of the CR despite the CR's collective bargaining agreement.


----------



## garb811 (29 Sep 2012)

The thing to remember is the NJC directives apply to Public Service employees.  From the NJC Website:



> The National Joint Council of the Public Service of Canada is the Forum of Choice for co-development, consultation and information sharing between the government as employer and public service bargaining agents.



As with everything negotiated between Treasury Board and the Unions, these directives are the starting point for CF members and there are a ton of places where CF and NJC directives are similar yet different; take a look at the differences between MFSIs and FSDs, the differing moving and separation entitlements etc etc.  DAA, judging by your avatar you've been OUTCAN to an embassy and benefited from this "perk" in the past as well.

The issue of the not respecting that NJC directives apply to DND employees and CFTDI apply only to CF members must be wide spread, if I recall correctly there was a fairly recent CANFORGEN clarifying this point.


----------



## DAA (1 Oct 2012)

garb811 said:
			
		

> The thing to remember is the NJC directives apply to Public Service employees.  From the NJC Website:
> 
> As with everything negotiated between Treasury Board and the Unions, these directives are the starting point for CF members and there are a ton of places where CF and NJC directives are similar yet different; take a look at the differences between MFSIs and FSDs, the differing moving and separation entitlements etc etc.  DAA, judging by your avatar you've been OUTCAN to an embassy and benefited from this "perk" in the past as well.
> 
> The issue of the not respecting that NJC directives apply to DND employees and CFTDI apply only to CF members must be wide spread, if I recall correctly there was a fairly recent CANFORGEN clarifying this point.



What I find intriguing, is CFTDI 1.04 (Authority - TB - Delgation) which basically states "......to determine and regulate payments that may be made to CF members, for the following specific purposes:  a.  to ensure *comparability * to payments that are authorized to be made to a public service employee in similar circumstances;  and b.  to make minor amendments to the unique travel and reloc benefits that may be payable to CF members, if the Secretary is of the opinion that the amendments will *not change the essential character of those benefits*"

So once again, we find ourselves subscribing to a nationally recognized directive for what could be the purpose of "standardization" but then not following the basic guidelines and by default "restricting" core entitlements based on an individuals rank.  Also, if you look at the DND Living Accommodation Manual, there is no longer any references contained in this document which direct the allocation of single and or transient quarters based on an individuals rank either, only based on the persons status in location (ie; Posted, Att Posted, TD, etc).

I'm not saying putting people up in barracks where the room is 10 bunk beds deep is right or wrong, all I am saying is that the regulations should be applied equally.


----------



## bridges (1 Oct 2012)

There are many instances in which CF and PS entitlements differ.  Just on my last claim I found out that civ employees can take their personal vehicle even if it's not the most cost-efficient method, whereas mil mbrs are obliged to do an elaborate comparison of at least 3 travel options ahead of time, and can only claim mileage up to the cheapest option - at least, that's how it's applied in my unit.

A while back we had a civ emp and CF mbr deploy to KAF together, as individuals (not a large unit);  on their return flight the civ emp was in business class while the mil mbr was in economy, on the same plane.  The civ emp was not allowed to refuse business class - while the mil mbr was not allowed to request it.  This after working 6 months together in theatre.

Civ emps' guidelines are based on the results of collective bargaining.  That notwithstanding, putting a Cpl in a room with 5 bunk beds while a CR-03 (basically a Cpl-equivalent) gets a private room with all the goodies doesn't seem right - it seems like an anachronism that has long since been done away with, in many locations.  Sounds like the unit wasn't allowed to force the civ emp into shacks, and the particular civ emp didn't offer, so they decided to save money on the backs of those whom they CAN force into shacks.  It's too bad the system still allows this.   :not-again:


----------



## DAA (3 Oct 2012)

garb811 said:
			
		

> The thing to remember is the NJC directives apply to Public Service employees.  As with everything negotiated between Treasury Board and the Unions, these directives are the starting point for CF members and there are a ton of places where CF and NJC directives are similar yet different; take a look at the differences between MFSIs and FSDs, the differing moving and separation entitlements etc etc.  DAA, judging by your avatar you've been OUTCAN to an embassy and benefited from this "perk" in the past as well.
> 
> The issue of the not respecting that NJC directives apply to DND employees and CFTDI apply only to CF members must be wide spread, if I recall correctly there was a fairly recent CANFORGEN clarifying this point.



Actually, the NJC directives apply equally right across the department, whether you wear a uniform or not.  You have to remember that the NJC Directives have "replaced" the old Treasury Board directives.  So there is no gray area.  DND/CF can amplify these within the content but without approval from the "Secretary" of the TBS, they cannot be restricted.  MFSI's and FSD's are relatively the same but I will agree, with modifications.  As a matter of fact, if the benefits of an MFSI exceed what is an FSD, Foreign Affairs will be certain to adjust things to ensure comparability, regretably, the same cannot be said for the other direction in some instances.

And yes, I was OUTCAN at an Embassy but the TD travel benefits when I was there, were identical to anyone else serving in Canada.  Anyone that did try to take a "perk", I am sure you can find their names on the Military Justice Court Martial site.

The CANFORGEN that came out, dealt with DND civilian employees travelling into and out of areas of operations which falls into an entirely different category.


----------



## armyvern (5 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> There are many instances in which CF and PS entitlements differ.  Just on my last claim I found out that civ employees can take their personal vehicle even if it's not the most cost-efficient method, whereas mil mbrs are obliged to do an elaborate comparison of at least 3 travel options ahead of time, and can only claim mileage up to the cheapest option - at least, that's how it's applied in my unit.
> 
> ...



I've already pointed out the vast differences in the differing standards of entitlement in the Benefits Loss thread where the original CANFORGEN clearly pointed out how awesome us CF members have it compared to other militaries with a comment about, "but not compared to our fellow public servants".  

Check out the NJC for PS on unaccompanied postings - compared to our IR - living standards of entitlement (2 bedroom), entitlement to "weekend travel assistance to home" compared to our once per year ... etc etc ad naseum. This shit is not new, surprising, or equal ... and hasn't been since as far back as I remember. We just have to remember that CANFORGEN's focus as they dumbed/cheapened us down even further, "but you've got it soooooooo good compared to other militaries." PLUS: we can't strike.    Live with it or GTFO we're told.


----------



## bridges (5 Oct 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Live with it or GTFO we're told.



Agreed.  And this kind of statement, along with "It goes with the uniform", "If you don't like it, there's the door" etc. is a poor substitute for treating people fairly and communicating things clearly.  

Wish I could be more specific (memory fails) - but I heard of one particular briefing a while back, concerning some perceived grievance of great concern to those present, where the senior officer said in effect "If you don't like it - hand in your release request" - whereupon several of the attendees did just that.  

That should be an indicator that something's wrong.


----------



## armyvern (5 Oct 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Agreed.  And this kind of statement, along with "It goes with the uniform", "If you don't like it, there's the door" etc. is a poor substitute for treating people fairly and communicating things clearly.
> 
> Wish I could be more specific (memory fails) - but I heard of one particular briefing a while back, concerning some perceived grievance of great concern to those present, where the senior officer said in effect "If you don't like it - hand in your release request" - whereupon several of the attendees did just that.
> 
> That should be an indicator that something's wrong.



And the caveat line of "that's why you get paid more ..." kills me too. If we got paid the overtime pay PS are receiving for those hours over and above 40/week that we are subject to, I _might_ buy that line.

But hey, now that they bartered away their own severance pay ultimately resulting in the loss of ours, I wonder if they'll barter for us to receive that OT pay too; I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Veovius (16 Feb 2014)

I've got a weird question, and for the life of me, I can't find any references that say I'm WRONG.

I'm permanently posted to, and work at, Base A, but I live in a "suitable residential community" (not sure if that's important, I'm not on IR) for Base A.  My residence is located just within Base B's AOR.
I've been TD'd to Base B for a month, but because I live in Base B's AOR, I'm not entitled to R and Q, according to the TD message.

It's my belief that even though I don't get R and Q, I'm still on "TD", and entitled to the rest of the TD umbrella.  I've read the CFTDTI, and this is what I've come up with so far:

My "place of duty" is Base A.  Since I've been TD'd outside of my place of employment, I think Section 6 applies to me:


> Subject to Chapter 3 (Application of CFTDTI), this Chapter applies to a member who:
> (a) is on TD or on an attached posting;
> (b) is travelling between their place of duty and another duty location; and
> (b) is not authorized to occupy accommodations overnight.


Also, Sec 6.20(3) looks like it's applicable:


> (3) (Home Outside Place of Duty) In this Section, for the purposes of calculating a direct road distance from a member’s home, a home that is located outside the member’s place of duty is deemed to be located at the nearest point to the member’s home on the geographical boundary of that place of duty.



My BOR has expressed their opinion that since I live in Base B's AOR, that I'm not entitled to ANY TD at all.  However, from my relatively uninformed readings, it seems that even someone who is TD'd to somewhere within their AOR is, according to Section 5, entitled to: 



> 5.28 — DISRUPTION — TEMPORARY WORKPLACE CHANGE
> (1) (Entitlement) Subject to instruction 5.20 (General), a member is entitled to be reimbursed — for a maximum of 60 days — for travel expenses to and from their temporary workplace if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
> (a) an approving authority ordered the member to work at a temporary workplace instead of the member’s permanent workplace;
> (b) the member was not advised — in writing and at least 30 days beforehand — of the workplace change;
> ...



What I'm looking for is:

What am I entitled to, if anything?  A duty vehicle?  Duty Shuttle from Base A to Base B?  PMV Mileage from my house to Base B?  Meals?  I don't know if it matters, but I didn't receive my TD message until ~28 days prior.

If I'm totally out to lunch, can someone please provide a reference?

Thank you.


----------



## DAA (16 Feb 2014)

If this is still the case ----->  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104849/post-1126361.html#msg1126361

Then "technically" you are proceeding on TD, to the location where your DHG&E were last moved at Public Expense.  Hence, you are NOT entitlted to the benefits of TD, whilst geographically "re-located" with your DHG&E.

The only exceptionn to this rule, is if the Unit that you are being TD'd to, orders you to occupy R&Q for the purpose of training.

So while you say Base A is within the AOR of Base B, your previous post "Requesting to Live Outside the Geo Boundaries" along with it's subsequent approval, says otherwise.


----------



## Veovius (16 Feb 2014)

Sorry for the confusion; I clarified my above post.  My residence is in Base B's AOR (which I moved to at public expense) but the town has been designated a suitable community for Base A.

I received a reply back from DCBA just after my COS date.  My commuting assistance memo from DCBA reads that I am not entitled to "separation expense, free rations and quarters, leave travel assistance, special commuting assistance and any applicable post living differential will be authorised at the lower of the two rates between the living location and the place of duty.".  It goes on to say that because my town is a suitable community, I shall be entitled to commuting assistance.  It doesn't say anything about Base B at all, TD or otherwise.

Do you mean to say that "technicallY" I've been on TD to base A for the whole time?

Edit:  And can't you be TD'd to another location in your AOR?  Isn't that what section 5 is all about?


----------



## DAA (16 Feb 2014)

Veovius said:
			
		

> Sorry for the confusion; I clarified my above post.  My residence is in Base B's AOR (which I moved to at public expense) but the town has been designated a suitable community for Base A.
> 
> I received a reply back from DCBA just after my COS date.  My commuting assistance memo from DCBA reads that I am not entitled to "separation expense, free rations and quarters, leave travel assistance, special commuting assistance and any applicable post living differential will be authorised at the lower of the two rates between the living location and the place of duty.".  It goes on to say that because my town is a suitable community, I shall be entitled to commuting assistance.  It doesn't say anything about Base B at all, TD or otherwise.
> 
> ...



Because of the fact that you requested to "Live Outside the Geographical Boundaries" of your place of duty and had that request approved, you had to "waive" certain entitlements.  I have PM'd you with some questions, so I can't really give you a proper answer until you respond.

From a purely generic point of view, personnel on TD within the geographical area of their DHG&E are not entitled to the benefits of TD.


----------



## Richard P (3 Mar 2014)

I received an email containing the loading message for my courses this summer. I can get the gist of it, but am curious as to what a few things mean. I know I should be asking up CoC, but perhaps if the information is publicly available  (as in here), it would save everybody confusion.

Firstly, what exactly is TD?

Also, what does the following mean? "MAR SS OFFRS WILL BE TAKEN IN CHARGE BY LRTD"


----------



## dapaterson (3 Mar 2014)

TD = Temporary Duty.  Duty that takes you temporarily away from your usual place of duty.


----------



## Wolseleydog (8 Mar 2014)

Regarding TD, just for backgrd, perhaps its worth explaining:

a. being "on TD" invokes a specific regime of allowances:
(1) rations and quarters are covered for pers on TD -- either on base or, if that is not practicable, then by reimbursement for commercial accomodation and meals, up to specified rates, supported by receipts.
(2) travel expenses will also be covered, once again in accordance with set rules, typically your admin pers will book the travel.
(3) there is also a small daily allowance for misc expenses.

b. because of the cost of all this,TD is controlled:
(1) you must be officially ordered onto TD -- your own unit can do this if it is sending you somewhere, but it must be formal and in writing.  Since you are going on a crse, the formal authority is that msg.
(2) the piece of paperwork that documents this official status of being on TD is your TD claim, with a signed section 32.  You should have this with you whenever on TD.

c. Note that TD is not the only means by which you can be sent physically away somewhere for duty.  Other options are, for example, attached posting, field or operational deployment.  TD is a specific administrative means of sending you away that means certain specific procedure and allowances. 

Perhaps others who specialize in admin matters can clarify further or correct any inaccuracies...


----------



## kratz (8 Mar 2014)

If the Op or anyone interested, reads CFTDI and the NJC Travel Directives, you will know almost as much as the clerks know, as these are the references we follow for most TD questions.


----------



## Richard P (15 Mar 2014)

Thank you for the responses. The NJC link was quite useful.  With some outside research I found out that LRTD is  the Leadership Recruit Training Division. If there is anyone else who has done both BMOQ and MARS II at Venture, would you be able to tell me what it entails when you are 'taken on by' them during the almost 10 day gap between courses?


----------



## eliminator (16 Apr 2014)

Has anyone had any success getting a business/first class airfare for TD based on the following? (Specifically an international flight with multiple flight segments adding up to over 9 hours.

8.30 — AIR TRAVEL
(1) (Senior Officers) Subject to paragraph 8.20(2) (Selection), a member is:

(a) in respect of a senior officer who is ordered by an approving authority to travel in economy class, entitled both to travel and to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses for that economy class travel; and

(b) in any other case, entitled both to travel and to be reimbursed in accordance with Treasury Board Special Travel Authorities, as amended from time to time.

(2) (Members) Subject to paragraph 8.20(2) (Selection), a member — who is not a senior officer — is:

(a) in respect of a flight or series of flights in which the total travelling time — from takeoff at the first airport to landing at the last airport — is nine or more hours without an overnight stay during those hours, entitled both to travel in business class and to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses for that travel; and

(b) in any other case, entitled both to travel in economy class and to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses for that travel.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Apr 2014)

Read 8.31 as well:

(3) (Business Class Travel — Other Members) An approving authority determines 
whether a member — who is not a senior officer — travels in business class non-stop 
under paragraph 8.30(2)(a) or travels in economy class with one or more overnight stays 
under paragraph 8.30(2)(b).


Given the cost differential, for a trip to Australia (for example) you're more likely to get an overnight each way in Hawaii than to fly in business class.


----------



## Tibbson (16 Apr 2014)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Has anyone had any success getting a business/first class airfare for TD based on the following? (Specifically an international flight with multiple flight segments adding up to over 9 hours.
> 
> 8.30 — AIR TRAVEL
> (1) (Senior Officers) Subject to paragraph 8.20(2) (Selection), a member is:
> ...



I've been able to fly business class on all virtually all of my civilian overseas flights.  Specifically Toronto to Spain, Greece (Crete actually), Poland, New Delhi, Amsterdam and a few others.   Although we had a nights stop over on the trip to India the flight times for each leg were well over the 9 hour limit.  Its always been because of the flight/travel time and because my "cost center manager" OK'd the expence.  

The best time I ever had was one long flight to India where me and one other from my Unit flew business class while an officer from another Unit travelling with us was only authorized "cattle class" by his unit.  He really didnt like the thought of two MCpl's in business class without him.


----------



## Strike (16 Apr 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Its always been because of the flight/travel time and because my "cost center manager" OK'd the expence.



And that's sometimes the deciding factor.  If money is tight and going business class vice economy means the difference between going and not, then you're going to end up going economy.  Happened to me (the flight was about 45 minutes over the line that qualified me for business) but the difference in prices would have affected future TD opportunities for that year.

For those who travel a lot, I know many that will opt for economy class and, because they have so many points in whatever loyalty program, "pay" for the upgrade with their points or voucher on those extra long trips.


----------



## eliminator (17 Apr 2014)

Thanks for the replies. Normally I don't bother pursuing these things, but my return travel works out to be about 26 hours since there is a stopover of over 8 hours right in the middle. (My flight to my TD is only about 12 hours since the flights line up nicely)

My orderly room is giving me a hard time with me requesting another look at the 26 hour air travel option. There are plenty of other much shorter flight options but they cost more. Got the old "most economical" means argument. (Despite duration and convenience also being stated selection criteria)

I even suggested a hotel option for the nasty stopover and they said "not entitled."

Now I will have to attack from the business/first class argument perspective.


----------



## DAA (17 Apr 2014)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Thanks for the replies. Normally I don't bother pursuing these things, but my return travel works out to be about 26 hours since there is a stopover of over 8 hours right in the middle. (My flight to my TD is only about 12 hours since the flights line up nicely)
> 
> My orderly room is giving me a hard time with me requesting another look at the 26 hour air travel option. There are plenty of other much shorter flight options but they cost more. Got the old "most economical" means argument. (Despite duration and convenience also being stated selection criteria)
> 
> ...



A 26 hour trip may be more "economical" but it sure isn't "practical".     :facepalm:


----------



## Journeyman (17 Apr 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...... for a trip to Australia (for example) you're more likely to get an overnight each way in Hawaii than to fly in business class.


....or San Francisco, Fiji, or Kiwi-land...both ways    8)


----------



## Tibbson (17 Apr 2014)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Thanks for the replies. Normally I don't bother pursuing these things, but my return travel works out to be about 26 hours since there is a stopover of over 8 hours right in the middle. (My flight to my TD is only about 12 hours since the flights line up nicely)
> 
> My orderly room is giving me a hard time with me requesting another look at the 26 hour air travel option. There are plenty of other much shorter flight options but they cost more. Got the old "most economical" means argument. (Despite duration and convenience also being stated selection criteria)
> 
> ...



I think you will find that with a stop over that long you are entitled to a room.  They cant expect you to travel over all that time without an opportunity to sleep in an actual bed.  I dont have references at home but there must be something in the TDIs somewhere.


----------



## DAA (17 Apr 2014)

I booked just such a trip recently for someone (not a Snr Offr) but the cost to upgrade to "Business Class" was far more than implementing a "layover" enroute.  My normal mode of ops, is to get the person from point A to point B as fast as possible, with economy in mind of course.

If you are travelling on "TD" and the travel time exceeds the "9" hours quoted in the CFTDTI's (and repeated in the NJC Directives), then you are entitled to, as a minimum, the overnight stop enroute.  Upgrading to Business Class is at the discretion of the RC Manager but 90% of the time, a layover is much much cheaper.

Keep in mind, this is ONLY applicable to TD and DOES NOT apply to CF Relocations.


----------



## eliminator (17 Apr 2014)

I'm certainly not gunning for a first class ticket as I appreciated the significant added costs. However, looks like a request for a hotel room during my 8+ hour stopover has gone up for approval today.

What irks me about the whole situation is that there are multiple options to get me home in the 12-14 hour timeframe vice 26 but they cost a few hundred dollars more. 

Now with a hotel room and transport to and from the hotel room, most of the "savings" will now be lost had they just booked me on my desired flights in the first place.

/rant


----------



## DAA (17 Apr 2014)

eliminator said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not gunning for a first class ticket as I appreciated the significant added costs. However, looks like a request for a hotel room during my 8+ hour stopover has gone up for approval today.
> 
> What irks me about the whole situation is that there are multiple options to get me home in the 12-14 hour timeframe vice 26 but they cost a few hundred dollars more.
> 
> ...



Yup.  And the room, is for "overnight" and not just inbetween flights.  It's plane lands, you go to Hotel and spend the night and then wake up and continue flying the next day.

