# Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18



## MJP (27 Jul 2018)

UNCLAS
SIC NNA
SECTION 1 OF 4
CANFORGEN 127/18 - COMD CA 015/18
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: COMBAT BOOT REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM
REFS: A. SCALE OF ISSUES: D01301 (CA), D01341 (RCAF), D11115
(DEPLOYED OP), D01116 (OFFICER CADETS), D01119 (ABORIGINAL PRGM),
D01307 (CDN MP).
B. CBI 11.2.03 ISOLATED POST INSTRUCTIONS
C. SUPPLY ADMINISTRATION MANUAL (2.97 AND 2.98)
D. FAM 1016-0, MANAGING EXPENSE CLAIMS
E. FAM 1014-4-1, CONTROL OF FINANCIAL SIGNING AUTHORITIES
F. FAQ: there's a link but it doesn't work.
PAGE 2 RCCPJAQ1017 UNCLAS

1.	PROGRAM OVERVIEW

A. OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR IS MISSION CRITICAL, HIGHLY PERSONALIZED AND IS AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL S PERSONAL EQUIPMENT. ALL CAF MEMBERS ENTITLED TO WEAR COMBAT (CBT) BOOTS IAW THE APPROVED SCALE OF ISSUE (SOI) AT REF A WOULD BENEFIT FROM GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SELECTING THE TYPE OF CBT BOOT THAT IS BEST SUITED TO THEIR
OPERATING ENVIRONMENT.

B. THE AIM OF THIS CANFORGEN IS TO ANNOUNCE A NEW PROGRAM FOR MANAGING TEMPERATE CBT BOOTS AND TO PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR PHASE 1 IMPLEMENTATION. 

C. THIS PROGRAM IS FOR TEMPERATE CBT BOOTS ONLY (NSNS 21-872-4291, 20-001-9296, 20-005-2273, 20-001-2410 OR 20-008-2050). SAFETY BOOTS, NAVAL CBT BOOTS AND OTHER TYPES OF 
 OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENCE SUPPLY CHAIN (DSC) OR OTHER MEANS AS APPLICABLE. 

D. THE MANAGEMENT OF CBT BOOTS WILL EVENTUALLY TRANSITION TO AN ON-LINE MODEL, SIMILAR TO THE ONE CURRENTLY IN PLACE FOR DEU ITEMS. THIS TRANSITION WILL BE EXECUTED OVER SEVERAL YEARS, AND WILL OCCUR IN 3 PHASES:

(1). PHASE 1. ENTITLED CAF MEMBERS WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE CBT BOOTS OF THEIR CHOICE BASED ON SIMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA AND LOCAL CHAIN OF COMMAND GUIDANCE, AND BE REIMBURSED FOR THIS EXPENSE UP TO A PRE-DETERMINED MAXIMUM DOLLAR VALUE. THIS IS AN INTERIM POLICY THAT WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL A PRE-QUALIFIED COMBAT BOOT PRODUCT
LIST CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE.
(2). PHASE 2. FOLLOWING INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT AND QUALIFICATION TESTING, THE CAF WILL PRODUCE A PRE-QUALIFIED CBT BOOT LIST. ENTITLED MEMBERS WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE BOOTS FROM THIS LIST.
(3). PHASE 3. THE LAST PHASE OF THIS POLICY WILL TRANSITION THE MANAGEMENT OF CBT BOOTS TO AN ON-LINE MODEL SIMILAR TO THE WAY DEU ARE CURRENTLY MANAGED.

1.	KEY CHANGES TO EXISTING PROGRAM

A. EFFECTIVE AS OF 15 AUGUST 2018 ALL ENTITLED REGULAR FORCE AND PRIMARY RESERVE FORCE WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR CBT BOOT FUNDING ASSISTANCE. ENTITLED MEMBERS ARE THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE CAF WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO DRAW OPERATIONAL CLOTHING IAW REF A, HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED BASIC TRAINING AND ARE ON EFFECTIVE STRENGTH
(PRIMARY RESERVE).

B. AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, CLOTHING STORES WILL TRANSITION AWAY FROM CONDUCTING ROUTINE ONE FOR ONE EXCHANGES FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE COMPLETED BASIC MILITARY TRAINING. THAT SAID, THE DSC WILL MAINTAIN THE ABILITY TO REPLENISH CBT BOOTS IN EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE LOCAL PURCHASE IS NOT PRACTICAL DUE TO TIME OR GEOGRAPHIC
CONSTRAINTS.

C. WHEN NEW MEMBERS JOIN THE CAF, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE ISSUED CBT BOOTS IAW THEIR SCALE OF ISSUE (SOI) DURING THE INITIAL KITTING PROCESS. NATIONAL INVENTORY WILL BE PRIORITIZED AND CENTRALIZED IN SPECIFIC LOCATIONS THAT SUPPORT INITIAL KITTING FOR RECRUITS.