If there are flight available, with "shorter" travel times that may still exceed the "9" hours, you just need to "waive/accept" that option.  Provided the cost is not "exorbant" and equivalent to or less than the overnighter, then there really shouldn't be a problem.

I won't touch on the reason you are experiencing this.....


----------



## Stoker (17 Apr 2014)

eliminator said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not gunning for a first class ticket as I appreciated the significant added costs. However, looks like a request for a hotel room during my 8+ hour stopover has gone up for approval today.
> 
> What irks me about the whole situation is that there are multiple options to get me home in the 12-14 hour timeframe vice 26 but they cost a few hundred dollars more.
> 
> ...



Reminds me of a situation that happened to me last month.  Sailed into San Diego and went to the airport with the group on the way back to HFX, flight was cancelled and the travel service booked us automatically for a flight 3 days later. As we wanted to get back to HFX as soon as possible to meet another sailing commitment 3 days later we rented a van to get us to LAX to catch another flight. Ended up getting some grief about the rental, but compared to 4 hotel rooms for 3 days they accepted it. Funny how the military thinks eh.


----------



## Tibbson (17 Apr 2014)

eliminator said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not gunning for a first class ticket as I appreciated the significant added costs. However, looks like a request for a hotel room during my 8+ hour stopover has gone up for approval today.
> 
> What irks me about the whole situation is that there are multiple options to get me home in the 12-14 hour timeframe vice 26 but they cost a few hundred dollars more.
> 
> ...



Sadly,  if one were to take the cost of the quicker but slightly more expensive trip and compare it to the cost of the cheaper flight PLUS stopover/hotel costs AND the "man hours" dicking around....its more cost effective to send you on the shorter travel itinerary.


----------



## WPJ (18 Apr 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Sadly,  if one were to take the cost of the quicker but slightly more expensive trip and compare it to the cost of the cheaper flight PLUS stopover/hotel costs AND the "man hours" dicking around....its more cost effective to send you on the shorter travel itinerary.



When I was traveling a lot it would be a total kick I'm the pants, on the body and be more draining than working a double shift.


----------



## Tibbson (19 Apr 2014)

WPJ said:
			
		

> When I was traveling a lot it would be a total kick I'm the pants, on the body and be more draining than working a double shift.



Well thats another reason my office tends to approve business class for those long haul flights.  That way we can get there quicker and hit the ground running as soon as you land.


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 May 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> If you are travelling on "TD" and the travel time exceeds the "9" hours quoted in the CFTDTI's (and repeated in the NJC Directives), then you are entitled to, as a minimum, the overnight stop enroute.  Upgrading to Business Class is at the discretion of the RC Manager but 90% of the time, a layover is much much cheaper.
> 
> Keep in mind, this is ONLY applicable to TD and DOES NOT apply to CF Relocations.



Just wondering, my unit is under the impression it is a "should" not an "entitlement" regarding the overnight stop.   Can you send me the reference?


----------



## 3green (4 Nov 2014)

I have a question regarding meal allowances when on TD as aircrew. A search of the forum revealed nothing on this topic.

As aircrew, flying a mission on TD and returning to home base, what is the applicable time used to determine when a member is entitled to a meal? I believe the applicable ref from the TD manual is 7.18.4.c.ii ".._.a member who, for a full day, is on duty travel is entitled - except in respect of any meal that is provided at no expense to the member - to a breakfast, lunch and dinner allowance. .... if the member arrives home from duty travel after 1800 hours local time_" 

To me this means that if the plane lands at 1655 local time, taxi in and shut down at 1705 local time (which is the legal definition of the end of the "flight time" and therefore is the legal "arrival time") and then the crew proceeds to complete roughly an hour of paperwork (which is typical) that would put the member leaving the workplace around 1805. Normally, being at "work" during the dinner hour is sufficient to consider dinner an entitlement - at least old units have interpreted it that way. Often, it is assumed if the plane lands at 1700L or later, the crew will depart at 1800L and dinner is therefore assumed to be an entitlement. The TD manual seems to go a step further and define the entitlement as when you arrive at home (not merely when you leave work).

My unit is interpreting the time as the time that the aircraft lands on the runway - even though generally 5 to 10 minutes of taxi time is required before shutting down - which is the actual legal definition of the "arrival" for a flight. So if the plane lands at 1755, but the crew havent even taken off their seatbelts until 1805, there is no entitlement to dinner despire the fact that we may be "working" until well after 1900. This is a very different interpretation of the orders, although the OR claims that this is setout by the Treasury Board and the auditor and absolutely no allowance is made for anything but the moment when the wheels touch the runway.

Any admin guru's have insight on this? Surely the spirit of the rule, if not the letter of the law isn't being followed here.


----------



## DAA (4 Nov 2014)

Generally, it all depends on whether or not during your TD/Mission, there involved an "overnight" stay on the outbound journey.  If so, then you are correct, 7.18 (4)(c)(ii) would apply.  In this case, your TD starts from the time you leave "home" and not the time you go wheels up.

If there is NO overnight stay involved, then 6.18(4)(c)(ii) would be the one and is pretty much a repeat of Chap 7.

However, I am inclined to think that they might be using Chap 5 as the defining factor in this.

CFTDTI 5.19 (3)  -  Meals - Delay.  A reasonably delayed meal hour does not by itself create an entitlement to a meal at Crown expense.

At the end of the day, there are NO specific instructions strictly for Aircrew, so everything would be subject to local interpretation and at the discretion of the approving authority.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2014)

Would this now mean that a MTech has to be done?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2014)

Try looking in the FOM for what constitutes the end of your crew day.  Obviously it doesn't end on landing.  

Might be one for your AFC (or equiv) to take up with your SAO.   :2c:


----------



## 3green (4 Nov 2014)

This was an overnight mission, where I was returning to base after a few days on the road - therefore I believe chapter 7 is the correct one. The CFOM is clear that FLIGHT times are logged from when the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purposes of going flying until it ceases to move (parked). That means basically parking brake off to parking brake on. AIR times are from wheels up to wheels down and are more for aircraft maintenance purposes than for official flight time or arrival/departure time purposes.

My unit is using air time (and ignoring the potentially long taxi time) to define arrival. In addition, they refuse to acknowledge any time required post flight for end of mission duties, which can take an hour or more. This is completely different from how most (if not all) other active air units handle claims (and their respective auditors don't have a problem with that).

Thanks for the info, I appreciate the help.




Crew day is a separate thing but would be defined from when the first crew member shows up at the Squadron or hotel lobby, until the last crew member leaves the Squadron or arrives at the hotel lobby. Using that logic, I still left work while inside the dinner hour.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Nov 2014)

Our Squadron Admin orders specify that for the purpose of a claim, 1h30 shall be added to the land time and 1h30 substracted before takeoff.  When our OR gave us grief, we took it to the DCO and it was added to our orders...

Too bad we need orders to substitute for common sense...


----------



## DAA (4 Nov 2014)

3Green said:
			
		

> This was an overnight mission, where I was returning to base after a few days on the road - therefore I believe chapter 7 is the correct one. The CFOM is clear that FLIGHT times are logged from when the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purposes of going flying until it ceases to move (parked). That means basically parking brake off to parking brake on. AIR times are from wheels up to wheels down and are more for aircraft maintenance purposes than for official flight time or arrival/departure time purposes.
> 
> My unit is using air time (and ignoring the potentially long taxi time) to define arrival. In addition, they refuse to acknowledge any time required post flight for end of mission duties, which can take an hour or more. This is completely different from how most (if not all) other active air units handle claims (and their respective auditors don't have a problem with that).
> 
> ...



This sounds more like whomever is holding the "purse strings" is holding them a tad bit too tightly.....     :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2014)

3Green said:
			
		

> My unit is using air time (and ignoring the potentially long taxi time) to define arrival. In addition, they refuse to acknowledge any time required post flight for end of mission duties, which can take an hour or more. This is completely different from how most (if not all) other active air units handle claims (and their respective auditors don't have a problem with that).



The yellow part seems to be the problem.  We're not even close to done at the E/OFF; tidy up the plane, move to location for kit to be sign back in, sign kit in and debrief are minimum things to be done.  After that, there is still the drive home.

When you say "my unit", do you mean it's in Sqn Orders, or this is what the SOR is using/doing (I can't image the first, but can image the latter)?  Sounds to me like something the CofC should provide clarity on to the SAO or in Sqn Orders like SSM mentioned.

CFTDI Chap 7 Art that DAA posted seems to make it clear though; (ii) if the member arrives home from duty travel after 1800 hours local time.

It doesn't say 'arrives on airfield'.


----------



## 3green (4 Nov 2014)

This is an orderly room interpretation, apparently based on what an auditor told them is the only acceptible means. It really appears to be a witch hunt to find any and every means to deny or withdraw money from the member.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2014)

Ask your SOR staff if they consider their "home" to be where they live, or SOR.   ;D


----------



## DAA (4 Nov 2014)

3Green said:
			
		

> This is an orderly room interpretation, apparently based on what an auditor told them is the only acceptible means. It really appears to be a witch hunt to find any and every means to deny or withdraw money from the member.



What I also see, is that they "might" be looking at the fact that you are "reporting" to your normal place of duty and then commencing TD from that location onwards, which leads me to believe that they are also using the same methodology on the return, so they obviously believe that when you arrive back on the tarmac, your TD automatically "stops".  Either way, someone is being rather "creative".

Really makes no difference what an "auditor" says, you can always ask your OR to broach the subject with DCBA for a more formal ruling based on the circumstances.


----------



## captloadie (4 Nov 2014)

Ahh, but there are also so many other factors to consider now. The new caveate for TD is timings are taken form where you start your day, not finish it. And were you provided a crew meal on the aircraft. Because you were in your HQ area, did you need to provide a receipt. And on and on and on.

At the end of the day, the entitlement is to be reimbursed for expenses incurred while on temporary duty. I have alway had an issue with someone who thinks they are "entitled" to the per diem rate for a meal just because they have arrived at 1810, and then go home and eat leftovers.


----------



## DAA (4 Nov 2014)

captloadie said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, the entitlement is to be reimbursed for expenses incurred while on temporary duty. I have alway had an issue with someone who thinks they are "entitled" to the per diem rate for a meal just because they have arrived at 1810, and then go home and eat leftovers.



Could always go back in time when the regulation actually said "When on TD, meals consumed on the first and last day of travel must be supported by receipts."  It would make life so much easier and take all the "guess" work out of things.

The last bun fight I saw on meal issues dealt with staying in commercial accommodations, where a "continental breakfast" was provided with the room and thus, not being able to claim breakfast.    :facepalm:


----------



## CountDC (5 Nov 2014)

I agree with Capt on the entitlement for expenses and not just because you get home late and ate.

There is plenty of flex in the book to cover this so I think either the SOR staff understood wrong or the auditor was out to lunch.  I would allow the meal as a local meal if you provided confirmation that you were required to work until XX hour and a receipt from an eatery near the base reflecting a reasonable time (not the bar downtown reading 2300h).    I am guessing that the unit does have some form of standing order detailing all the work that must be carried out after landing so justification is there.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Nov 2014)

Why would this (confirmation, receipt, reasonable time) be required if the CFTDI covers it as my post above? 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> CFTDI Chap 7 Art that DAA posted seems to make it clear though; (ii) if the member arrives home from duty travel after 1800 hours local time.


----------



## DAA (5 Nov 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Why would this (confirmation, receipt, reasonable time) be required if the CFTDI covers it as my post above?



They might be making reference to a DCBA email which came out recently providing clarification on the claiming of meals under certain circumstances (ie; 3rd party) and the requirement to provide receipts.

Believe it or not, there is NO clear guidance on what constitutes a proper "meal", so it's kind of left to the imagination.  There have been many instances, where commercial accommodations state "continental breakfast included in room cost" and as a result, some units refuse to pay the "breakfast" rate on a claim.  Hence, the requirement to provide a receipt for "actual out of pocket" expenses, including justification as to why "you" as the traveller, thought said continental breakfast was not sufficient.     :facepalm:

Sometimes, things are not all black and white.  At one time, I used to be one of those hard nose people finalizing your claim and if it wasn't spelled out in the regs you're not getting it!  Today is another story..........


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Nov 2014)

A few points for consideration, based on the current CFTDI.  Relevant content below, highlights mine.

1.05 — CFTDTI — AUTHORITY
In the CFTDTI, immediately following every instruction:
(a) made under the authority of the TB, there shall be in parentheses the letter “T”;and
(b) made under the authority of the CDS, there shall be in parentheses the letter “C”.

1.06 — CFTDTI — ISSUING AUTHORITY
(2) The Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB) shall notify the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) of any proposed amendment to the instructions made under the authority of the CDS, and shall inform the CMP of any TBS comment upon that amendment before it is approved.

CHAPTER 2

2.02 — DEFINITIONS — CFTDTI
In the CFTDTI:
“actual and reasonable expenses” means expenses that:
(a) are paid by a member;
(b) are specified on a receipt; and
(c) do not exceed a maximum amount — if there is one — for the expense set out in the NJC Travel Directive. 

“declaration” means a written statement in which a member attests to an amount of money paid by a member — showing the payment date, amount, and currency and in respect of which the member lacks a receipt

“receipt” means a written acknowledgment of an amount of money paid by a member, showing the payment date, amount, and currency.

4.02 — SPECIAL POWER — DELEGATION
The officers in the positions of CMP, Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), and DCBA have been delegated the Chief of the Defence Staff’s power under instruction 4.01 (Special Power of the Chief of the Defence Staff). The power cannot be subdelegated.
(C)

CHAPTER 7
TRAVEL IN CANADA AND CONTINENTAL USA & OVERNIGHT STAY

SECTION 2 — ACCOMMODATION, MEALS, AND OTHER BENEFITS

_* I've included the Accn sub-section to show the use of 'actual and reasonable expenses' IAW the Ch 2 definition._

7.02 — ACCOMMODATION
(1) (Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s accommodation — or combination of accommodations — on duty travel after consideration of all of the following:
(a) whether suitable quarters are available at the duty area;
(b) whether the member has a principal residence in the duty area;
(c) the estimated duration of the member’s duty in the duty area;
(d) the relative cost and convenience of available accommodations in the duty area; and
(e) the CF’s operational needs.
(2) (Entitlement and Amount) Subject to paragraphs (1) and (3), a member is entitled to be reimbursed:
(a) in respect of commercial accommodations, non-commercial accommodations, and quarters, for actual and reasonable expenses;

Note the _'actual and reasonable expenses' _ wording specifically included in 7.02;  receipts required, etc IAW Ch 2 - Definitions above.  You'll note the same wording included in 7.04 — ADDITIONAL BUSINESS EXPENSES, 7.06 — BOTTLED WATER and 7.10 — EXCESS BAGGAGE as well.  

7.18 — MEAL ALLOWANCES
(1) (Entitlement — Full Day of Duty Travel) Subject to paragraph (4), a member who, for a full day, is on duty travel is entitled — except in respect of any meal that is provided at no expense to the member — to a breakfast, lunch, and dinner allowance.

2) (Entitlement — Less Than A Full Day of Duty Travel) Subject to paragraphs (3) and
(4), a member who, for less than a full day, is on duty travel is *entitled* — except in respect of any meal that is provided at no expense to the member — to:
(a) a breakfast allowance,
(i) if the member departs home on duty travel before 0630 hours local time, or
(ii) if the member arrives home from duty travel after 0800 hours local time.
(b) a lunch allowance, if the member is on duty travel between 1130 hours and 1300 hours local time; and
(c) a dinner allowance,
(i) if the member departs home on duty travel before 1800 hours local time, or
(ii) if the member arrives home from duty travel after 1800 hours local time.

(3) (Local Time — Less Than A Full Day) Local time means the time at the place of departure.


- note the phrase 'actual and reasonable expenses' is specifically _omitted_ in 7.18.  As it was included previously in Ch 7 (and other chapters), it certainly doesn't appear to be left out in error.  There is also no mention for a requirement for receipts or declarations (Ch 2 definitions).

- There is a (T) at the end of Art 7.18.  Unless I am reading Ch 1 incorrectly, 7.18 is under the authority of the TB, not the CDS and therefore, not under the delegated authority of DCBA IAW Chap 4.  

- 7.18(3) could be of relevance to the OP depending on where they were, what time they left/arrived.


----------



## CountDC (13 Nov 2014)

Confirmation - because as a signing auth I want to make sure there is an entitlement.  Simply because he arrived home after 1800h does not mean he couldn't have been home before then.  As far as I know he could have been dismissed at 1600h and if went directly home been there by 1630h but instead went drinking untl 2300h before crawling into his house at 2330h  (pretty damn sure I am not the only one that has ever done that).

Reasonable time - ok thought about that again after reading the current regulation again.  Reasonable time is no longer applicable.

Receipt - a member who, for less than a full day, is on duty travel is entitled — except in respect of any meal that is provided at no expense to the member.  Prove to me that the meal was not provided to you at no expense.  What - you went home and mama that you live with for free fed you.  yeah - no meal claim.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Nov 2014)

The entitlement is laid out in the ref, by the TB and there is no requirement for the receipt.  You can't make one up that the TB doesn't even require.  DCBA doesn't have any say in this, why would unit SOR staff?  Come on, be serious here.  I posted the refs, there is ZERO requirement for a receipt.  ZERO.  You can't inject it there "because you feel like it".

THIS is part of the problem we have in admin these days; people adding on their own requirements that aren't required.  

* This problem isn't limited to admin and isn't new either;  I remember teaching on a CLC in '96 where the Crse Officer "amended" the criteria for critical requirements on the student scoring matrix because 'he didn't think it was good enough'.  Oddly enough, the Leadership Standards cell found out and shortly thereafter Lt MyWay was visited by MWO Angry.


----------



## CountDC (17 Nov 2014)

but that is the nice part of being a sect 34, the mbr will provide or find someone else to sign off on it.  It doesn't say receipt is required but it does say except in respect of any meal that is provided at no expense to the member - easiest way to prove this is to produce the receipt.  Of course if you can find another way to prove this then I will happily look at it - bank statement, credit card statement, affidavit, stat dec, grocery receipt within the last week, maybe bring your mama in to swear she didnt feed you....

Too much?  ok, pulling your chain there.

Actually this generated a fair amount of discussion here in the last week that became an eye opener with several opinions on the subject.  At the end of it all though I mulled over everything that was said and realized I didn't want to go down that road and actually be what I fought against for almost 30 years.  Putting myself back into my old shoes I asked the question - when a mbr travels here from the other locations on Ex how do we know if lunch or dinner was provided?  We provide it.  We have the proof as we ordered the meals and had the members sign for them.  Looking at it from the other end  - why should the mbr have to prove it?  How about we prove that a meal was provided.  The real eye opener was when the clerk stated they didnt think anyone arriving home by 7 should get the meal as they could still eat at home and I answered - so what, that is still not a meal provided at no cost to the member.  Sometimes it does take hammers.

Still don't agree with the policy but can live with it untll they change it to be reasonable but i still want the confirmation on work hours though.


----------



## trooper142 (19 Nov 2014)

Hey everyone!

I had a question concerning travel claims for a TD. The claim is a cost comparision claim if that helps.

My question is, what are my entitlements as far as hotel/private residence claim(The tasking is approximately a distance of 900kms one way from my home base.) and my meals claim entitlement. My claim has me entitled to two lunches based on the flight providing meals, but the joining instructions clearly state that no flights are to be booked until after 20h00, so would that not allow for me to claim a supper instead of a lunch? I am not trying to be picky, I just want to make sure that the claim was done the right way, and i dont want to bother the clerks for every little issue that arises.

Any help would be appreciated


----------



## Pusser (19 Nov 2014)

If you're not boarding the plane *home* until 2000 or later, then you can claim for the supper that you ate beforehand.


----------



## trooper142 (19 Nov 2014)

Thank you for the reply!

Just for added clarity, the cost comparison was done to do a cost comparision between different modes of travel. I was given the price of a plane ticket, but opted to used my POMV. The reason I asked about the supper claim, was because the joining instructions said that flights could not be booked until after 20h00, so the flight they booked for me that day would have been wrong, and therefore I am under the impression I would be entitled to the supper claim, even though I am taking my POMV to and from the TD (Someone please correct if I am mistaken). Further, since the drive is more than 650kms one way, am I allowed to claim a hotel/private residence, or am I to assume these costs because I elected to take my POMV?

References to relevant QR&O's or other adminstrative policies would be appreciated!

Thanks again everyone!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Nov 2014)

You can get up to the amount of a plane ticket and you will have 1 travel day before and after the course/tasking....any travel over 500km requires 1 annual leave day per the remaining milage minus the original travel days.........food/accommodations/etc are not reimbursable


----------



## trooper142 (19 Nov 2014)

Thanks for the response NFLD Sapper! Clarity has been achieved!


----------



## 392 (19 Nov 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> ....any travel over 500km requires 1 annual leave day per the remaining milage minus the original travel ....



This is not true. The policy actually says "1 day of paid leave" which encompasses other types of leave as well. I've made POMV trips on company time over 500km using short, special and weekend leave passes. Some units have specific SOP on what type of leave they want used (some specifically state it will be special, others state it will be short). Bottom line is that it paid leave does not automatically mean annual leave.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Nov 2014)

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> This is not true. The policy actually says "1 day of paid leave" which encompasses other types of leave as well. I've made POMV trips on company time over 500km using short, special and weekend leave passes. Some units have specific SOP on what type of leave they want used (some specifically state it will be special, others state it will be short). Bottom line is that it paid leave does not automatically mean annual leave.



Regular and Reserve Force (specifically CLASS A) are on two different scales wrt to this....


----------



## 392 (20 Nov 2014)

According to the CFTDTI, there is no differentiation between RegF and PRes. If you look specifically at Chapt 7, which deals with travel in CANUS that requires an overnight stay (i.e. more than 500km one way):

7.4.1(5) (Paid Leave) A member who requests to use a PMV — rather than the more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority — and who uses that PMV on duty travel shall take one day’s paid leave, after the first day, for every 500 kilometres travelled.

7.4.1(6) (Paid Leave) If a member — who requests to use a PMV — has insufficient paid leave remaining for any travel in excess of the more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority , then the member shall not be authorized to use their PMV as requested.

It appears that the only difference in travel entitlements between RegF and PRes is for the one day of duty travel on either end:  

7.4.1(9) (Class “A” Reserve Service) A member of the Reserve Force, who requests to use their PMV on duty travel, shall be placed on Class “A” Reserve Service on the first day of travel to or from a destination and shall not be authorized any subsequent Class “A” Reserve Service for any subsequent days of that duty travel to or from that location. 

http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/docs/cftdti-ifcvst.pdf


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Nov 2014)

Here is 37 CBG official policy on this (using 37 CER St. John's as the example):

Ref:  Telecon 37 CBG HQ

1. Having rec'd further clarification to the email from Maj , this is how things sit now:

 a.  Our pers are on Class B when filling summer taskings. 

 b.  Anyone filling a Class B CFTPO tasking has to be on paid leave (can be annual, weekend and stat leave) when travelling POMV.  This will be the leave earned from the tasking.  This leave has to be approved by the gaining unit prior to the start of the tasking.  Once the leave is approved, the POMV waiver must be sent for approval (ie - for RETS this is CTC).  Leave passes for the travel days up and back have to approved for the waiver to be approved.

 c.  Pers can only travel 500km per day.   If travelling from 16 Jun to 14 Sep the Argentia ferry can be used and it will only take 3 days to travel each way.  If travelling using the Port Aux Basques ferry it will take 4 days to travel each way.

 d.  A paid travel day is auth on each end of every tasking.   Most tasks begin on a Monday.  The first leave pass will start on Sunday (wkend), Mon, Tues and Wed would be annual.   If travelling Argentia, only 2 annual required.

 e.  With most taskings ending on a Friday, Saturday would be their paid travel day.   The second leave pass would have Wed, Thurs, and Fri as annual, Saturday would be wkend on the leave pass.  Once again, if using Argentia ferry, only 2 annual required.

 f.  Depending how tasking dates correspond with the Argentia ferry schedule, it will take a member 4 to 6 days annual leave to travel POMV.  In order to earn 4 annual leave, your contract must be at least 60 days in duration (incl 2 travel days).   To earn 6 days annual leave, the contract must be at least 90 days in duration (incl 2 travel days).

 g.  Once leave passes are approved, the member is essentially reporting late for duty.  Pers starting their summer with a course will not be able to travel POMV because they cannot report 2 or 3 days late for a course.

2. All refs required for this are listed in Maj original email.

There has been a lot of confusion on this issue, hopefully this clarifies things for now.

Any questions/concerns can be sent to me and I will engage G1 again if required.

Adjt

Sir,

I have spoken to our Orderly Room on this matter.  This email is refering to individuals on casual Class B service.  The key sentence for us is in Para 1 which states:

It should be noted, however, that paragraph 7.41(9) of reference A, which provides the conditions under which a member on Class A service may use PMV for duty travel, and was alluded to in the COS’s e-mail, is no longer permitted by DCBA in cases where the distance is over 500 km (i.e., the trip is greater than one day).

Therefore, our members should not be affected by this email and the current policy still applies.  Members on Class A service going to Gagetown for a CL B tasking will be covered for one day travel only.

Regards,

Adjt


Subject:        FW: POMV waiver

Reference: A. Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Instructions 
B. QR and O 9.07(2) 
C. CF Leave Policy Manual

Further to the COS’s e-mail, the purpose of this e-mail is to provide the LFAA HQ direction on the use of PMV for travel by Reserve personnel who have been tasked (via CFTPO) for a period of Class B service remote from their home unit, but who are on part-time service prior to the task. This typically applies to members selected for summer tasks. This e-mail does not apply to members that are on long-term Class B service, who are subject to the same rules as Regular Force members. The guidance in this e-mail is drawn largely from Chapter 7 of reference A, which applies to travel in Canada and the continental USA and includes an overnight stay, which will apply in most cases. This e-mail does not cover all of the applicable rules and regulations found in the references; rather, it only covers the highlights. You are urged to familiarize yourself with all of the provisions of the references, in particular, reference A. It should be noted, however, that paragraph 7.41(9) of reference A, which provides the conditions under which a member on Class A service may use PMV for duty travel, and was alluded to in the COS’s e-mail, is no longer permitted by DCBA in cases where the distance is over 500 km (i.e., the trip is greater than one day). 
2.      In accordance with reference B, Class B service includes travel to and from the place of that service. As such, employment dates reflected in CFTPO should include a travel day at the beginning of the task and a travel day at the end of the task, both part of the period of Class B service. This being the case, for members proceeding on a task where the distance may be travelled in one day (i.e., less than 500 km), a PMV waiver should not be problematic. It is incumbent on units, however, to verify with the employing unit that the CFTPO task dates in fact include the travel days. Where the dates do not include the travel days, 37 CBG HQ/G3 should be contacted to attempt to resolve the matter.

3.      Note that where the term “paid leave” appears in this e-mail, it assumes annual leave, but could include weekend leave and statutory holidays where travel days naturally fall on weekends/holidays. “Paid leave”, for the purposes of this e-mail, does not include:

a.      short leave, the use of which for travel does not meet the criteria at paragraph 9.1.01 of reference C; and

b.      special leave, as the applicable types of special are taken prior to departure and after return, in which case the members in question would be on not be on Class B service and in accordance with paragraph 5.1.02 of reference C are not entitled.

For trips longer than one day, members being placed on Class B service for a task will be subject to the same rules as Regular Force and long-term Class B members. LFAA HQ has determined that the following is in keeping with the applicable regulations: 
Travel will take place within the Class B employment dates. Again, however, units are to verify with the employing unit that the CFTPO task dates in fact include the travel days. Where the dates do not include the travel days, 37 CBG HQ/G3 should be contacted to attempt to resolve the matter. 
b.      Where use of PMV is authorized, members are subject to paragraphs 7.40(2) and 7.41 of reference A. In particular, they will be reimbursed for mileage or the cost of the most economical and practical mode of transport, whichever is less, and will be required to be placed on paid leave for travel days beyond the first day. The number of leave days to be taken is one day for every 500 km to be travelled. In accordance with Annex A of reference A, on the last day of travel, if the distance is greater than 150 km but less than 500 km, an additional day of paid leave must be taken.

c.      In order to be placed on paid leave for travel days beyond the first day, members must earn enough leave during their period of Class B employment to cover the leave requirement. Paragraph 3.1.02 of reference C states that paid leave may be taken before it is earned, meaning a member being placed on Class B service may use leave as soon as the period of service commences.

d.      Where a member will not earn enough leave during the period of Class B service to cover the number of leave days required for travel, use of PMV will not be authorized and the most economical and practical mode transport, as selected by the approving authority, shall be used. If a member insists on using PMV for travel in this case and is therefore required to travel in advance of the Class B employment dates, in accordance with previous DCBA direction, the member will do so at his/her own expense.

5.      In accordance with paragraph 3.3.02 of reference C, during Class B service the annual leave entitlement is one day earned for every 15 days of service, except for period of service under 30 days where no paid leave is earned (PILL is earned in this case). The following are the number of days of continuous Class B service required to earn enough annual leave days to cover the required number of leave days for travel to/from typical locations to which Brigade members deploy for tasks (as previously noted, paid leave could include weekend leave and statutory holidays, but for the sake of providing a simple summary of the number of days of service required to earn enough leave for various travel distances, the following is based on annual leave only):

from St. John’s NL to: 
Camp Aldershot (Kentville) NS – 60 days, 
(2)     CFB Gagetown (Oromocto) NB – 90 days, and

(3)     CFB Borden ON 180 days;

b.      from Corner Brook NL to:

(1)     Camp Aldershot (Kentville) NS – 30 days,

(2)     CFB Gagetown (Oromocto) NB – 30 days, and

(3      CFB Borden ON 120 days;

c.      from Edmunston NB to Camp Aldershot (Kentville) NS – 30 days;

d.      from all other NB locations to Camp Aldershot (Kentville) NS – N/A (requires only one travel day); and

e.      from all NB locations to:

CFB Gagetown (Oromocto) NB – N/A requires only one day travel, and 
(2)     CFB Borden ON – 60 days.

6.      It must be stressed, again: where a member will not earn enough leave during the period of Class B service to cover the number of leave days required for travel, use of PMV will not be authorized and the most economical and practical mode transport, as selected by the approving authority, shall be used.

7.      The approving authority for PMV waivers and use of PMV for duty travel is the employing unit (i.e., the unit funding the travel), not the parent unit. The approving authority for paid leave during Class B service is also the employing unit, not the home unit. PMV waiver requests and corresponding leave requests must, therefore, be sent to the employing unit for consideration. As task dates are planned on the assumption that one day is required for travel on either end of the task, there is a significant probability that employing units will not be able to accommodate the use of paid leave for travel purposes at the beginning and end of tasks and will deny requests. Where the employing unit denies a request, there is no recourse but for the member but to use the most economical and practical mode of transport as selected by the approving authority. Again, if a member insists on using PMV for travel where the waiver and leave requests have been denied, and is therefore required to travel in advance of the Class B employment dates, in accordance with previous DCBA direction, the member will do so at his her own expense. Finally, members must be aware that where use of PMV is authorized and the employment dates are subsequently modified lessening their leave entitlement, any leave used for travel that is in excess of their entitlement will be recovered.

8.      I regret the delay in providing this information to you; however, there has been a great deal of confusion and direction/counter direction surrounding this matter and it has taken time to sort through the various regulations and policies to make sense of it. It is appreciated that the guidance provide by LFAA HQ and passed on in this e-mail may not work for some members. Unfortunately, in those cases, use of PMV will not be possible.

9.      Questions may be directed to the undersigned.


Major
G1



The G1 will reissue LFAA policy on the subj but pls be aware there are significant concerns with this policy in that it does not reflect current DCBA or CFTDI direction. The G1 will ID these concerns and ask for clarification from Area. In the meantime the current CFTDI dir stands.

The synopsis is that a soldier may take their POMV on a task. They will be covered for 1 travel day to the task and 1 travel day back home from the task. They will be paid 1 day Cl A and be reimbursed the most economical means of travel (ie plane ticket in most cases) and TD/food for the travel day. They may also be reimbursed incremental insurance costs to change their policy to reflect the use of the veh for employment. If it takes the soldier more than 1 day to get to their place of duty as is the case with NL based soldiers, they are responsible for their own costs/liability for the reminder of the trip.

I highly encourage Units to review the CFTDI and refs that the G1 will provide.

The G1 will address the issues in the LFAA policy with a view to decreasing the cost/liability to our soldiers,  however, as it stands now the CFTDI stands.


----------



## Ron2112 (9 Feb 2015)

Is it normal to be paid TD at the end of your attach posting?


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Feb 2015)

Perhaps. If you traveled at the end of your attached posting, it would likely be on TD.


----------



## kratz (9 Feb 2015)

Your question is not phrased accurately.

When you go on TD, there are certain expenses covered by CFTDI regulations.

If you request and are approved for an advance of your benefits, the general maximum is up to 80%.
This limit is used to protect you against changes in your TD.

Once your trip is completed, it is normal to finalize your TD claim and all entitled money, 
justified with original receipts attached, is paid out (minus any advance paid earlier).


----------



## Ostrozac (9 Feb 2015)

And for an Attach Posting in a different geographical area, it is not unknown to have three claims.

One claim for TD for your flight/drive out there.
One claim for the duration of your Attach Posting.
One claim for TD for when you return to your home unit.

You will usually get incidentals (and free rations/quarters) for the duration of an Attach Posting, which makes it feel like TD, even though TD and Attach Posting are different things.


----------



## Pusser (10 Feb 2015)

Yes, TD and Attach Posting are two VERY different things.  Essentially an Attach Posting is all the PITA stuff of a posting, but none of the benefits.

TD:  Travel expenses (transport and hotels and meals en route), meals and accommodation provided/reimbursed at destination

Attach Posting: Travel expenses (transport and hotels and meals en route) and that's about it (although if you are maintaining a residence elsewhere, you won't have to pay for quarters at destination).  There are also provisions for excess baggage, but no move of F&E


----------



## Ostrozac (17 Feb 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Attach Posting: Travel expenses (transport and hotels and meals en route) and that's about it (although if you are maintaining a residence elsewhere, you won't have to pay for quarters at destination).  There are also provisions for excess baggage, but no move of F&E



That was changed years ago. You used to just get free quarters, back in the day. You now get incidentals, free food and free quarters on an Attach Posting. Check on Para 3.01 of the CFTDI.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/caf-community-benefits/canadian-forces-temporary-duty-travel-instruction.pdf


----------



## Pusser (18 Feb 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> That was changed years ago. You used to just get free quarters, back in the day. You now get incidentals, free food and free quarters on an Attach Posting. Check on Para 3.01 of the CFTDI.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/caf-community-benefits/canadian-forces-temporary-duty-travel-instruction.pdf



I stand corrected.  That's good news, but doesn't really make up for the times I was shafted!


----------



## trooper142 (5 Jun 2015)

I accepted a change of trade, and will be sent to Borden to complete my new trades training. My question relates to what is the process for TD and rations and quarters. I have heard that since I am a QL3 qualified member, I will be attach posted to the school in borden, and will claim TD in addition to not being required to pay for rations and quaters. Can anyone confirm this, and if possible, provide a reference?

I appreciate any help in advance.


----------



## CountDC (5 Jun 2015)

I will confirm that you will not be attach posted and claim td (Temporary Duty) as you are one or the other not both.   

Do you have your message and have you gone to your OR to talk to them? That is where you should start.


----------



## Ostrozac (6 Jun 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I will confirm that you will not be attach posted and claim td (Temporary Duty) as you are one or the other not both.
> 
> Do you have your message and have you gone to your OR to talk to them? That is where you should start.



But to confuse things, TD and Attach Posting are different things, but when you are Attach Posted you receive the benefits of the CF Temporary Duty Instruction.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/temp-duty-travel-instructions.page

_
3.01  Application

    (Regular Force) Subject to CFTDTI 3.02 (No Application), the CFTDTI apply to a member of the Regular Force who is, after 31 January 2011:
        either:
            on TD;
            on an attached posting; or
            in respect of CFTDTI Chapter 5 (Travel Within Place of Duty) only, ordered by an approving authority to work - or to be immediately available for work during - irregular hours inside the member’s place of duty; and
        not entitled to any benefit under the Military Foreign Service Instruction other than under instruction 10.3.07 (Risk Allowance)._

So the terms are all mixed up. In general, these days, when you are on career status, then Posted BTL, and then Attach Posted to a training unit, you get free food, shacks and incidentals.


----------



## Quiet Riot (15 Aug 2015)

Good day, currently I am on a TD tasking 830km away from home unit.  Will be travelling back soon, looking for guidance on if we can conduct the road move in one day.  Have one member in a DND vehicle and two in POMV.  Currently only find CFTDI 7.35 making mention of travelling restrictions stating, "(Maximum Distance) Except when unusual operational imperatives demand otherwise, an approving authority shall not require  a member to drive on duty travel more than 500 kilometres per day during regular work hours."  Now I realize we are not required or obligated to travel more than 500km but if we choose to are we allowed to?  Both members travelling by POMW have already taken the required annual day for travel.


----------



## Leeworthy (15 Aug 2015)

Require is rge word your looking for. You can travel it all in one day if you wish. Its just for safety. If you decide to travel over the 500km dnd can say you were liable for your own damages should you chose to go over and get hurt. 

I knew lots of people who went over 500km or more and there are no repercussions if you do. But you are entitled to 2 days of td and probably a room for the night. Its your choice what you chose to do. Just dont try and claim it.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Aug 2015)

You'll also need to check the DND driver regulations as well, I can't remember off the top of my head, but it has limits in there for duty hours and kms as one member is driving a staff car/DND vehicle.


----------



## Petard (15 Aug 2015)

I think you're referring to this
http://admmat.mil.ca/cosmat/lbi/DTn/DTn2/documents/ALM158005AG001_Spreadsheets/Drivers_policies_2014_E.pdf

For a duty day (hrs), it states: 
_unless given direction by the Commanding Officer (CO) or designated officer, no driver of any vehicle is to drive continuously for more than 4-1/2 hours without a break away from the vehicle, drive for more than 13 hours a day, or be on duty for more than 14 hours in a day. Drivers are also responsible for ensuring they have adequate sleep when off duty so that, when reporting, they are fit to drive_


----------



## Quiet Riot (15 Aug 2015)

Thanks to all for responding


----------



## CountDC (19 Aug 2015)

Now the question is - which do you go by?  The CFTDI,  the Driver Policies or do they actually work in concert?

This is an ongoing issue I have had for several years and do not take lightly as I attended briefings in Ottawa in which it was mentioned that a member exceeding the 500 kms and having an accident could find themselves in a world of hurt.  Implications were that the member be found at fault, liable for injuries and damages and it may be viewed as you were not on duty which would  possibly impact benefits entitled to by injuries on duty, especially if med released.  It was explicit that the CFTDIs were black and white with no leeway.

The problem I run into is that some people view the CFTDIs as only a guideline with lots of leeway to meet the intent and not a hard rule.  I cannot begin to count the number of times I have heard "but the driver manual says they can drive 800 kms" (didn't see that in the link though I am sure it used to be in there) or 550kms meets the intent of the CFTDI for safety.  I am sure now they will push that you can drive a lot further than 500 kms in 13 hours.

1. Do you stick with the CFTDIs 500 kms (I do, not risking it when I have a family to support)
2. Driver Policy of 13 hours regardless of distance
3. How about both - 500kms or 13 hours which ever comes first (stop laughing, we actually had somone take close to that for slightly over 500kms through the mountains.)  
4. How about CFTDIs apply when on TD (thus the name) while the Drivers Policy actually applies to Drivers on the job (ie Base TPT)
5. If you have a co-driver and switch off does it change anything (you drive 500, he drives 500)?

Have yet to receive the same answer twice and although I requested it go to Ottawa for policy clarification through my chain of command I have not heard back and do not believe it was sent higher.


----------



## Lumber (19 Aug 2015)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> Just dont try and claim it.



Incorrect. 

The CAF gave be 13 days (14? can't remember) to drive to Nova Scotia from Victoria. I bee-lined it to my hometown in Ontario in 5 days (arrived on teh 5th day of travel), spend 5-6 days in Ontario, then took 2 days to drive to Nova Scotia.

Claimed it all; hotels, meals, etc.


----------



## Leeworthy (19 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Incorrect.
> 
> The CAF gave be 13 days (14? can't remember) to drive to Nova Scotia from Victoria. I bee-lined it to my hometown in Ontario in 5 days (arrived on teh 5th day of travel), spend 5-6 days in Ontario, then took 2 days to drive to Nova Scotia.
> 
> Claimed it all; hotels, meals, etc.



Was that really the right thing to do? Morally i dont think so. It comes back down to integrity. If you didnt stay in a hotel and you didnt need those meals why claim them. 