D. THE POLICY FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF ORTHOPEDIC FOOTWEAR REMAINS
EXTANT.

1.	ENTITLEMENTS

A. ENTITLEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT IS BASED ON A TIERED SYSTEM WHICH TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH THE EXPECTED USAGE OF COMBAT BOOTS AND THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED.
(1). TIER 1: MEMBERS BELONGING TO A CMBG (INCLUDING PERMANENTLY AFFILIATED UNITS WITH A FORMAL COMMAND RELATIONSHIP TO THE CMBG), AS WELL AS ALL MEMBERS BELONGING TO THE CCSB, CMTC, CDTCS, CRPG HQ STAFF, CTC, JTF-X, CANSOFCOM UNITS AND ANY PRIMARY RESERVE MEMBER ON CLASS B SERVICE WITH THE AFORMENTIONNED ORGANIZATIONS.
(2). TIER 2: MEMBERS NOT LISTED ABOVE, BUT WHO WEAR COMBATS AS THE DRESS OF THE DAY AND ARE COVERED BY REF A, AS WELL AS CANSOFCOM HQ, DIVISIONAL HQS, CCSB HQ, CBG HQ AND UNITS, AND ANY PRIMARY RESERVE MEMBER ON CLASS A OR B SERVICE WITH THE AFORMENTIONNED ORGANIZATIONS.
(3). TIER 3: MEMBERS WHO WEAR DEU AS THE DRESS OF THE DAY AND ARE COVERED BY REF A, AS WELL AS ANY PRIMARY RESERVE MEMBER ON CLASS A OR B SERVICE NOT WORKING IN A TIER 1 OR 2 ORGANIZATION.

B. INDIVIDUAL REIMBURSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED AS FOLLOWS:

(1). TIER 1: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS PER FISCAL YEAR (FY), EXCLUDING TAXES.
(2). TIER 2: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS EVERY TWO FYS, EXCLUDING TAXES.
(3). TIER 3: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS EVERY THREE FYS, EXCLUDING TAXES.

C. APPLICABLE TAXES WILL BE REIMBURSED OVER AND ABOVE THE 340 DOLLAR FUNDING ENTITLEMENT. REGULAR SHIPPING COSTS AND FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE COSTS WILL BE REIMBURSED ONLY IF THEY ARE WITHIN THE 340 DOLLAR FUNDING ENTITLEMENT.

D. MEMBERS SERVING IN AN ISOLATED POST IAW REF B WILL BE REIMBURSED FOR STANDARD DOMESTIC SHIPPING COSTS OVER THE 340 DOLLAR FUNDING LIMIT.

E. THIS ENTITLEMENT DOES NOT ACCUMULATE FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

F. INDIVIDUALS DEPLOYING ON A NAMED MISSION FOR GREATER THAN 5 MONTHS AND WHOM ARE BEING FORCE GENERATED FROM A TIER 2 OR 3 UNIT, WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR AN ADDITIONAL PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIS ENTITLEMENT WILL BE VIA CFTPO.

G. CO AUTHORIZATION IS MANDATORY IF AN INDIVIDUAL REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENT WITHIN THE SAME PERIOD. THIS SHOULD BE THE EXCEPTION AND MUST BE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MILITARY SERVICE.

1.	BOOT SELECTION CRITERIA.

A. NOTWITHSTANDING THE DESIRE FOR INCREASED FLEXIBILITY, THE CAF ALSO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR IN USE BY CAF MEMBERS IS SAFE FOR USE, ADHERES TO DRESS REGULATIONS AND WILL MEET THE DEMANDS OF AN OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT.

B. THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MUST BE MET WHEN SELECTING BOOTS FOR INDIVIDUAL PURCHASE AND REIMBURSEMENT:

(1). COLOUR. BROWN IS PREFERRED, BUT BLACK OR TAN IS ACCEPTABLE AS PART OF PHASE 1.
(2). TEMPERATURE RANGE. SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO OPERATE IN TEMPERATE CONDITIONS, BETWEEN PLUS 4 CELSIUS AND PLUS 35 CELSIUS.
(3). HEIGHT. MINIMUM 15 CM, MAXIMUM 23CM, AS MEASURED FROM INSIDE THE BOOT, ON TOP OF THE FOOTBED TO THE HIGHEST POINT.
(4). SOLE. NON-MARKING, FUEL, OIL, AND ACID RESISTANT NITRILE RUBBER OUTSOLE.
C. THE LOCAL CHAIN OF COMMAND WILL ASSIST THE MEMBER WITH KEY INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE MEMBER CAN BE EXPECTED TO OPERATE IN. GUIDANCE FROM THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS NOT THE SAME AS ISSUING SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON THE TYPE OR MODEL OF FOOTWEAR TO BE PURCHASED.