As an ex rms clk we would go through this on a daily basis.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Aug 2015)

You can't claim hotels through Brookfield if you don't stay in them, and meals are based on the travel days. I was told by my advisor to stop somewhere for a few days so I wouldn't arrive early, and mess the claim up. Use it or lose it system, and with no incentive to arrive early (likely due to cftdi/safety), why not claim it within the rules?


----------



## MJP (19 Aug 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Now the question is - which do you go by?  The CFTDI,  the Driver Policies or do they actually work in concert?
> 
> This is an ongoing issue I have had for several years and do not take lightly as I attended briefings in Ottawa in which it was mentioned that a member exceeding the 500 kms and having an accident could find themselves in a world of hurt.  Implications were that the member be found at fault, liable for injuries and damages and it may be viewed as you were not on duty which would  possibly impact benefits entitled to by injuries on duty, especially if med released.  It was explicit that the CFTDIs were black and white with no leeway.



I have no answers for you OP, I just wanted to comment that the people that brief others that you could be found liable/not on duty are probably the same weanies that try and say that someone injured while wearing non issue kit wouldn't be covered.  I can imagine the outcry and hubris now if someone actually tried to enforce that kind of silliness.


----------



## Occam (19 Aug 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> I have no answers for you OP, I just wanted to comment that the people that brief others that you could be found liable/not on duty are probably the same weanies that try and say that someone injured while wearing non issue kit wouldn't be covered.  I can imagine the outcry and hubris now if someone actually tried to enforce that kind of silliness.



VAC is littered with gawd knows how many cases of members seriously injured (I know one who broke his back during an overseas port visit in the Navy) who receive zero benefits from VAC because they were deemed not to be on duty, and therefore did not arise as a result of military service.  Strange but true.  That silliness is very real.


----------



## MJP (19 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> VAC is littered with gawd knows how many cases of members seriously injured (I know one who broke his back during an overseas port visit in the Navy) who receive zero benefits from VAC because they were deemed not to be on duty, and therefore did not arise as a result of military service.  Strange but true.  That silliness is very real.



Ugh I have no words for that kind of crap.   Those are the good media fights,  likely though the people injured in many of those cases aren't the attention whores that we typically see in the media


----------



## CountDC (20 Aug 2015)

the weenies giving the briefs were from VAC and DCBA who had just went through everything with TB and at the time the CFTDI had just been issued. I also belief there was discussion on pension impact but can't recall at all the details for that one.  It does have some validity though as shown by recent policies on TD for reserve members that opt to take PMV on taskings/courses that are over 500km away without authority.  They are not considered on duty or covered if anything happens enroute.  By the same token we are not authorized to drive over 500km so once we do we are now on our own time vice on duty.  

For me the possibility alone is enough to restrict to 500kms.  Why risk losing everything just to safe time I am paid for anyway and will just spend working on the other end.

My concern now is for other members that are exceeding the limit because it is what the unit expects without actually ordering in writing.


----------



## Lumber (20 Aug 2015)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> Was that really the right thing to do? Morally i dont think so. It comes back down to integrity. If you didnt stay in a hotel and you didnt need those meals why claim them.
> 
> As an ex rms clk we would go through this on a daily basis.



Uhhh you have this completely wrong. I didn't claim any hotels that I didn't stay in, and I did in fact "need" those meals. So, I don't know what you are getting at? They gave me 13 days to get to Halifax. I took 13 days to get there.


----------



## CountDC (20 Aug 2015)

I think the point is that you were given 13 days to get to Halifax, not 13 days to rush to Ontario, take a vacation and then continue to Halifax.    Those 13 days are based on driving 500 kms a day for safety reasons so it should have taken longer than 5 days to get there.   The moral part is - if you are being paid out of tax payers dollars to travel to Halifax is it morally right to use it for a paid vacation along the way?  Don't forget - as it is a move you are not on leave, you are on duty so if you make Halifax in 8 days instead of 13 you should report to your gaining unit on arrival and start working.  By stopping over you also gave yourself a few days of leave that you were not entitled to.

My opinion is that I will leave the debate of right and wrong to others as I could easily get bogged down in this case of how about....... is that right/wrong too?

Personally on that drive I don 't think it matters how far you go for safety - 100 500 1000 all feels the same - long and boring with crappy hotels.


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 Aug 2015)

Making something out of nothing.  I was told by Brookfield that I could do just that, drive like stink to one spot, hang out for a bit, then move onto my destination. (don't show up early and don't show up late)

It's not a big deal, and well within the rules..   Anyway this is about TD, not cost moves, which is what it sounds like Lumber was on.


----------



## Lumber (20 Aug 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Making something out of nothing.  I was told by Brookfield that I could do just that, drive like stink to one spot, hang out for a bit, then move onto my destination. (don't show up early and don't show up late)
> 
> It's not a big deal, and well within the rules..   Anyway this is about TD, not cost moves, which is what it sounds like Lumber was on.



Ah, yes. I was talking about Brookfield supported cost moves, not TD. My mistake; I got carried away.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Personally on that drive I don 't think it matters how far you go for safety - 100 500 1000 all feels the same - long and boring with *crappy hotels.*



Crappy hotels? You do realize that you can pick any hotel off of the Federal Government's Accomodations Directory, don't you? http://rehelv-acrd.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ACRDS/rechercher-search-eng.aspx

And, even if the hotel you want to stay at isn't on the list, you can stat at any hotel and the CAF will reimburse you for the maximum city rate limit. So if the city maximum rate is $150/night, and you want to stay at a $175 a night hotel, you can do that; they will just only reimburse you the $150, and you're out only $25. On approved cost moves I've stay at the Fairmount Lake Louise, the Delta Vancouver, Delta Victoria, Homewood Suites and Collingwood Suites in Halifax. It's hard to find a nice place in Sault-St-Marie, but you make due.


----------



## CountDC (21 Aug 2015)

You can stay in hotels that are on your route, available and will accommodate you, your family and your dog.  Driving from Ottawa to BC there are a lot of crappy little places that look good when you research online but what you get is totally different but are still the best in the area.  

You also have the regulation a bit wrong which is a common mistake.  Your accomodation while on TD is supposed to be pre-selected by the approving authority from the hotel directory and confirmed available.  if you then decide to stay at another hotel that cost more you should only be reimbursed the rate of the hotel pre-selected not the highest rate for the area.  In some locations this can be a fair amount especially if staying several days.


----------



## Sub_Guy (21 Aug 2015)

No, he's correct, because he is talking about a cost move.   Select from the list, just don't go over the max rate and you'll be fine.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Aug 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> No, he's correct, because he is talking about a cost move.   Select from the list, just don't go over the max rate and you'll be fine.



 :nod:

Going through the process myself right now.  Brookfield told me the max price for hotels in my area, but I get to pick.


----------



## Lumber (21 Aug 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> You can stay in hotels that are on your route, available and will accommodate you, your family and your dog.  Driving from *Ottawa to BC *  there are a lot of crappy little places that look good when you research online but what you get is totally different but are still the best in the area.



A very quick search of the directory wrt places between Ottawa and BC that you can stay at along your way:
Toronto:
Chelsea Hotel - $144
The Hyatt - $139
DoubleTree by Hilton - $145 

Chicago:
Travelodge Hotel Downtown - $159
(there's much nicer ones outside the city)

Minneapolis 
Ramada Plaza Minneapolis - $89
Radisson Blu Mall of America (Bloomington) - $109

Winnipeg:
Radisson Hotel Winnipeg Downtown - $135
Delta Winnipeg - $135
Place Louis Riel Suites Hotel - $135

Regina:
Executive Royal Hotel Regina - $125
Best Western Plus Eastgate Inn & Suites - $130

Calgary:
Delta Bow Valley - $199
International Hotel Suites Calgary - $199

Edmonton:
Courtyard by Marriott Edmonton Downtown - $145
The Westin Edmonton - $145

Vancouver: 
Best Western Plus Sands Hotel - $159
Ramada Vancouver Downtown - $165

Enjoy your next cost-move back East.

Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart.


----------



## CountDC (21 Aug 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> No, he's correct, because he is talking about a cost move.   Select from the list, just don't go over the max rate and you'll be fine.



Dang - getting them mixed up as the OP was about TD.


----------



## CountDC (21 Aug 2015)

now try it sticking to Canada, as close to 500kms a day as possible, 3 rooms must be available, starting trip 31 Jul so long weekend involved, dog and you are booking them in Jul as this is a late posting due to someone pulling the plug.  Using google maps at the time:  Sudbury ON, WAWA ON, Thunder Bay ON; Kenora ON,
 Virden MB, Swift Current SK, Calgary AB, Salmon Arm BC, destination.  Longest leg was approx 530kms as there was nothing else.  

Considering the time given to drive is based on driving 500 kms a day I do not understand why Brookfield would be tellng people to travel as far as they want and stay in places multiple days.  I do however agree with the basic concept of it and would prefer a move policy based on BC to Vancouver, X number bedroom house, X number family members,  here is X dollars and you have 9 days to travel there.  How you do it is up to you, what you don't spend you keep and if you spend more then too bad.  No need for brookfield and the cumbersome process or worry about if something is claimable or not.  Want to rent a truck and drive across Canada - go for it.  Spend a few days visiting friends, whatever.  you get your lumpsome $xK and go on your way.  Of course that would never fly where the taxpayer is watching every penny the military spends.  Imagine the uproar if they gave someone $20k for a move, that person sold/gave/threw away everything, drove across the country in their RV and bought new on the other end.  Then of course there is ourselves who would complain that Cpl Blolggins got the same as me and I don't think he should because he didn't buy the big screen TV and ATVs that I did and need to move.


----------



## Pusser (21 Aug 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> now try it sticking to Canada, as close to 500kms a day as possible, 3 rooms must be available, starting trip 31 Jul so long weekend involved, dog and you are booking them in Jul as this is a late posting due to someone pulling the plug.  Using google maps at the time:  Sudbury ON, WAWA ON, Thunder Bay ON; Kenora ON,
> Virden MB, Swift Current SK, Calgary AB, Salmon Arm BC, destination.  Longest leg was approx 530kms as there was nothing else.
> 
> Considering the time given to drive is based on driving 500 kms a day I do not understand why Brookfield would be tellng people to travel as far as they want and stay in places multiple days.  I do however agree with the basic concept of it and would prefer a move policy based on BC to Vancouver, X number bedroom house, X number family members,  here is X dollars and you have 9 days to travel there.  How you do it is up to you, what you don't spend you keep and if you spend more then too bad.  No need for brookfield and the cumbersome process or worry about if something is claimable or not.  Want to rent a truck and drive across Canada - go for it.  Spend a few days visiting friends, whatever.  you get your lumpsome $xK and go on your way.  Of course that would never fly where the taxpayer is watching every penny the military spends.  Imagine the uproar if they gave someone $20k for a move, that person sold/gave/threw away everything, drove across the country in their RV and bought new on the other end.  Then of course there is ourselves who would complain that Cpl Blolggins got the same as me and I don't think he should because he didn't buy the big screen TV and ATVs that I did and need to move.



We basically tried what you have described in the early 90s.  It was called the "Cash Move Trial" and it was a disaster.  It started with just the meals and accommodations en route and was supposed to eventually include the option of renting a U-Haul if the member wanted.  Luckily, it never got to that.  Check out the current news on the the US Army family who rented a U-Haul for a posting to Alaska.  No, we have it pretty good.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Aug 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> You also have the regulation a bit wrong which is a common mistake.  Your accomodation while on TD is supposed to be pre-selected by the approving authority from the hotel directory and confirmed available.



Not quite. CFTDTI says it should be pre-selected by the approving authority, not shall or must.  In my (quite extensive) TD experience, the approving authority gives you a blanket clearance to use whatever you want and will only re-imburse up to the max rate in the White pages.


----------



## Crimmsy (31 Oct 2015)

Travelling to US on an HRG arranged itinerary. Checked baggage didn't make it to the destination; sixteen hours on and it's still not here but the airline office says it's coming. I've already picked up the essentials and now I'm just curious what the policy is on reimbursement. I found the CFTDTI in a google search but didn't see anything pertinent. Seems to me it was $400 when AMEX was the provider and presumably that would still be the case with HRG but not sure where to find it in writing.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Oct 2015)

Try going through the airline first...


----------



## CountDC (3 Nov 2015)

from STS/HRG

Lost or Stolen Baggage Benefits1*

How is the lost or stolen baggage insurance activated?
 Lost or Stolen Baggage coverage applies when the cardholder charges the entire cost of the common carrier passage fare to the Travel Card or pays for the entire cost of the common carrier passage fare with points earned through the Travel Card loyalty program (provided the Travel Card is active and in good standing).

What type of things am I covered for?
 Lost or Stolen Baggage insurance will reimburse you for covered damage on an excess basis over and above any amount due from any other valid and collectible insurance or any other form of reimbursement payable by those responsible for the loss or the common carrier. Covered damages are those amounts actually spent to repair or replace checked or carry-on baggage and personal property contained therein which suffers direct physical loss, theft or damage. Reimbursement is based on actual replacement or repair cost of any lost, stolen, or damaged article without deduction for depreciation, provided that the article is actually replaced or repaired; otherwise, payment is based on the actual cash value of the article.

For more information on Lost or Stolen Baggage Benefits, please call:

Toll-free: 1-877-704-0341 (in Canada and U.S.)

Might want to let the fin people know you are calling them as they will probably tack on a service charge for that too.

Please do me a favour - never ever assume that this piece of crap service provider is anywhere near as good as AMEX was. I would wager that any percieved savings that was supposed to be gained by the change over quickly disappeared due to all the charges for everything.  Book a flight - service fee.  Airline not listed so you have to call to book the flight - additional service fee.   Need to change flight, you have to call them and yes additional service fee.  We have had the service fees from this company cost more than the plane tickets a few times.  Never heard anyone complain about calling AMEX, in fact I used to like calling them as they were always friendly and helpful.  No one here wants to deal with this group as they are hard to get through to and when we do they are rude, not helpful and at points didn't know what they were talking about (Vancouver is not the only airport in BC).


----------



## PiperDown (9 Dec 2016)

I just returned from TD in BC.  My clerk booked my flight and vehicle rental .  The vehicle was with Enterprise.
I was under the impression ( possibly foolishly) that as the vehicle was booked via DND, I do not need to purchase extra insurance.
I used my personal credit card and after signing there, there and initialing there,  I was on my way.

 When I was handed the keys, the girl told me she had already completed the walk around and they don't consider minor scratches etc to be damage and hurried me on my way.
After a 30 mins or so, my passenger noticed a 5 inch crack in the corner of the windshield.  
I should have turned around right there, but we were in a hurry as our flight arrived late.

long story short. I returned the vehicle at 5am this morning via the overnight drop off ( place was closed)  Enterprise just called me to inform me I am liable for the windshield replacement.

WTF !

What are my options, or is this an expensive lesson learned ?  ( I am pretty sure my personal insurance covers windshield replacement, but with a deductible of some sort)


----------



## MJP (9 Dec 2016)

CAF TD Instruction  http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/caf-community-benefits/cftdti-ifcvst.pdf

(4) (Rental Vehicles — IDTC Policies) Before
using an IDTC to rent a vehicle on duty travel, a
member shall review ADM (Fin CS) policies and
procedures in respect of IDTC vehicle insurance.

(5) (Rental Vehicles — Private Insurance) A
member who is authorized to rent a vehicle on duty
travel should always review their private insurance
coverage with their private insurer before renting
the vehicle. 

(6) (Rental Vehicles — Collision damage waiver
(CDW)) A member who is authorized to rent a
vehicle on duty travel and:

(a) who uses an IDTC to rent the vehicle shall
not purchase CDW (because the IDTC
provides CDW coverage); and 

(b) who does not use an IDTC to rent the
vehicle shall purchase CDW

(7) (Rental Vehicles — Public Liability and
Property Damage (PL/PD)) A member who is
authorized to rent a vehicle on duty travel and

(a) who rents the vehicle from a rental agency
that is listed in the PWGSC
and Car Rental Directory as amended from
time to time, shall not purchase PL/PD
(because the listing includes PL/PD); and

(b) who rents the vehicle from a non-listed
rental agency shall purchase PL/PD.


----------



## PiperDown (9 Dec 2016)

Just got off the phone with the thePersonal.    Vehicle rental is covered under the " Worry Free Option" which I pay a premium for.  Unfortunately, " worry free" also comes with a $500 deductible for windshield replacement.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Dec 2016)

Get a quote from a company to do it, to find out if its easier to not go through insurance.

I'd also call Enterprise head office and make a complaint about poor customer service rushing you through the inspection of the vehicle. If that employee told you not to do the inspection, you should be able out without paying for anything.


----------



## PiperDown (9 Dec 2016)

I am sure Enterprise will not let me choose the company to do the windshield replacement.  ( also, apparently it is their choice to either repair the small crack, or have the windshield replaced. hmmmmm  I wonder which one they will choose ! )

Looks like I am out $500, but I wont be the poor schmuck who signs for the vehicle rental on the next TD.


----------



## kev994 (10 Dec 2016)

What about your credit card? A lot of credit cards include rental insurance so long as you pay for it with that card.


----------



## PiperDown (10 Dec 2016)

Good point.  

I did look into the CC I used ( Tangerine) and they don't cover rentals.  Had I used my Capital One card however, it would have been covered.  My mistake for using the wrong card !

again, an expensive lesson learned.


----------



## DuddlyDeringer (12 Apr 2017)

Hello All,

I'm not really great with references, so a friend recommend I ask ppl here for some clarification.

I'm Class-A and goin gon course and it would take 2 days to drive my car to the school (800km away). Since I've only been given 1 day of travel on my contract, they're saying I can't drive there. They're saying that I have to use one day of leave to drive my car (so that I have 2 travel days total: 1 allotted and 1 annual leave), but because I haven't "earned" my leave yet, I can't take leave before my course starts.

What I don't get is that, I'm Class-A, why do I even need leave? Can't I just start my drive, and be "half-way" to my destination when my contract starts, so I only use "1 day of travel"? 

I mean, I remember after Christmas one year, I was going on an exercise right after the Christmas holiday, but because I was visiting friends during the Christmas holiday, I wasn't "at home" on my allotted travel day. Where I was was actually closer to where I was going, so my OR just booked me a flight from where I was to the exercise, and then back home after the exercise (Point C to B then Point B to A, instead of Point A to B then Point B to A).

If I was RegF or Class-B, I could understand, because you can't get extra time off work just because you want to drive your car. But I'm Class-A, I can be wherever I want when I'm not on contract.

What idea a friend of mine gave me was to "go on a trip" somewhere closer to the school, and do like I did at Christmas, and tell my OR that "because of civilian commitments, I will be in location C before my contract starts. Since it's within 500km of the school, can I drive my POMV", and they should say yes? Is this legit? I mean, in theory I could actually need to be somewhere else, like at Christmas.

Thanks


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Apr 2017)

You should be able to apply for relocation leave prior to and following your course. This is at the discretion of your CO, so don't count on it. Your chain of command should be helping you with this. Your course must be 30 or more days in duration to qualify.

Read para 5.10 of the Leave Policy Manual


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Apr 2017)

DuddlyDeringer said:
			
		

> Hello All,
> 
> I'm not really great with references, so a friend recommend I ask ppl here for some clarification.
> 
> ...



As a CLASS A solider going on course your travel day is the day prior to course...if you want to drive you "could" provided you waive the liability from the crown by travelling the day prior on your on dime, for the end of course your unit can do a cost comparison for a one way PMV wavier as you will have annual leave to use.


----------



## kev994 (12 Apr 2017)

Is it more than or less than 800 km? IIRC you can drive 500 km a day but 800 the last day, so if it's less than 800 you should be able to do it in one day.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2017)

Annex A, POMV Travel Waiver: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/temp-duty-travel-instructions.page

Been done many, many times before. You're just eligible for cost comparison for most economical means to get you there (usually a plane ticket) and they should be doing a cost comparison sheet to show you all the costs involved.


----------



## Occam (12 Apr 2017)

It's been a while since I had to worry about this, but I didn't think CFTDI distinguished between Reserves and Regs?  And my memory isn't what it used to be, but did I not see something saying that if you were travelling on CF business, you were on duty, and if you were on leave, you were on leave - and never the twain shall meet?  They didn't want people on travel status and on leave at the same time, as those two statuses were deemed mutually exclusive.  I also think if you're authorized to use POMV, then by extension you also have to be granted the appropriate amount of on-duty travel time to do it, along with all the TD benefits in force along the way.

I'm suffering from CRAFT a lot lately, so if my information is dated, you have my apologies in advance.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Apr 2017)

You should read this directive for all your travel, as a CAF member.  

Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions

*Chapter 7 - Travel in Canada and Continental USA and Overnight Stay*

Section3 - Transportation Benefits


Section 1 - Application
5.01  Application

Subject to Chapter 3 (Application of CFTDTI), this Chapter applies to a member who is:


    A) On TD at a temporary workplace that is inside the member’s place of duty; or
    B) ordered by an approving authority to work - or to be immediately available for work - during irregular hours inside the member’s place of duty.



Section 3 - Transportation benefits
5.20  General

    (No Entitlement) There is no entitlement for a member to be reimbursed any expenses for travel:
        to and from their permanent workplace on a daily basis; and
        in respect of a mess dinner, mixed dining-in, or other similar event.
    (Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode - or combination of modes - of transportation on duty travel after consideration of all of the following:
        the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;
        the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation - in the duty travel area;
        forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel;
        the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services;
        the CF’s operational needs;
        an intermediate sedan is the standard rental vehicle across government;
        the member’s safety and convenience;
        the member’s safety and convenience;
        any other factor that is immediately relevant to the duty travel requirement.
    (Home Outside Place of Duty) In this Section, for the purposes of calculating a direct road distance from a member’s home, a home that is located outside the member’s place of duty is deemed to be located at the nearest point to the member’s home on the geographical boundary of that place of duty.


Dileas

Tess


----------



## NavyShooter (12 Apr 2017)

Here's the latest update to TD policy that I got the other day.  Have a good read, there are some innovative cost saving measures in there!

NS


----------



## Occam (12 Apr 2017)

He's travelling 800 km, so it's safe to say he's travelling outside his normal place of duty, so Chapter 7 applies.  

It looks like 7.40 and 7.41 are in play - and I do see some rules that kick in for Class A reservists.

However, this is how I'd play it.  If you're not going to use POMV, how are they going to get you there?  If it turns out that using your own car is the most economical and practical method, then they ought to be offering to request you to use your POMV at high rate, and along with it provide you with adequate duty travel time to do it.  If there's a more economical and practical method of travel, then you're stuck with the limitations in 7.41.

I think.   ;D


----------



## Lumber (13 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Annex A, POMV Travel Waiver: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/temp-duty-travel-instructions.page
> 
> Been done many, many times before. You're just eligible for cost comparison for most economical means to get you there (usually a plane ticket) and they should be doing a cost comparison sheet to show you all the costs involved.



Note quite. Class-A reservists get kind of screwed in this regard. Chapter 7 of the CFTDTIs states:



> 7.40 — PMV — DRIVER - (2) (Member Requests To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 7.20(2) (Selection), a member — including a member of the Reserve Force on Class “A” Reserve Service — who requests to use a PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority and who uses that PMV on duty travel is entitled to be reimbursed — *for only the first day of travel to the destination*...



and



> 7.41 — PMV — DRIVER — ADMINISTRATION - (5) (Paid Leave) A member who requests to use a PMV — rather than the more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority — and who uses that PMV on duty travel *shall take one day’s paid leave, after the first day, for every 500 kilometres travelled*.



Finally,



> (6) (Paid Leave) If a member — who requests to use a PMV — *has insufficient paid leave remaining* for any travel in excess of the more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority , then the member *shall not be authorized to use their PMV *as requested.




So, they will only reimburse the _first_ day of travel. If he lives 800km away, he needs 2 days of travel time, and the first day of travel will be his allotted travel day. This forces the member to require leave (of some sort) for the second day of travel (or third, as the situation dictates), since the second day of travel is now inside his contract dates. 

If the reference had said "the member is entitled to only 1 day of duty travel", that would be fine. The member can sign waiver, get _no_reimbursement for the first day of travel, and get paid for the second day of travel. But this is not the case. 

What we've seen in the Naval Reserve is that, those going on _tasking_ can get permission to take their annual leave prior to departure, and therefore can take POMV, but it's up to the employing unit whether they are willing to grant them annual leave prior to the beginning of the tasking. On the other hand, those going on _courses_ never get it, because the schools <coughBordencough> are super stingy.


----------



## quadrapiper (13 Apr 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Note quite. Class-A reservists get kind of screwed in this regard.


Any idea if that collection of regs has any intent, in relation to Class A pers, or if it's just an oversight, written solely with full or "full" time pers in mind?


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2017)

He could ask his CO for a short day.  This is paid leave!


----------



## Ostrozac (13 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> He could ask his CO for a short day.  This is paid leave!



Class A reservists can't get short leave. 

Class B reservists can, but there's a bit of a catch-22, in that the member isn't on Class B service until the start of the tasking/course, but needs to travel prior to the start of the tasking/course. 

I remember a few years ago when there was a crackdown on rental cars -- it appears that this has now spread to a crackdown on POMV. Which may not be sustainable. I like a good walk as much as the next guy, but some of our bases aren't exactly laid out for pedestrian access.


----------



## CountDC (19 Apr 2017)

ooh the wonderful PMV again.  maybe this will help, from DCBA in 2013.  Some points to note that is not there but I have learned through attending briefing sessions in Ottawa that included DCBA, VAC and TB along with follow on briefings at Bdes and Divs.

Even though a class a mbr can be approved PMV for TD 650 kms or less away it does not mean they travel it in one day without risk.  The concept is they would travel up to the 500kms, stop for the night and then complete the trip the next day as you can travel 150kms and still perform a full days work.  If the mbr decides to exceed the 500kms they take on a risk if an accident does happen in which they are injured may not be covered by VAC as they do not consider them on duty at that point.

Spec Lve (Reloc) can not be used for travel, it is for prior to travel.

Big note:  Travelling via PMV without authority - "not be entitled to any duty travel benefits under the CFTDTIs" means exactly that - you get nothing.  No mileage, meals or accms enroute, incidentals and no entitlement to R&Q while there unless local mbrs are ordered into quarters because you have just made yourself a local mbr.

For the concept of "tell them you will be somewhere else closer". Had that scenario and wish I could find the email but the basic answer we received when it was sent up was to book the mbr CA as authorizing the PMV from another location was viewed as an attempt to circumvent the regulations and grant the mbr an unofficial travel day.  How about the return - pure coincidence that mbr happened to have business to stop over for on the return leg too?

Action dist: 
Refs:  A.  CFTDTI 
B.  CF Leave Policy Manual 
C.  DCBA 3-3 email, dated 12 Jun 13 

Further to ref C (email below); DCBA and DPPD staff have carefully reviewed refs A and B, and earlier legal advise (notal) to DCBA.  First and foremost, the Reserve "period of service" (POS) message/tasking must include the member’s employment period (Temporary Duty (TD) period), leave (entitlement is for 30 continuous days (POS) or more) and duty travel day(s).  Essentially, when looking at pertinent policy and associated benefits, there are two scenarios; as follows:  

Scenario 1:  Distance to new employment location is 650 km or less.  IAW Ref A, the approving authority should select a mode of transportation (MOT) to the employment opportunity location which would normally take one duty travel day. Pursuant to art 7.40(2) of ref A, the member can request to use PMV and be reimbursed for travel expenses.  

Scenario 2:  Distance to new employment location is greater than 650 km.  If the course starts on a Monday, the approving authority cannot "approve" a request by the member to select PMV as the preferred method of travel.  Reference A does not permit an approving authority to create additional benefits, and IAW reference B, members are not permitted to utilize annual leave on a weekend. (unless shiftworkers - and there would be no application in this instance).  With this scenario, because the official duty travel day would be moved to Saturday and the additional travel day required would be Sunday, this would create an extra paid day for these members which is not allowed under the construct of the Treasury Board approved CFTDTI.  Hence, if the member opts to take their PMV in this instance, they would not be entitled to any duty travel benefits under the CFTDTIs.
  
It should be noted, however, that if the Training Establishment builds into the mbr's POS annual leave entitlements prior to the start of the course, the member may be entitled to request to use their PMV; provided the course start date allows for additional travel days during the work week.  In this instance, the mbr would be entitled to use annual leave entitlements earned during the POS.  E.g.  2 day trip, 1150 km or less, and course starting mid-week (Wed). The 'official" duty travel day would be the Mon, and the mbr would be on annual leave on the Tue.  The POS msg/instruction should reflect the member utilizing annual leave entitlements prior to the start of the employment opportunity/TD.  In these instances, CFTDTI benefits will be paid to the member for one day only, pursuant to art 7.40(2) of CFTDTI.
---- 
Special Leave (Relocation) for Reservists proceeding to the new employment location:  Reservists proceeding to the new employment location on att posting, course (TD) or on taskings, pursuant to Ref B, the approving authority may approve "Special Leave (Relocation)" which must be taken prior to the member's first duty travel day and/or after the last duty travel day (at location of the member's Reserve unit).  Additionally, these days "shall not be reckoned against weekend days or statutory holidays", as stipulated at ref B para 5.11.02.  If "Special Leave (Relocation)" is approved by the unit approving authority, then the member would start the Class “B" reserve service effective that date.  Units are cautioned that the option of using "Special Leave (Relocation)" has a direct cost associated with it; given the member of the Reserve Force’s POS would need to be extended for the extra day(s).  If this type of leave is granted, it is imperative that the pertinent POS msg/instruction be amended to account for the extra day(s).


----------



## Lumber (19 Apr 2017)

CountDC said:
			
		

> ooh the wonderful PMV again.  maybe this will help, from DCBA in 2013.  Some points to note that is not there but I have learned through attending briefing sessions in Ottawa that included DCBA, VAC and TB along with follow on briefings at Bdes and Divs.



I've probably spent more time discussing, debating, and reading policy and references ad nauseam regarding Travel policy than anything else in the 2 years I've been Adj.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Even though a class a mbr can be approved PMV for TD 650 kms or less away it does not mean they travel it in one day without risk.  The concept is they would travel up to the 500kms, stop for the night and then complete the trip the next day as you can travel 150kms and still perform a full days work.  If the mbr decides to exceed the 500kms they take on a risk if an accident does happen in which they are injured may not be covered by VAC as they do not consider them on duty at that point.



Agreed. This is why the cost comparison work sheet only allows a maximum of 1000km (500km each way) for PMV, vice 1300 km.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Big note:  Travelling via PMV without authority - "not be entitled to any duty travel benefits under the CFTDTIs" means exactly that - you get nothing.  No mileage, meals or accms enroute, incidentals and no entitlement to R&Q while there unless local mbrs are ordered into quarters because you have just made yourself a local mbr.



But what about pay? What if a member's travel day is Monday the 1st of May, and they tell us "don't book me a flight, I'm driving, and I know I don't have enough time, I'm going to leave on Sunday and waive all my CFTDTI benefits". Pay isn't a CFTDTI benefit. Do they lose out on pay as well? Further, incidentals IS a CFTDTI benefit. They'll be getting to their new location, say Borden, and staying in shacks, so they should get incidentals. But they lost their travel benefits for that day? Does that include incidentals? The staying in shacks has nothing to do with their actual "travel".



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> For the concept of "tell them you will be somewhere else closer". Had that scenario and wish I could find the email but the basic answer we received when it was sent up was to book the mbr CA as authorizing the PMV from another location was viewed as an attempt to circumvent the regulations and grant the mbr an unofficial travel day.  How about the return - pure coincidence that mbr happened to have business to stop over for on the return leg too?



Hey, I don't ask Class-A members what they do in their personal lives or with their civilian occupations. If they tell me "due to personal/civilian occupation commitments, I will be in location X on the morning of the travel day", I will make arrangements for them to travel to their TD location (assuming it's closer and cheaper) from location X. 




			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Special Leave (Relocation) for Reservists proceeding to the new employment location:  Reservists proceeding to the new employment location on att posting, course (TD) or on taskings, pursuant to Ref B, the approving authority may approve "Special Leave (Relocation)" which must be taken prior to the member's first duty travel day and/or after the last duty travel day (at location of the member's Reserve unit).  Additionally, these days "shall not be reckoned against weekend days or statutory holidays", as stipulated at ref B para 5.11.02.  If "Special Leave (Relocation)" is approved by the unit approving authority, then the member would start the Class “B" reserve service effective that date.  Units are cautioned that the option of using "Special Leave (Relocation)" has a direct cost associated with it; given the member of the Reserve Force’s POS would need to be extended for the extra day(s).  If this type of leave is granted, _it is imperative that the pertinent POS msg/instruction be amended _to account for the extra day(s).



Highlighted bit: do "Route Letters" count as "pertinent POS msg/instruction"? Because, the reference I have says just to amend the Route Letter, nothing more. The actual message remains unchanged.


----------



## CountDC (20 Apr 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I've probably spent more time discussing, debating, and reading policy and references ad nauseam regarding Travel policy than anything else in the 2 years I've been Adj.


32 years for me and it never gets better.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> But what about pay? What if a member's travel day is Monday the 1st of May, and they tell us "don't book me a flight, I'm driving, and I know I don't have enough time, I'm going to leave on Sunday and waive all my CFTDTI benefits". Pay isn't a CFTDTI benefit. Do they lose out on pay as well? Further, incidentals IS a CFTDTI benefit. They'll be getting to their new location, say Borden, and staying in shacks, so they should get incidentals. But they lost their travel benefits for that day? Does that include incidentals? The staying in shacks has nothing to do with their actual "travel".


Pay they would get for the dates they are on Task/Course not for travel days as they are not entitled to one if travel has not been authorized.   They are not entitled to incidentals or staying in the shack either unless the JI's specify local members are ordered to stay in quarters.  Remember by driving there on their own without any authority they have now made themselves a local member.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Hey, I don't ask Class-A members what they do in their personal lives or with their civilian occupations. If they tell me "due to personal/civilian occupation commitments, I will be in location X on the morning of the travel day", I will make arrangements for them to travel to their TD location (assuming it's closer and cheaper) from location X.


That is a choice you are making but maybe you should look a bit closer if you are authorizing things.  Travel is not one way so both ways have to be accounted for and meet the distance requirements.  No harm in asking what the commitment is to ascertain what travel arrangements are needed and valid.  I have had mbr attending a wedding prior to course so CA was the travel arrangement. There was no wedding in the same place on his trip home from the course and it exceeded the 650kms. Of course we flew him from the wedding location.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Highlighted bit: do "Route Letters" count as "pertinent POS msg/instruction"? Because, the reference I have says just to amend the Route Letter, nothing more. The actual message remains unchanged.


No they don't and yes in the old days route letters were amended just about on any basis but that was the old day.  Now you have to let everyone know so amended correspondence (msg, CFTPO, emails) can be generated and attached to the amended route letter as supporting documentation. 

I'm still hoping that they will change the policy so I can authorize travel again but ........


----------



## Lumber (20 Apr 2017)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Pay they would get for the dates they are on Task/Course not for travel days as they are not entitled to one if travel has not been authorized.   They are not entitled to incidentals or staying in the shack either unless the JI's specify local members are ordered to stay in quarters.  Remember by driving there on their own without any authority they have now made themselves a local member.



Really? So if a member waives there travel day, lets us know in advance so we don't book a flight, drives to his training course where he will be staying in shacks for 2 months, he won't get any incidentals for the entire period because he's essentially forfeited his status of being on "TD"?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Apr 2017)

Doesn't seem right, I've had members drive to course and still get full TD....


----------



## Lumber (20 Apr 2017)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Doesn't seem right, I've had members drive to course and still get full TD....



But were they approved to drive POMV? Or maybe did they do a cost comparison?

The example we're talking about is when a member flat out refused to use the accepted method of travel, nor completed a cost comparison for POMV travel.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Apr 2017)

Why can't it be as simple as "it would cost X to fly you there and back. You can drive but you'll be reimbursed up to X.  You can take Y days (500 km per day)." Authorized by CO and off you go.  Nobody spent a dime more than should have been spent on the "most economical (and practical, that bit seems to be forgotten sometimes) mean".


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Apr 2017)

No I idea, I know that I did for PLQ don't remember getting a cost comparison though....


----------



## Lumber (3 May 2017)

I'm going to add a twist on thing.

Reserve "Period of Service" (POS) are _supposed_ to include travel, employment, and leave. However, the reality is that they do not. Ever since we started modularizing training, especially in the reserves, our HQs have been unable to build these into a member' POS, because it's just to difficult for them to coordinate. From the same unit, you could have 12 ppl attending Mods 1 and 2, 7 of those will stay on for Mod 3, and of those only 2 will stay on for Mod 4. Instead of building travel, leave and employment, the official messages include *ONLY* the employment period. The way that members get paid for travel and leave (including Special Relocation) is simply by making sure that the _route letter _ incorporates these dates. The loading messages literally say:



> A. ROUTE LETTER TO INCLUDE LVE/TRAVEL ENTITLEMENT B. IAW REF, EFF 1 FEB 14 NRD CO HAS THE DISCRETIONAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE (RELOCATION) TO THE MOS QUALIFIED PERS EMPLOYED FOR MORE THAN 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS AWAY FROM THEIR HOME UNIT. NRD CO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE ROUTE LETTER (CF 899) IF SPECIAL LEAVE (RELOCATION) IS GRANTED BEFORE AND AFTER THE COURSE



_There is no expectation that once we've developed a travel/leave plan that we will request an amended tasking message._ 

So, if the issued message has a reserve POS that does not include leave and travel, then it is up to us to build it for them. In regards to this, I know the following to be true:

1. That leave can be taken before it is earned;
2. That leave cannot be taken during a course, unless specifically built into the schedule (which, in most cases, it is NOT);
3. That There is no rule that you can't take leave before a course/tasking (see number 1);
4. That Annual Leave can't be taken on a weekend; and
5. That you can travel on a weekend (most of our taskings involve travelling on a weekend).

So, given these things, could we not build a POS that includes annual leave both at the begging and the end of the course, and then allow the member to take POMV?

I'll give an example. Member has been loaded on 3 consecutive MODs of a trades course. The official messages only list the actual dates of the courses, which all start on Mondays and end on Fridays. His courses total 2.5 months in length, so he will earn 5 days of annual leave. The distance to the trg school is 1100km, so he would need 2 days to drive by POMV. So, since we are building his overall POS, we build a travel/leave plan whereby he takes 1 day of Annual leave on the Friday before his courses starts, and the remaining 4 on the Monday-Thursday immediately following his course. His official travel days become the Thursday before his course (with the second travel day being Friday, the annual day). 

Wouldn't this work?


Edit: What been happening lately, and I'm not sure it's correct or not, so if you have a reference to explain please provide, but when a member is removed from course, they are being employed Class-B at there home unit for as long as they would have been had they been on course. This has been done for those who were removed from course medically, as well as for academic failure. I really would have thought that if you failed academics and were RTU'd, that you'd lose the rest of your contract. We queried the member's Career Manager, and they said nope, employ him at your unit until the end of his POS.

The reason this is important is that, in my example above, he's guaranteed to earn the leave he needs to drive back, since he will get employment for 2.5 months whether he is successful or not.

Again, I think there is something wrong with this, but I could not find a reference one way or the other, and his Career Manager said to employ him at the unit.


----------



## QM (22 Jul 2017)

I have NEVER received a straight answer on this one. Ever. Including from a Navy Comptroller (as in, the Navy Comptroller). On my 2017 posting Brookfield went out of their way to make sure I understood that insurance on rental cars would not be paid. It was my responsibility to be insured myself and they would not honour any insurance charges. WTF??  I've been at units where it was covered and units where it was not. The posted link, above, seems pretty clear. But application of it is allllllllll over the map.


----------



## ballz (22 Jul 2017)

MJP said:
			
		

> CAF TD Instruction  http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/caf-community-benefits/cftdti-ifcvst.pdf
> 
> (4) (Rental Vehicles — IDTC Policies) Before
> using an IDTC to rent a vehicle on duty travel, a
> ...



What is an IDTC?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jul 2017)

Individual Departmental Travel Card.


----------



## ballz (23 Jul 2017)

So if I read all of that correctly, all of us that don't have/use one of those things, like myself who just finished my HHT and paid for the rental with my Visa and will be reimbursed for it, are supposed to (not optional) purchase the CDW they offer (which would be reimbursed since we are clearly being ordered to do so).

And CDW (Collision Damage Waiver) = the extra insurance that they always ask you if you want to purchase?

And a sidebar... but is an HHT considered "Temporary Duty?"


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Jul 2017)

Thanks for the reference; I get varying answers on whether or not the insurance is covered.  I tend to go with enterprise as their insurance rate I was getting was $5 or $10 per day, which I figured was at least covered under the 'incidentals' so never worried about it.

Does this mean if you do have a department card for a rental there is insurance coverage on the card?


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jul 2017)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reference; I get varying answers on whether or not the insurance is covered.  I tend to go with enterprise as their insurance rate I was getting was $5 or $10 per day, which I figured was at least covered under the 'incidentals' so never worried about it.
> 
> Does this mean if you do have a department card for a rental there is insurance coverage on the card?



HHT and move-related travels are administered with the IRP policy.  In any case (TD or HHT), at least CDW plus any mandatory insurances are reimbursed.  Note that liability insurance and personnal effects insurance are not covered.

I never had issues getting CDW reimbursed.


----------



## danteh (28 Oct 2017)

Where can I find the current incidental rates (ie the ~$17 a day for the first 30 days than like $14 per day on ward)? I used to be able to google CF TD incidental rates and it would be like the first one to pop up but I have having a hella hard time finding it now.


----------



## kratz (28 Oct 2017)

ref: CFTDI Appendix C

$17.30 per day IAW CFTDI and pre-programed into the Claims-X software the HR Administrators must use.


----------



## CountDC (30 Oct 2017)

When did it become a must use?  Didn't see that one anywhere and the DND99 is still available in the forms catalogue.

try this link to NJC for the rates:  https://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/s3/en


----------



## SJBeaton (1 Nov 2017)

CountDC said:
			
		

> When did it become a must use?  Didn't see that one anywhere and the DND99 is still available in the forms catalogue.
> 
> try this link to NJC for the rates:  https://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/s3/en



It's not a "must use". Furthermore, I believe since the trade split, DND 99s and ClaimsX claims/MTECs are a couple of the very few claim types that should be both initiated and finalized by FSA, not HRA.


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Nov 2017)

“Seventy-five percent (75%) of the meal and incidental allowances shall be paid starting on the 31st consecutive calendar day and fifty percent (50%) of the meal allowance on the 121st consecutive calendar day of travel status at the same location *when corporate residences or apartment hotels are available to a traveller in the area surrounding the workplace, or when the traveller chooses to stay in private accommodation*”

It’s not automatic that the 75% reduction occurs.  If you are in a location that doesn’t have corporate residences or apartment hotels, then you should receive 100% the entire time.


----------



## CountDC (3 Nov 2017)

SJBeaton said:
			
		

> It's not a "must use". Furthermore, I believe since the trade split, DND 99s and ClaimsX claims/MTECs are a couple of the very few claim types that should be both initiated and finalized by FSA, not HRA.



Not quite.  Claims are mainly FSA now, HRA has little to do with them.


----------



## Mongo007 (6 Nov 2017)

Hello everyone,

I will be going on TD and the start date in on a Tuesday. I will need to travel just over 1200KM and I will be requesting to use my PMV.

According to the CFTDTI 7.41(5) "5.(Paid Leave) A member who requests to use a PMV - rather than the more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority - and who uses that PMV on duty travel shall take one day’s paid leave, after the first day, for every 500 kilometres travelled. " 

My first question is does this mean that 7.41(5) does not require me to take a paid day of leave for the first day of travel but any following days would require paid leave. 1200 KM would require 3 days of travel so would I get the first day as a travel day and then require 2 days of annual for the remaining 2 days?

My second question is that I will be leaving on a Saturday to make it for a Tuesday course. My first travel day is on a weekend will I be able to move that first travel day to the Monday so I would not have to take a day of leave?

Thanks for your help.


----------



## CountDC (6 Nov 2017)

short answer - no.  As you quoted - shall take one day's paid leave, after the first day.  

You have to have at least one day of paid leave.


----------



## Pusser (6 Nov 2017)

I disagree.  Keep in mind that weekend and short leave is "paid leave."  If the first day of travel is a "duty" day, it is perfectly legitimate to consider the Monday a short day.  Hence, no annual leave need be expended.


----------



## CountDC (6 Nov 2017)

Weekend is not leave, it is schedule days off.

Feel free to disagree with the Ottawa gods as that is the policy they have pushed out and have done so since 2012.  Even now on their CFTDI Faq they refer to annual:

I am currently posted to Vancouver, can I take my PMV if I need to go to Borden on course even if they are 4,296 Km apart?
Maybe. You will need to sign both the Annex A Member Request To Use PMV Acknowledgment of Limitations for the PMV Waiver and the DCBA waiver and cost comparison worksheet when your intent is to request use of your PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation. You will be entitled to only the first day of travel to the destination (500 kilometres) and only for the first day of travel of return travel (500 kilometres) kilometric rate for the direct road and this would include any distance traveled by ferry. You will also be required to utilize sufficient paid leave for each additional day of travel over 500 kilometres (duty travel day). In the interest of safe driving, you are required to take 8 paid leave days each way, in addition to the one day of duty travel each way. If you don't have sufficient *annual leave remaining*, the CO has no choice but to deny PMV travel, in favour of the most economical and practical method of transportation (in this case, commercial air travel). PMV is not considered the most economical and practical method of transportation, except where the CO requests the use of PMV, IAW the CFTDTI.
NOTE: The Crown accepts no responsibility or liability to the member for, the loss of or damage to a PMV on duty travel and deductible insurance payments in respect of a PMV used on duty travel. As such, a member cannot be ordered and is never obliged to use a PMV for duty travel.
Refs: CFTDTI 4.12, CFTDTI 7.40 & CFTDTI 7.41 Acknowledge of limitation (Annex A waiver) and cost comparison worksheet

and in email from C Army DLPM/G1 Jul 2012

It should also be noted that the type of leave to be utilized is annual leave even if the travel occurs on a weekend.

One of the problems is that the leave manual itself does not have a definition for paid leave and the CFTDI only refers to paid leave.  They need to amend something to make it clear what they are referring to.  Why say paid leave in the instruction if you mean annual.  They have had 5 years to correct this and are aware of the issue as people have been asking since the instruction came out.  Think they would get tired of answering the same question over and over and actually fix the wording so people don't have to ask.  Too easy to specify types of leave clearly.


----------



## Pusser (6 Nov 2017)

I would argue that an *email* from C Army DLPM/G1 does not constitute a proper authority in this case.  It's essentially reading something into a policy that isn't there.  It may be what somebody thinks it should be, but that's not what the CFTDI says.

Paid leave is simply leave when the member is being paid and includes just about all types of leave, except leave without pay.  The CFTDI describes it this way in order to avoid having to list the multitude of different forms of paid leave.  To insist on annual leave in this case is ridiculous.  I interpret the line about having sufficient annual leave remaining is to cover those periods for which there are no other forms of paid leave available.  If after all other legitimate forms of leave have been taken and the member still requires annual leave to cover the portion remaining and he doesn't have it, then he may be SOL. 

In a more precise example, if a member is required to report for duty on 2 Jan 18 and he requires nine days to drive the distance (as per the max daily driving allowance) then (assuming the first day is duty), his eight days of paid leave could legitimately accounted for as follows:

25-26 Dec 17 - 2 days Stat
27-28 Dec 17 - 2 days Special (everybody gets that)
29 Dec 17 - 1 day short (the current practice is that everybody gets that as well)
30-31 Dec 17 - 2 days Weekend
1 Jan 18 - 1 day Stat

This all adds up to eight days of paid leave, not one of them being Annual Leave, and IAW the CFTDI, acceptable.  

On a similar note, this issue has come up from time to time with respect to other benefits that also require "paid leave" to be utilized and in each case, the ruling that came back was that paid leave included any type of leave where the member was being paid and was certainly not restricted to annual leave.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Nov 2017)

Weekend leave is not paid leave?  I am pretty sure I have *X* amount of weekend leave days on my Xmas leave pass...or my summer one.

Here's what I think;  the policy that states PAID LEAVE was written exactly as that, and people were using weekend leave, or getting short leave etc to cover duty travel on weekend days because that it what the policy was intended for; paid leave including but not limited to Ann Leave.  Then some fucksticks got into the fold and decided PAID LEAVE must mean ANNUAL LEAVE, because god forbid if mbr's actually wanted to take their PMV with them on a long course or something, so let's make this as much of an asspain as possible.    ;D

I've used and know others who've used Weekend or Short leave travelling with their PMV.  

Worst case scenario, don't ask for any cash, tell them you don't need service travel to the location (its only 1300km) and that you will report as specified in your JIs, take Monday as an Annual and Sat/Sun as weekend.  Voila.  

Be interesting to see what the EMGRC would make of this PAID LEAVE discussion WRT to travel.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Nov 2017)

1.1.19 Paid Service

Paid Service means all service except:

periods of Leave Without Pay and Allowances (LWOP) other than LWOP for maternity and parental purposes;
periods when a Primary Reserve reservist has an Exemption From Duty and Training (ED&T) other than ED&T for maternity or parental purposes;
periods when a Primary Reserve reservist is Non Effective Strength (NES);
service for which a limitation of Payments (LOP) has been imposed under QR&O 203.20, Regular Force - Limitation of Payments; or
periods for which forfeiture has been imposed under QR&O 208.30, Forfeitures - Officers and Non-Commissioned Members, or QR&O 208.31, Forfeitures, Deductions and Cancellations -When No Service Rendered.

Leave taken outside of those are, by my interpretation, paid leave as it would be paid service.  This incluses weekends.

Turns out weekend leave doesn't exists so you cannot travel on a cost comparison during weekends, unless it is a Short day.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Nov 2017)

Weekend Leave doesn't exist.  How do I have Weekend Leave days x 6 for Christmas Leave this year then?  When I am off for 2 weeks in the summer...the days between my Annual Days are always...Weekend Leave.

 ???

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/leave-policy.page#chap2

2.1.04 Weekends and Holidays

Weekends and Holidays are included on Form CF 100 when they form part of a leave period in conjunction with other types of leave that are reckoned in working days. 

Section 2.2 Reckoning Time
2.2.01 Reckoning time
Except in the case of short leave, leave begins at 0000 hours on the commencement date and ends at 2400 hours on the last day of leave.
Weekends, designated and other holidays (listed in Annex A of this chapter), or in the case of shift workers’ scheduled non-working days (designated as weekends on the CF 100), shall not be charged against any leave that is granted in working days; although, such days will normally form part of the leave period.

If I am Reg Force, and I am not 'on duty' for a weekend, and have other leave, the CF100 shows weekend leave days.  I've never seen it done otherwise OR I'd need two separate leave passes for my summer block leave.  As it stands, I always have 6 x Weekend days on my LEAVE PASS.  Days on a leave pass are 'leave days' are they not?  So weekend leave days would be paid leave.

 :dunno:


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Nov 2017)

Leave is defined in the QR&Os

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-16.page

Noticed that weekend isn't there.

Your quote doesn't define that weekend is leave.  It says that IF weekend is part of the leave period to include the weekend on the leave pass.


----------



## CountDC (6 Nov 2017)

beat to it.  Weekend is just that, showing it on the leave pass enables you to show the entire period you are off.  It also has the benefit that as it is on your leave pass then the only one that could call you in during the period is the CO as it is now part of your approved leave period.  Same with stats - they are not leave.

Your arguments are with the policy gods in Ottawa.  Both offices I have quoted are there.  I also attended two briefings in 2012 that were held by DCBA in which they also stated it had to be annual leave.  There have been other emails on the subject over the years that all have stated the same things and were issued as policy clarifications.   

That is why I stated they need to better clarify what is paid leave as there really isn't anything that specifically addresses it and since the CFTDI was issued it has been an ongoing problem.  Shouldn't be that hard to add a definition in there or if they actually mean annual then change the word paid to annual.  Shouldn't have to search through numerous different pubs or policy ruling to get such a simple thing that could and should be built in.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Nov 2017)

I am pretty sure that Special or Short is indeed paid leave as well.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Nov 2017)

If it’s annual leave then they need to make the change to reflect that.

Paid leave is ******* simple.  It is all types of leave with the exception of LWOP.

We don’t need a dentition for something that requires a basic amount of common sense.

Personally I am fed up with orderly rooms interpreting rules and regs when 99% of the time they are clear.

Why the frig would someone have to take an annual?  It is because some ******* wrongly interpreted the rule years ago?  Is it to make the process so unfavourable to the member that they will most likely never choose to take their PMV?


----------



## captloadie (7 Nov 2017)

The link below is one of the reasons the rules are being applied as stringently as they are. I knew Shari, and sadly she is but one of the individuals that "we" tried to do what we we thought was best for an individual.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mother-pushes-rcmp-for-answers-about-daughter-s-death-1.2777381

You can blame the bean counters all you want, but they aren't the ones implementing this rule. It is the Command Structure. And yes, part of it is to discourage individuals from taking their POMVs, when it requires travelling a long distance. If it costs someone x number of annual days, they must ask themselves if the trade-off is worth it. Maybe instead of bitching you have to take annual days, you should be thanking the CoC and the policy makers for inserting an option that allows you to take your POMV at all.


----------



## Pusser (7 Nov 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The link below is one of the reasons the rules are being applied as stringently as they are. I knew Shari, and sadly she is but one of the individuals that "we" tried to do what we we thought was best for an individual.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mother-pushes-rcmp-for-answers-about-daughter-s-death-1.2777381
> 
> You can blame the bean counters all you want, but they aren't the ones implementing this rule. It is the Command Structure. And yes, part of it is to discourage individuals from taking their POMVs, when it requires travelling a long distance. If it costs someone x number of annual days, they must ask themselves if the trade-off is worth it. Maybe instead of bitching you have to take annual days, you should be thanking the CoC and the policy makers for inserting an option that allows you to take your POMV at all.



That link has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.  It makes no mention whatsoever of the leave status of the member.

If the CAF doesn't want members to use POMV, why do they fully expect you to drive on posting (no, you don't have to, but it is certainly not discouraged and all the policies assume that is the first choice).  The root of the problem here is a growing and pervasive attitude that no one should be allowed to do anything that is actually convenient or beneficial to the member (notwithstanding that it may actually cost the Crown less).  We will go to great lengths to ensure no one enjoys what we do to them.

The reality is that this is a big country and many or our bases are huge with little in the way of recreational facilities for use in off duty hours (not everybody wants to go to the gym, the base museum - if it's open - is only entertaining for so long and base theatres are an endangered species, etc).  We all know that spending the weekend stuck on a large sprawling base in the middle of nowhere really sucks, so yes, folks want to take their POMVs in order to preserve their sanity.  Why do some folks need to make it so difficult?

Luckily, I've never been saddled with a chain of command that took such a narrow view of a regulation that doesn't really exist.  I've always been able to use POMV to travel on TD when it suited me and I've never had to take any annual leave to do so.  Based on my experiences with grievances and in compensation and benefits policy, I would predict that anyone grieving being forced to take annual leave on a weekend because he/she asked to take POMV, would win their case.  Paid leave is any leave where you're getting paid.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Nov 2017)

Since member is going on course his authorized travel day would be Monday prior to course start...I believe if he wanted to drive he would have to depart prior to that on his on dime ....


----------



## Lumber (7 Nov 2017)

I'm surprised it took me this long to chime in... but here I am!

My personal opinion is that this isn't the result of any _intentional_ attempt to make the benefits harder to acquire. However, I agree with Pusser that the prevailing attitude seems to be that "no one should be allowed to do anything that is actually convenient or beneficial to the member." 

My personal opinion is that this stems from an unintended lack of consistency in _terminology_, that is now being applied in an extremely strict manner.

First, we have "paid leave" which _appears_ only in the CDTDTIs (and once in the CF Leave Policy Manual), and otherwise is not clearly defined *anywhere*. Then, we have "weekend leave", which is used all over the place, but does not exist as an official type of leave IAW QR&Os, DAOD, or the CF Leave Policy Manual. Finally, we have "paid service", which is defined as "all service except: LWOP, NES, ED&T, LOP or periods of forgeiture".

I reached out several months ago to DCBA/DGCB, and eventually I got this response. This response came from the formation, not from DCBA, because DCBA passed my query down to them to answer:




> "If member departs on Saturday(Duty day reimbursable), a leave pass would be submitted for the remaining Sunday onwards (reflecting Sunday weekend, Monday to Friday (annual, short etc)), until arrival at location of course. The same methodology would be used on the return trip.
> 
> ...[snipped]
> 
> Nowhere does it state a member can’t travel on a weekend, it does specify that the member will need to covered by paid leave (paid service) as identified above."



So, MY _assumption_ is that whoever drafted the CFTDTIs didn't have a list of approved and official terms sitting next to them when they wrote them. What they really mean by "paid leave" was "paid service". They wanted to use the term paid "leave" to make it clear that there is no entitlement to additional time off in order to facilitate travel; you get one day, and everything else has to be approved time away from work, or in their heads, "leave". 

If we could all just stop yammering about weekend leave not being "leave", and accept that, in the context of the CFTDTIs, weekend leave is "paid leave", then we'd all be getting along just fine! It's those who are adamant you can't travel on weekends because weekends aren't "paid leave" that are making a mess of this.


----------



## CountDC (7 Nov 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> If it’s annual leave then they need to make the change to reflect that.
> 
> Paid leave is ******* simple.  It is all types of leave with the exception of LWOP.
> 
> ...



perhaps you missed the part about DCBA? You know, the people that control this stuff.  Stop blaming ORs for passing on regulations and policy decisions that are given to us.  I am fed up with people always blaming ORs for things we have no control over and merely performing our duties.


----------



## Mongo007 (7 Nov 2017)

My OR is not telling me I need to take Annual leave on the Sat and Sun only that I need to take 1 annual day on the Monday. My OR has been very good with my request to take my PMV I just figured I would do a bit of research to see if there was an option for me to get my original request for the Monday not to be an annual day.

My original question was that since my first travel day which is a duty day is on a weekend, if I could get the Monday not to require an annual day of leave.

Thanks everyone on the great number of replies to my question.


----------



## CountDC (7 Nov 2017)

Don't recall anyone saying that you couldn't travel on the weekend.  I believe the discussion was what leave would be required and the problem of written policy indicating one thing by referring to something that doesn't exist within our regulations/instructions/policies (paid leave) and policy clarifications that indicate something different (annual leave). This is an ongoing problem in the modern CAF that rather than issuing pub amendments they attempt clarifying by FAQs and emails which just continue to muddy the waters as they also at times conflict with each other depending on who in the shop is sending it and what year. 

I also don't think the intent is to discourage mbrs from using their PMV but to ensure the mbr is properly advised and taken care of within TB guidelines.  Many units are still sending mbrs via pmv without completing a cost comparison or annex a.  This to me is a big no as that mbr is now travelling without understanding the possible repercussions to them or their estate should something happen. Drive 600 kms in one day, crash, get injured and try to claim VAC.  Good luck when they find out you exceeded 500 kms.  To them you were not on duty and thus do not qualify for the benefits of someone that is on duty and injured.  Hard enough for mbrs to get VAC claims through without us making it even more difficult on the mbr.  

If the intent was to stop mbrs from driving then they would simply do that - regulation is no one is authorized to travel PMV.  Instead they come out with policies that allow the mbr to do so with the CO authorizing that meet the requirements imposed on government employees. 

Ultimately it is the CO that is signing off on the travel authorization so if he makes the educated decision that he will sign off with the mbr taking short leave vice annual as the published policy reads "paid leave" that is up to him.  I certainly would not refuse to process a claim under those terms.  Due diligence has been served, I have passed on the information I have received and he has made his choice.  That is why he is a CO.

Personally I have refused to use my own vehicle for TD and insist on DND providing my tpt.  That way if something does happen I am covered as much as possible.  Yes it has annoyed others when I demand a DND vehicle but as I point out to them, If I break down on the highway is DND sending a wrecker to get me and are they paying for the repairs. Of course not.  If I need a vehicle occasionally while there I can rent one real cheap.  Never had to do that though as there are lots of others that opted to drive their PMV that I am able to tag on to.


----------



## Lumber (7 Nov 2017)

Mongo007 said:
			
		

> My OR is not telling me I need to take Annual leave on the Sat and Sun only that I need to take 1 annual day on the Monday. My OR has been very good with my request to take my PMV I just figured I would do a bit of research to see if there was an option for me to get my original request for the Monday not to be an annual day.
> 
> My original question was that since my first travel day which is a duty day is on a weekend, if I could get the Monday not to require an annual day of leave.
> 
> Thanks everyone on the great number of replies to my question.



Short answer: If you need 3 days to travel, and your first travel day is Saturday, then you either need to be on Annual or Short leave on Monday (unless Monday is a stat holiday, then you're covered).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Nov 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The link below is one of the reasons the rules are being applied as stringently as they are. I knew Shari, and sadly she is but one of the individuals that "we" tried to do what we we thought was best for an individual.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mother-pushes-rcmp-for-answers-about-daughter-s-death-1.2777381
> 
> You can blame the bean counters all you want, but they aren't the ones implementing this rule. It is the Command Structure. And yes, part of it is to discourage individuals from taking their POMVs, when it requires travelling a long distance.



I am 47 years old.  I don't need someone "in the Command Structure" to decide shit like that.  If someone is the age where they are thought responsible enough to vote in an election, they might also be capable of deciding if they want their damn car with them on a 2 or 3 month long TD.  THIS is the type of shit that drives me mental.  Its the _Canadian Armed Forces_, not the _Canadian Adult Daycare_ ffs.  I can drive 500km/day on a posting from Comox to Greenwood and no one is 'concerned in the Command Structure' that, now, my entire family and myself aren't going to perish because of my assumed stupidity.  That's a lame argument IMO.



> If it costs someone x number of annual days, they must ask themselves if the trade-off is worth it. Maybe instead of bitching you have to take annual days, you should be thanking the CoC and the policy makers for inserting an option that allows you to take your POMV at all.



I guess we should also be glad we don't need the COs approval to get married anymore either, right?   :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Nov 2017)

CountDC said:
			
		

> perhaps you missed the part about DCBA? You know, the people that control this stuff.  Stop blaming ORs for passing on regulations and policy decisions that are given to us.  I am fed up with people always blaming ORs for things we have no control over and merely performing our duties.



DCBA has also made wrong decisions which have been overturned...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Nov 2017)

Mongo007 said:
			
		

> My OR is not telling me I need to take Annual leave on the Sat and Sun only that I need to take 1 annual day on the Monday. My OR has been very good with my request to take my PMV I just figured I would do a bit of research to see if there was an option for me to get my original request for the Monday not to be an annual day.
> 
> My original question was that since my first travel day which is a duty day is on a weekend, if I could get the Monday not to require an annual day of leave.
> 
> Thanks everyone on the great number of replies to my question.



If your course starts on a Tuesday then your authorized travel day is the day before the course i.e. Monday.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Nov 2017)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I am fed up with people always blaming ORs for things we have no control over and merely performing our duties.



It’s the inconsistencies that drive members crazy.

I recently returned from a week in Norway.  We were given an advance, but only enough to cover our accommodations.  The remainder of our trip was on our own dime (yes a few of us had our government travel card).   Some trips we get advances, others we don’t.  Where is it written that we can only get 80%?  I’ve never found the official reference, a few emails, word of mouth, but that’s it.  I know I don’t pay for 80% of a hotel room, or pay 80% of the restaurant bill..

Back in June I flew from Honolulu to Newark (non-stop), departed HNL at 1530, arrived in Halifax (via EWR) at lunch time (next day).  I tried to claim lunch.  Nope, couldn’t claim it, because the regulations stipulate that meals are based on departure time (it wasn’t lunch time in Hawaii).  I still had to drive to Greenwood after landing in Halifax, which made for an interesting drive.

There was no movement on the lunch claim, I got the “it’s the rules”, which I knew, but I thought I’d try.  I also know the rules state I am entitled to fly either business class or have a lay over on flights longer than 9 hours, do you think that was an option?  No ******* way.  I most certainly didn’t waive that option.


----------



## Lumber (7 Nov 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I recently returned from a week in Norway.  We were given an advance, but only enough to cover our accommodations.  The remainder of our trip was on our own dime (yes a few of us had our government travel card).   Some trips we get advances, others we don’t.  Where is it written that we can only get 80%?  I’ve never found the official reference, a few emails, word of mouth, but that’s it.  I know I don’t pay for 80% of a hotel room, or pay 80% of the restaurant bill..



I can confirm that this is 100% pulled straight out of a clerk's ass. I had my clerk explain why he gives members 80%, and I actually agreed with it, but I may revisit that now and have him tell them that if they want more, they can have it.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Back in June I flew from Honolulu to Newark, departed HNL at 1530, arrived in Halifax at lunch time (next day).  I tried to claim lunch.  Nope, couldn’t claim it, because the regulations stipulate that meals are based on departure time (it wasn’t lunch time in Hawaii).  I still had to drive to Greenwood after landing in Halifax, which made for an interesting drive.
> 
> There was no movement on the lunch claim, I got the “it’s the rules”, which I knew, but I thought I’d try.  I also know the rules state I am entitled to fly either business class or have a lay over on flights longer than 9 hours, do you think that was an option?  No ******* way.  I most certainly didn’t waive that option.



Interesting.

We had a couple dozen naval reservists deploy to South Korea as part of the Naval Security Team proof of concept. When they came back, they had a long, flight from S. Korean to Victoria. Going through their claims (which were complicated as all hell), this is what their claims showed:

1. They received meals based on S. Korean time from their first flight in S. Korea to Seoul, and from Seoul to Vancouver;
2. This travel included travel over the international date line;
3. They had a short layover in Vancouver (1.5 hrs ish, I think) before their 25min flight to Victoria;
4. As their layover in Vancouver was over lunch period, they received a lunch meal, even though it wasn't "lunch time" in S. Korea. It was like, because they were back in Canada for a layover, the travel clock re-started, and the "time at place of departure" was thrown out the window. 
5. The final result was that they received 2 back to back lunch claims. One for while they were in the-air on "S. Korean time", and the next for when they were in Vancouver on Canadian time.


----------



## Sub_Guy (8 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I can confirm that this is 100% pulled straight out of a clerk's ***. I had my clerk explain why he gives members 80%, and I actually agreed with it, but I may revisit that now and have him tell them that if they want more, they can have it.
> 
> 4. As their layover in Vancouver was over lunch period, they received a lunch meal, even though it wasn't "lunch time" in S. Korea. It was like, because they were back in Canada for a layover, the travel clock re-started, and the "time at place of departure" was thrown out the window.



80% claim, I’ve been told it’s to “protect” the members.  If the TD ends early, that sort of thing.  I appreciate being baby sat.  I am more than able to take care of my TD finances.  More often than not our TDs get extended anyway.  

For the layover bit, I find it interesting that they restarted the travel clock.  That shouldn’t have happened, although, it sounds like it worked out for the members.


----------



## Pusser (8 Nov 2017)

Actually, there is a lot of precedent for the 80% limit.  It probably started with the cash move trial back in the 1990s and forms part of the current IRP policy.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can also understand it.  I remember dealing with claims back in the 90s where members had drawn huge advances for long TDs that were suddenly cut short.  Some of the sailors were facing severe financial hardship because they suddenly had to pay back money they no longer had.  However, I don't think an 80% limit would have helped them anyway in this case.  

In most cases, the concept of a limit isn't too bad.  Our TD allowances are actually quite generous and people seldom need to spend $100/day on meals and incidentals.  However, this is not always the case.  Norway is a shining example of where TD allowances are actually simply adequate.  You can eat well on them, but there is little room for profit.

I recently had to travel across the Pacific and back and can attest to and sympathize with what it does to your body.  I have to say that I'm disappointed with an OR that would not exercise a little common sense and empathy with the member.  Policy is actually not that specific and there is some wiggle room for common sense.  I wonder whether the OR simply decided that since Claims-X has trouble understanding the International Date Line, then that must be the policy.  I look at it differently (and approve claims accordingly).  I simply look at the total number of days the member is away and get mostly concerned with when he walks out and then back into his/her home.  Then I simply make Claims-X reflect the number of meals for the period in between.  It's never going to boil down to more than a single meal, so why do people nitpick?


----------



## Lumber (8 Nov 2017)

Pusser said:
			
		

> ...so why do people nitpick?



Because when it comes to applying financial and travel policy with 100% accuracy, some people are just very... pusser...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Nov 2017)

Isn't it our current master's view that "we are entitled to our entitlements"?

Couldn't resit.  ;D

After all, we are entitled  :RstTrky: and gravy!


----------



## CountDC (8 Nov 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> It’s the inconsistencies that drive members crazy.
> 
> I recently returned from a week in Norway.  We were given an advance, but only enough to cover our accommodations.  The remainder of our trip was on our own dime (yes a few of us had our government travel card).   Some trips we get advances, others we don’t.  Where is it written that we can only get 80%?  I’ve never found the official reference, a few emails, word of mouth, but that’s it.  I know I don’t pay for 80% of a hotel room, or pay 80% of the restaurant bill..
> 
> ...


----------



## CountDC (8 Nov 2017)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I recently had to travel across the Pacific and back and can attest to and sympathize with what it does to your body.  I have to say that I'm disappointed with an OR that would not exercise a little common sense and empathy with the member.  Policy is actually not that specific and there is some wiggle room for common sense.  I wonder whether the OR simply decided that since Claims-X has trouble understanding the International Date Line, then that must be the policy.  I look at it differently (and approve claims accordingly).  I simply look at the total number of days the member is away and get mostly concerned with when he walks out and then back into his/her home.  Then I simply make Claims-X reflect the number of meals for the period in between.  It's never going to boil down to more than a single meal, so why do people nitpick?



It is in the CFTDI's and there isn't really any wiggle room.   People are picky because as someone signing sect 34 on a claim it is our responsibility to be.


----------



## Sub_Guy (8 Nov 2017)

I travelled from Greenwood to Honolulu.  PMV to YHZ, YHZ-EWR, EWR-HNL direct (same route on the return).


----------



## garb811 (8 Nov 2017)

Surprised nobody has brought up the stupidity of how Reservists are treated.  Contract doesn't start until the travel day, hence you can't get a PMV waiver if you are farther than one day's official drive, because you have no "paid leave" to take to cover the other days...


----------



## Lumber (9 Nov 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Surprised nobody has brought up the stupidity of how Reservists are treated.  Contract doesn't start until the travel day, hence you can't get a PMV waiver if you are farther than one day's official drive, because you have no "paid leave" to take to cover the other days...



Yes you can. You just have to be creative. I've gotten a lot of Class-A folks PMV travel.


----------



## CountDC (9 Nov 2017)

Lumber is right depending on the circumstances and the willingness of everyone to work together.  There are options when you go through everything in the CFTDI's.

If you look at the annex a it specifies One additional day is required if the distance traveled on the last day is more than 150 km but less than 500 km.  This means you could actually go up to 650 kms before needing any leave.

Option 2 would be to calculate out the leave the mbr would earn while on TD.  if going on a task you could reach out to the employing unit and ask them to auth the mbr to use the needed number of leave days for the start and end of task in order to travel PMV.  The mbr still leaves on the same day but reports in at the receiving end X days later.  Doesn't work so much for courses as they tend to want you there at the start of the course.

Bit harder is to build the case to turn it into a situation of member is requested to use PMV.  This is harder as you have to take into account all expenses included the mbrs pay.

Of course there is the option to have the PMT authorized on the claim and then drive anyway.  The down side to this is you don't get your travel benefits -mileage or meals enroute other than what would normally get paid if you had travelled by the authorize means.  You also should make sure the Claims Clerk doesn't book you any flights.

Interesting enough I see a para that I do not recall from before that appears to throw things a bit sideways.

9.(Class A Reserve Service) A member of the Reserve Force, who requests to use their PMV on duty travel, shall be placed on Class A Reserve Service on the first day of travel to or from a destination and shall not be authorized any subsequent Class A Reserve Service for any subsequent days of that duty travel to or from that location.

Now I am thinking perhaps you could send the mbr PMV with one day class a (sign a pay sheet) for the first day.  Then start their class b from the day of arrival to the day before their departure. One day class A again for the return travel.  Sure that there is someone that will poke a hole in that though.


----------



## Pusser (16 Nov 2017)

Where does it say that a Reservist has to make a special trip from his home unit to the TD location?  If a Reservist in Toronto wants to drive his car to a course in Halifax, where does it say he has to start his trip in Toronto.  If his course starts on Monday and he just happens to be in Fredericton of his own accord (i.e. he's not on duty and could be in Fredericton for any variety of legitimate reasons).  Could he not just drive on to Halifax on Sunday and claim that as his travel day?


----------



## CountDC (16 Nov 2017)

The member could do his TD from/to Fredericton if the CO pre-approves it on an ITA/MTA.


----------



## Lumber (16 Nov 2017)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Where does it say that a Reservist has to make a special trip from his home unit to the TD location?  If a Reservist in Toronto wants to drive his car to a course in Halifax, where does it say he has to start his trip in Toronto.  If his course starts on Monday and he just happens to be in Fredericton of his own accord (i.e. he's not on duty and could be in Fredericton for any variety of legitimate reasons).  Could he not just drive on to Halifax on Sunday and claim that as his travel day?



Absolutely. This is possible in the Reg Force as well. If a member from Toronto, for example, has TD in Edmonton starting after the Christmas Holiday, but he spent Christmas with his family in Calgary, then we're not going to make him come all the way back to Toronto just to fly back to Edmonton; we would arrange the transportation from Calgary.

For a Reservist, it's even easier, because when they aren't on Class-A/B/C contract, we have no say whatsoever about where they live and where they travel. So, if a member "happens" to be in Fredericton the day before the start of his course, and if he plans to go vacation in Fredericton immediately after his course, then I see no reason why we couldn't approve POMV travel for this member starting and ending in Fredericton. 

Now, if the member wasn't originally planning on vacationing in Fredericton, either before or after his trip, but was strongly "encouraged" to do so by his orderly room... is that an issue?... :dunno:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Absolutely. This is possible in the Reg Force as well. If a member from Toronto, for example, has TD in Edmonton starting after the Christmas Holiday, but he spent Christmas with his family in Calgary, then we're not going to make him come all the way back to Toronto just to fly back to Edmonton; we would arrange the transportation from Calgary.
> 
> For a Reservist, it's even easier, because when they aren't on Class-A/B/C contract, we have no say whatsoever about where they live and where they travel. So, if a member "happens" to be in Fredericton the day before the start of his course, and if he plans to go vacation in Fredericton immediately after his course, then I see no reason why we couldn't approve POMV travel for this member starting and ending in Fredericton.
> 
> Now, if the member wasn't originally planning on vacationing in Fredericton, either before or after his trip, but was strongly "encouraged" to do so by his orderly room... is that an issue?... :dunno:



They will get up to 500KM each way that's covered the rest is on their own dime...


----------



## Lumber (17 Nov 2017)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> They will get up to 500KM each way that's covered the rest is on their own dime...



Yes, that's what I was saying.


----------



## Lumber (7 Apr 2018)

Ok here's a new one.

The CFTDTIs are very clear that you cannot order someone to use POMV as the selected mode of transportation; you can only _request_ that they do.

But what about rental vehicles? Can you select rental vehicle as the approved method of travel and order the member to rent a vehicle with their own Credit Card and have them claim it on their travel claim?

Some context:

We needed to send a 15 members to an exercise about an hour away. Our unit vehicles were unavailable. Taxis would have cost $540+ total (3 taxis 2 trips each at $90 per trip). We ended up going through Base Transport to rent vehicles, which cause a bunch of headaches:

1. they like advance notice, and we didn't get the selection message until 2 days before the exercise (i.e. we didn't even know how many of our people were going);
2. since the vehicle were acquired through TEME, they now fall under FMS regulations, meaning every driver needs to have their 404s, even though they were civilian vehicles from Enterprise rent-a-car;
3. Again, being DND arragned vehicles, we're supposed to use ARI cards to fill up with gas. Our unit has only 1 ARI "rental card" and the 3 vehicles would be returning at different times.

What we found is so much easier is if someone travelling rents a vehicle with the own credit card, and then simply claims the rental and the gas on their travel claims. No 404 required, no ARI required, and they can do it all on their own time. We just make sure that when the travel gets approved by our CO (the approving authority) that the ITA request lists rental vehicle as the selected mode of travel.

But if no one wanted to do this, could we order them to? Could we say "well, that's the selected mode of transportation, and you're driving 4 other sailors, so get going"? I feel like we could order people with 404s to drive rental vehicles that _the unit _ acquired through TEME, but we couldn't order someone to go get their own rental vehicle which needs them to use their personal credit card, because we can't order people to use their own personal credit card. (and, from what I understand, using a unit acquisition card to acquire a rental vehicle would be a huge no no).

Thoughts?


----------



## winnipegoo7 (7 Apr 2018)

1. Couldn’t your subordinates just say they don’t have personal credit cards? Or that their credit cards are maxed out? There is no way for you to check. 

2. Doesn’t the military issue credit cards just for this purpose? (Or have the military credit cards been discontinued?)

3. Would their be any insurance issues?

4. Why don’t you or the CO just rent the cars on your credit cards? - lead by example


----------



## sidemount (7 Apr 2018)

It seems like this is a bandaide solution to make something work. Should we not be correcting shortfalls in the system to prevent this from happening in the first place.

Not sure of the actual policy but is ordering them an ethical thing to do? I would argue no. As well as an addition to the previous comments, who pays the CC interest when the claim isnt paid out in time. Or what happens when after the fact if funding is denied and these guys are on the hook.

The CO has a big pay cheque....maybe they should be fronting the cost associated so their troops don't have to.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Apr 2018)

Our unit routinely uses rental vehicles as the primary mode of transport.

I suppose, strictly speaking, if someone refused to use their own credit card to rent the vehicle, we could not order them to do so.  On the other hand, the CO could also ask that member the pointed question about why they do not have the Govt of Canada travel card each of us is supposed to have...


----------



## dapaterson (7 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Our unit routinely uses rental vehicles as the primary mode of transport.
> 
> I suppose, strictly speaking, if someone refused to use their own credit card to rent the vehicle, we could not order them to do so.  On the other hand, the CO could also ask that member the pointed question about why they do not have the Govt of Canada travel card each of us is supposed to have...



The Travel cards are issued by exception to class A reservists.  (RCAF, with many class A+ reservists, are an outlier on that).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Apr 2018)

That is interesting. Thank you!


----------



## Lumber (7 Apr 2018)

No one at my unit has a GoC Travel Card.

Perhaps we should look into this...


----------



## Lumber (7 Apr 2018)

sidemount said:
			
		

> It seems like this is a bandaide solution to make something work. Should we not be correcting shortfalls in the system to prevent this from happening in the first place.
> 
> Not sure of the actual policy but is ordering them an ethical thing to do? I would argue no. As well as an addition to the previous comments, who pays the CC interest when the claim isnt paid out in time. Or what happens when after the fact if funding is denied and these guys are on the hook.
> 
> ...



Claims not paid out on time? Not in *my *orderly room! Especially when there's Credit Card receipts involved; those ones get prioritized.

Further, it's not about the costs associated, it's about the level of complexity. Time and time again, members renting vehicles and claiming both the vehicle and gas on their travel claim has been extremely simpler than arranging rental cars through TEME.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Apr 2018)

Just as a personal opinion, if I had to drive an hour away, and you wanted me to rent a vehicle on my personal credit card, I'd tell you to pound sand and authorize POMV at high rate. If Base Tpt can't get the vehicle on time, I'm taking my own wheels or the unit can find another way for me to get to the exercise.

Granted I have a GoC travel card and it's a non-issue, but I didn't have that a few years ago and wouldn't want to be putting my card on the line for DND.


----------



## sidemount (7 Apr 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Claims not paid out on time? Not in *my *orderly room! Especially when there's Credit Card receipts involved; those ones get prioritized.
> 
> Further, it's not about the costs associated, it's about the level of complexity. Time and time again, members renting vehicles and claiming both the vehicle and gas on their travel claim has been extremely simpler than arranging rental cars through TEME.


Perfect! I have to admit the BOR here in Kingston has been fantastic with regards to claim payout. Sadly this was not always the case when I was in Pet. 

I agree that CC and members booking and just paying them back is the easiest way to do things. And if the member is willing then fantastic. However we can't expect the member to be able to do this. Nor should it be an order to.

Just my opinion 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (7 Apr 2018)

My questions is why is it so darn difficult to get a vehicle from Base transport? Why the red tapes?


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Apr 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> My questions is why is it so darn difficult to get a vehicle from Base transport? Why the red tapes?


Because we're a process driven military and red tape makes people feel important because they can control your tasks.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> On the other hand, the CO could also ask that member the pointed question about why they do not have the Govt of Canada travel card each of us is supposed to have...



Having the Govt card is a blessing.  I never have to worry about an advance and I never have to worry about my budget at home being affected by military travel.

Last minute travel (which happens quite frequently) is never an issue for me.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Apr 2018)

So, a few questions arise:

1. Why can't the groups travel together? Why is there a need for three different departure times?

2. If those timings can be flexible, are there other options? Charter a small bus for a trip each way - that way, driver, fuel etc are all taken care of.

3. Are there other units in the area?  For example, if there's a Res Svc Bn, do they have MSE and drivers that they could provide to do the task (as with #2, above)?


Having another individual to drive is particularly useful if your personnel are going to undergo training that will limit their sleep time - better to have a wide-awake driver than one asleep at the wheel.  (FMS driver rest regulations also come into play if you're using MSE - will your pers be getting their mandated 8 hours?)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 3. Are there other units in the area?  For example, if there's a Res Svc Bn, do they have MSE and drivers that they could provide to do the task (as with #2, above)?



Now you're suggesting the Nav Res and PRes unit could work together which might lead to cost savings?  That is NOT the way the GoC. DND or the CAF conducts business!    op:


----------



## Lumber (7 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Now you're suggesting the Nav Res and PRes unit could work together which might lead to cost savings?  That is NOT the way the GoC. DND or the CAF conducts business!    op:



You beat me to it. 

I'm looking to reduce the amount of time and effort it takes to get my troops to a location just an hour away without  huge cost increases. If I had it ask the Army (we do have a svc bn on our property) to lend me their personnel and/or their own unit vehicles, it would add time and complexity (it would probably need a CO to CO email) , plus they'd have to pay a Class A to act as a driver, which would have to be SA'd from our unit to their, so now cost and complexity are going up.


----------



## Lumber (7 Apr 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> My questions is why is it so darn difficult to get a vehicle from Base transport? Why the red tapes?



It wasn't. They were actually very helpful. We submitted the CF645 at 9am and got confirmation that 3 vehicles were rented just after lunch. 

The issue more has to do with flexibility. If they rent the vehicles, then the drivers need 404s and we need to use ARI cards for fuel. Plus, MSE/Transport/traffic  is less flexible with late, last minute, or after house requests. Rental agencies themselves don't care; business is business. If I had requested a bus on similarly short notice, they likely would have said it wouldn't happen.


----------



## Lumber (7 Apr 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, a few questions arise:
> 
> 1. Why can't the groups travel together? Why is there a need for three different departure times?
> 
> 2. If those timings can be flexible, are there other options? Charter a small bus for a trip each way - that way, driver, fuel etc are all taken care of.



For question 2, charter bus would have been $500-$600. If I had that much money to transport 15 ppl, I WOULD just send them by taxi. That'd be sooooooo much simpler.

For question 1, it's all about availability. The exercise wanted our cooks as early as possible, so a group of cooks who didn't have to work on the Friday went early, and the rest of the group (who had civilian commitments and could leave early) left in the early evening.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Apr 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You beat me to it.
> 
> I'm looking to reduce the amount of time and effort it takes to get my troops to a location just an hour away without  huge cost increases. If I had it ask the Army (we do have a svc bn on our property) to lend me their personnel and/or their own unit vehicles, it would add time and complexity (it would probably need a CO to CO email) , plus they'd have to pay a Class A to act as a driver, which would have to be SA'd from our unit to their, so now cost and complexity are going up.



I don't see how a CO to CO email is onerous - 
NRD CO "Hey, Mary, can you provide drivers and vehicles to do AAA, BBB and CCC?" 

Svc Bn CO "Sure, Frank!  Have your ops contact mine."  

Navy Ops "Per the CO emails below, please use fin code 1000AA C127 GRC0000COOKS plus G/Ls for pay & fuel".

Svc Bn Ops "What's the fin code for coffee?"


Lots of ways to do things as easily as possible.  It takes more effort to make things hard than it does to make things easy.


Frankly, if I were a Svc Bn CO, I'd only make the user unit pay for fuel - getting drivers more time behind the wheel  would be something I'd want to accomplish.


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Apr 2018)

An issue to consider when accepting to rent a vehicle with your own credit card is one of liability.  In case of accident, you may be held liable per the rental contract: the military cannot and will not provide top cover.  Furthermore, generally, only 1 person can drive (the renter) unless drivers are added to the contract, at a premium (which is not reimbursed)


----------



## dimsum (7 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Our unit routinely uses rental vehicles as the primary mode of transport.
> 
> I suppose, strictly speaking, if someone refused to use their own credit card to rent the vehicle, we could not order them to do so.  On the other hand, the CO could also ask that member the pointed question about why they do not have the Govt of Canada travel card each of us is supposed to have...



Wait, each person is supposed to have a GTC?  I was told only Crew Commanders in our sqn get those (as we get ready to rent half a dozen cars on our personal cards...)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Apr 2018)

I think what he means is the IDTC maybe;  the BMO Government MasterCard that replaced the AMEX one.  I have one and encourage all the new folks to get one;  $5k limit and I never have to use my own card.  Never have any issue with reimbursement, etc.  I just staple my statement to the claim usually and highlight/annotated it as required.

I've never used it for a car rental...I'm not sure if the CAF stuff jives with this (many different situations...in Canada, overseas, etc.

https://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/d10/v238/en?print

2.2.2 Rental Vehicles

Collision Damage Waiver (CDW) coverage for the entire period that a vehicle is rented is required.  This coverage is provided through the use of the departmental travel expense card (DTEC) or individual designated travel card (IDTC).  When these cards are used to reserve and fully pay for the car rental, the traveller must decline the coverage for CDW on the rental agreement.  Where the DTEC or the IDTC is not used and free coverage is not provided by a personal credit card, the cost of the premiums for CDW coverage shall be reimbursed by the employer.

Public Liability and Property Damage coverage is included in the daily rental rates provided by the government approved car rental suppliers.  When travelling outside Canada, travellers should ensure additional coverage is obtained where required.  In such circumstances, premiums for additional coverage will be reimbursed.

Travellers shall not be reimbursed for personal accident insurance coverage premiums.


CAF stuff here:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/temp-duty-travel-instructions.page


----------



## winnipegoo7 (7 Apr 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Furthermore, generally, only 1 person can drive (the renter) unless drivers are added to the contract, at a premium (which is not reimbursed)



if you tell the rental company that you are a government employee and ask nicely they will usually allow a second driver for free. (at least in my limited experience)



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Wait, each person is supposed to have a GTC?  I was told only Crew Commanders in our sqn get those (as we get ready to rent half a dozen cars on our personal cards...)



I don't remember what kind of credit card I had, but I think the CO had to approve the application for it, so it might be the CO's choice as to who can have one. So maybe it would vary unit to unit??

One unit I was in ordered everyone to get a card (NCM's and Officers). Another unit would approve cards if we wanted them, but didn't force anyone.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2018)

Just to be clear, there are 2 types of cards and they have different limits.  Usually our Skippers have a different card then I do, probably the DTEC (guessing) - they use it for other stuff like fuel, it might pay for crew hotel rooms (I just know I only have to look after room charges usually).  I have an IDTC, which AFAIK anyone can get - that's the one I encourage new operators on Sqn to get before they start going away and 'maybe' getting advances on time, or if they launch on a weekend and end up landing away from homeplate, etc.


----------



## Pusser (9 Apr 2018)

Having dealt with these issues a lot:

1) No, you cannot order someone to use their personal credit card.

2) Probably too late now, but the unit should have a DTEC (essentially a unit travel card that allows you to charge any unit travel expense, including rental cars).  This is a separate card from the unit acquisition card, but the governing principles are similar.  You could easily include the cost of additional drivers on this card.

One danger that a lot of folks don't realize is that should you use a personal credit card to rent a vehicle and end up in an accident, the insurance coverage that may be included with your personal credit card may not be valid if the credit card company realizes you were using it for DND business and NOT for personal use.  I used to rent cars on my personal credit card (to get the points), but I don't do that anymore.  I use my IDTC for that now (still rent hotel rooms on my personal card though).


----------



## Lumber (9 Apr 2018)

Thanks everyone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Having dealt with these issues a lot:
> 
> 1) No, you cannot order someone to use their personal credit card.
> 
> ...




We take CDW and make it clear on the invoice it is for DND business.


----------



## Pusser (9 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> We take CDW and make it clear on the invoice it is for DND business.



You can still use a personal credit card (individual choice), but I would recommend taking the CDW and claiming it.  It's a reimbursable expense.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> You can still use a personal credit card (individual choice), but I would recommend taking the CDW and claiming it.  It's a reimbursable expense.



That is what we do, if the member does not have an IDTC.


----------



## dangerboy (9 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> You can still use a personal credit card (individual choice), but I would recommend taking the CDW and claiming it.  It's a reimbursable expense.



That is in fact the direction that CANFORGEN 204/11 http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2011/204-11_e.asp states you are to do: 



> COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER (CDW).
> 
> 4.1. EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED TO PURCHASE COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER (CDW) COVERAGE FROM THE CAR RENTAL AGENCY UNLESS THEY USE THE GOVERNMENT SPONSORED DTC THAT COVERS THE CDW FOR VEHICLES LISTED IN THE STANDING OFFERS, A PERSONAL CREDIT CARD THAT PROVIDES CDW OR THE SUPPLIER DOES NOT ACCEPT THE DTC.
> 
> 4.2. IF EMPLOYEES DO NOT USE THE DTC THEY MUST PURCHASE CDW FROM THE CAR RENTAL COMPANY AND THIS EXPENSE IS REIMBURSABLE. EMPLOYEES ARE REMINDED THAT CDW COVERAGE UNDER THE DTC APPLIES TO DAMAGE INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS TRAVEL ONLY.


----------



## CountDC (9 Apr 2018)

EMPLOYEES ARE REMINDED THAT CDW COVERAGE UNDER THE DTC APPLIES TO DAMAGE INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS TRAVEL ONLY. 

Important part there that many people do not think of.  Runs to Timmies may not be considered business travel.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Apr 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> EMPLOYEES ARE REMINDED THAT CDW COVERAGE UNDER THE DTC APPLIES TO DAMAGE INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS TRAVEL ONLY.
> 
> Important part there that many people do not think of.  Runs to Timmies may not be considered business travel.


Unless that was your breakfast as you were on TD.


----------



## CountDC (10 Apr 2018)

Yep and I have been know to do just that, coffee and a muffin.  But that midnight run may not be worth the risk although it is Timmies.......hmmmmmm.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Apr 2018)

Easy: don't get a DTC.


----------



## CountDC (10 Apr 2018)

Or get the ITC but use personal credit card for vehicle rentals and take the CDW. The ITC is convenient to have for everything else and doesn't tie up your own card.  Keeps yours free for important stuff such as gifts for the family that is mad that you are gone again.  :rofl:


----------



## Lumber (5 Oct 2018)

How do they get away with it?

I was wondering about all the stories about travelling business class, re-reading the CFTDTIs, it say very clearly:



> (2) (Members) Subject to paragraph 8.20(2) (Selection), a member — who is not a senior officer — is:
> (a) in respect of a flight or series of flights in which the total travelling time — from takeoff at the first airport to landing at the last airport — is nine or more hours without an overnight stay during those hours, entitled both to travel in business class and to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses for that travel;



There has actually been several times during my career where travel from the first airport to the last airport was well over 9 hrs, especially when you get stuck with shitty long layovers. However, not once was I or anyone of my travelling companions offered business class. It wasn't even discussed.

I guess the argument would be that there is no way we can afford that. A trip from Halifax to Victoria, for example, can easily be a $1000 flight per person in economy, and a $3000 flight per person in Business class. 

The thing is, the reference doesn't say "the member is entitled to this, should the unit's TD budget be healthy enough to support such a lavish expenditure", it says very cleary that it is an entitlement, plan and simple.

So why is it that I hear so many stories of people asking for this, and getting laughed off like it's the most ridiculous thing you could have asked for?

If you grieved this, it'd be a clear cut win. The reference clearly says this + you did this but not get that = decision in your favour. However, when you file a grievance, you are required to include a line/para that clearly states what you want to receive in order to consider the grievance settled. In this case, what could be the recourse? The TD is done. They're not going to just give you a business class flight somewhere as compensation. You didn't lose any money on this, all you did was lose sleep and comfort by being forced to travel economy for 11 hrs. How do you receive restitution?


----------



## dapaterson (5 Oct 2018)

Don't forget, it's all subject to 8.20(2):


> 2.(Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode - or combination of modes - of transportation on duty travel after consideration of all of the following:
> a.the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;
> b.the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation — in the duty travel area;
> c.forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel;
> ...



So 8.20(2)(a) could be used to override 8.30(2)(a).

And, of course, 8.31(3) also applies:



> 3.(Business Class Travel - Other Members) An approving authority determines whether a member - who is not a senior officer - travels in business class non-stop under paragraph 8.30(2)(a) or travels in economy class with one or more overnight stays under paragraph 8.30(2)(b).


----------



## Lumber (5 Oct 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't forget, it's all subject to 8.20(2):
> So 8.20(2)(a) could be used to override 8.30(2)(a).



I feel like CO's discretion doesn't trump clearly listed entitlements...but I digress...



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> And, of course, 8.31(3) also applies:



Absolutely, but this brings us into the a similar situation. Having an overnight stay in the middles means 3 costs increases:
1. increase in meal and incidental costs;
2. increase in lodging cost (you now need to pay for a hotel); and
3. potential increase in flight cost. In order to get this layover, you might not be able to book multiple legs in 1 go, you might have to make several separate booking.

What this ends up meaning is that going business class or traveling with a stop overnight can both end up being far more expensive than the unit is willing to stomach, even when you are executing a core function.


----------



## Pusser (5 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> How do they get away with it?
> 
> I was wondering about all the stories about travelling business class, re-reading the CFTDTIs, it say very clearly:
> 
> ...



You missed a key point.  The reference you are quoting (Chapter 8 ) only applies to international travel.  Both Halifax and Victoria remain within Canada, so there is no international travel involved in your example.  The relevant reference in this case is CFTDI 7.30, which states:

7.30  Air travel

Subject to paragraph 7.20(2) (Selection), a member is entitled.

a.if the member is a senior officer, both to travel and to be reimbursed, in accordance with Treasury Board Special Travel Authorities, as amended from time to time; and

b.if the member is not a senior officer, both to travel in economy class and to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses for that travel. 


Furthermore, if you read the whole of Chapter 8, it becomes more clear (albeit perhaps in a roundabout way) that the rules on business class travel are more permissive than mandatory.  If a senior officer can be ordered to travel economy class (CFTDI 8.30, para 1.a.), then surely so can anyone else.


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Oct 2018)

I’ve heard of people challenging this and winning.  

They usually end up with an overnight stay though.

The order is clearly written and rarely followed.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Oct 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The order is clearly written and rarely followed.



...but enough about beards...


----------



## Lumber (9 Oct 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> You missed a key point.  The reference you are quoting (Chapter 8 ) only applies to international travel.  Both Halifax and Victoria remain within Canada, so there is no international travel involved in your example.  The relevant reference in this case is CFTDI 7.30, which states:
> 
> 7.30  Air travel
> 
> ...



Sorry, bad example.

I'm about to go on international TD (and this is not why I'm bringing this up; this discussion is purely academic).

Right now the travel is 9hrs 01mins. It's a 2 hr flight to a hub city, a 2 hr layover, and a 5hr01min flight to the final destination.

Technically, I could demand business class, or request that they book my flight over 2 days and give me a night in a hotel during my layover.

Personally, that seems ridiculous to. 9 hrs of travelling does not, to me, need an such extreme level of comfort. I mean, I work 12 hrs a day on ship, plus hours outside of that for admin I couldn't get done on watch, and emergency exercises, yet I can't be expected to travel (per diem) for 9 hrs without needing business class or an overnight break?

Regardless, I like taking advantage of documented benefits, so maybe next time I'll ask for business class (to which I will get laughed at, I'm sure).



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Furthermore, if you read the whole of Chapter 8, it becomes more clear (albeit perhaps in a roundabout way) that the rules on business class travel are more permissive than mandatory.  If a senior officer can be ordered to travel economy class (CFTDI 8.30, para 1.a.), then surely so can anyone else.



I'm not sure if we're arguing the same point or not...yes you can be ordered to fly economy, but if you are, you are entitled to stay overnight in a hotel.

I do not believe you can use para 8.20 to order someone into economy on a 9+hr international flight. 8.20 does not give CO's carte blanche to do what they deem fit. For example, you CANNOT be ordered to take your PMV on duty travel, and CO's cant use para 8.20 (or 6.20, or 5.20) to change that fact. So, why would CO's be able to use 8.20 to overturn 8.30(2), but not other areas? "Because overnights stays or business class is too expensive" I don't think is valid reason.


----------



## Lumber (9 Oct 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I’ve heard of people challenging this and winning.
> 
> They usually end up with an overnight stay though.
> 
> The order is clearly written and rarely followed.



The thing I'm still curious about is, should you challenge and fail, and then officially grieve, what the heck could your restitution be?


----------



## Sub_Guy (9 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The thing I'm still curious about is, should you challenge and fail, and then officially grieve, what the heck could your restitution be?



Here are some references (DWAN links).

http://intranet.mil.ca/en/locations/ncr/admin-services-travel-claims-faq.page     (see question 15)

http://winnipeg.mil.ca/cms/en/DComd/A8/A8FrequentlyAskedQuestions/Travel.aspx   (click on business class tab)

http://winnipeg.mil.ca/cms/Libraries/A8_Comptroller_-_FAQs/AF_Travel_and_Hospitality_Restrictions_-_31_July_2012.sflb.ashx
"use of business class for international air travel (excluding the US) must be specifically authorized by the approving authority and can only be approved if there is an explicit operational imperative or if the business case shows that a layover is not more economical"

Which is why most folks end up with an overnight stay as 99% of the time they are more economical.

Of note, nowhere in any of these links does it state that the member will be ordered to fly economy (on 9+hour international flights).  It mentions either business class or layover.


----------



## Lumber (9 Oct 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Here are some references (DWAN links).
> 
> http://intranet.mil.ca/en/locations/ncr/admin-services-travel-claims-faq.page     (see question 15)
> 
> ...



Damn, 1 CAD really has their sh*t in order. Ya'll take note.


----------



## Lumber (6 Dec 2018)

Just to be clear on the interpretation, I want to trow some scenarios out. The rule is, if your travel time from departure at 1st airport to arrival at last airport is more than 9 hrs, you are entitled to either business class, or a layover that *is during those travel hours.* (this highlighted bit is important), because:

Scenario 1: Flying from Halifax to San Diego. First leg is Halifax to Toronto (2.5 hr flight), followed by a 1.5 hr layover in Toronto, finished by a 5.5 hr flight to San Diego. Total time from airport to airport is 9.5 hours, and this is the shortest/fastest method possible. In this case, they would either have to fly the member business class the whole way, or give them a layover in Toronto for the night (à la per diem).

Scenario 2: Vancouver to Seoul. This is a direct flight that is 11 hrs long. Short of  trying to find a stop somewhere in Alaska or the Kamchatka Peninsula that would break up the flight into two portions that are each less than 9 hours, the only option would be to fly Business Class.

Scenario 3: Three flights (mixed entitlement). The first two are less than 9 hours, but add up to, say 15 hours, so they put you up into a hotel between flights 1 and flights 2. Flight 3 is over 9 hours, with no option of a stop in between, so for this portion of the flight, and this portion alone, you would get Business class.

Scenario 4: Long and short flight. You have a 10 hour flight followed by 3 hour flight. The military says they will put you in a hotel between these two flights, so they won't give you Business class. The crux here is wording of "is nine or more hours without an overnight stay during those hours". They're giving you an overnight stay during the whole trip, but not during the first 9 hours. So, should you be getting Business class for the first leg, or not?


----------



## TCM621 (6 Dec 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Just to be clear on the interpretation, I want to trow some scenarios out. The rule is, if your travel time from departure at 1st airport to arrival at last airport is more than 9 hrs, you are entitled to either business class, or a layover that *is during those travel hours.* (this highlighted bit is important), because:
> 
> Scenario 1: Flying from Halifax to San Diego. First leg is Halifax to Toronto (2.5 hr flight), followed by a 1.5 hr layover in Toronto, finished by a 5.5 hr flight to San Diego. Total time from airport to airport is 9.5 hours, and this is the shortest/fastest method possible. In this case, they would either have to fly the member business class the whole way, or give them a layover in Toronto for the night (à la per diem).
> 
> ...



If I read the references right, Scenario 1 would be economy because the 9 hours only applies to international flights (excluding the continental US). All Travel in Canada and the continental US shall be economy.


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Dec 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If I read the references right, Scenario 1 would be economy because the 9 hours only applies to international flights (excluding the continental US). All Travel in Canada and the continental US shall be economy.



Yes you are right, scenario 1 is economy.


----------



## Lumber (6 Dec 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If I read the references right, Scenario 1 would be economy because the 9 hours only applies to international flights (excluding the continental US). All Travel in Canada and the continental US shall be economy.



Ah. Right you are. Ok, bad example...


----------