1.	PROCESS FOR PHASE 1

A. PRIOR TO PURCHASING CBT BOOTS, INDIVIDUALS MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND. REFS C AND E PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THIS DETERMINATION. INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PURCHASE A CBT BOOT THAT MEETS THE ABOVE SELECTION
CRITERIA. NON-COMPLIANT BOOTS WILL NOT BE REIMBURSED.

B. ADVANCES FOR CBT BOOT CLAIMS WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED EXCEPT UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE MEMBERS UNIT.

C. INDIVIDUALS MUST SUBMIT THEIR ORIGINAL PROOF OF PURCHASE AND UNIT AUTHORIZATION TO THEIR UNIT ORDERLY ROOM IOT INITIATE THE REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS. THIS WILL BE DONE VIA CF 52, GENERAL ALLOWANCE CLAIM. CERTIFIED COPIES OF CLAIMS MUST BE KEPT ON MEMBERS PERS FILE. RECEIPTS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION MUST BE DATED WITHIN THE SAME FY AS THE CLAIM BEING SUBMITTED.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jul 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> C. THIS PROGRAM IS FOR TEMPERATE CBT BOOTS ONLY (NSNS 21-872-4291,
> 20-001-9296, 20-005-2273, 20-001-2410 OR 20-008-2050). SAFETY BOOTS,
> NAVAL CBT BOOTS AND OTHER TYPES OF OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR WILL
> CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENCE SUPPLY CHAIN (DSC) OR OTHER
> MEANS AS APPLICABLE.



While that sucks for zoomies and sailors and all the people posted to Wings, etc, this is super for the folks posted to C Army units  ;D (anyone posted to a Wing, regardless of where they work, are only supposed to get issued the RCAF CSA grade 1 TCBs and CWWBs).    Hopefully, the RCAF can get its shit together and do the same thing for safety boots...but I'm not holding my breath.  I suspect there is significant warehouse space full of the CEMS project boots that were bought and paid for.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jul 2018)

MJP, I hope you don't mind but I translated the CANFORGEN to a more forum friendly format. It's all the same info just way easier to read.

My only major concern might just be because I'm cynical, but that the "pre qualified" boots list turns into a "Buy Canadian" crapshow like the old boot projects.


----------



## MJP (27 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> MJP, I hope you don't mind but I translated the CANFORGEN to a more forum friendly format. It's all the same info just way easier to read.



No worries and appreciate it.  Using my laptop trackpad was making me want to kill kittens so I just posted it as is.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jul 2018)

Here's the FAQ link, viewable on any Internet machine.

http://army.gc.ca/EN/EQUIPMENT/COMBAT-BOOT-FUNDING-ASSISTANCE-PROGRAM-FAQ.PAGE


----------



## BDTyre (27 Jul 2018)

As long as all the big names (Salomon, Hanwag, Lowa, Danner, Miendl, etc.) end up on there everyone who is entitled should be happy. I'd like to see them specifically exclude SWAT as I've seen too many SWATs fall apart too quickly.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jul 2018)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> As long as all the big names (Salomon, Hanwag, Lowa, Danner, Miendl, etc.) end up on there everyone who is entitled should be happy. I'd like to see them specifically exclude SWAT as I've seen too many SWATs fall apart too quickly.



SWATs are a hit with the Tier 2 and Tier 3 folks who hang out in offices. They don't stand up to any serious marching or patrolling. I'm sure they'll make the list.


----------



## dimsum (27 Jul 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> While that sucks for zoomies and sailors and all the people posted to Wings, etc, this is super for the folks posted to C Army units  ;D (anyone posted to a Wing, regardless of where they work, are only supposed to get issued the RCAF CSA grade 1 TCBs and CWWBs).    Hopefully, the RCAF can get its shit together and do the same thing for safety boots...but I'm not holding my breath.  I suspect there is significant warehouse space full of the CEMS project boots that were bought and paid for.



Well, one of the refs was scale of issue for RCAF, so maybe we're lumped in this one?


----------



## DonaldMcL (27 Jul 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, one of the refs was scale of issue for RCAF, so maybe we're lumped in this one?



I think we'd fall into the Tier 2 category. Combats are also dress of the day for Aircrew. I can't wait to see brown boots around the Wing... looks so much better than black.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (27 Jul 2018)

Oh boy, this policy is going to break the RCAF, not the Fighter Jets.  :rofl:


----------



## medicineman (27 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> MJP, I hope you don't mind but I translated the CANFORGEN to a more forum friendly format. It's all the same info just way easier to read.
> 
> My only major concern might just be because I'm cynical, but that the "pre qualified" boots list turns into a "Buy Canadian Quebec" crapshow like the old boot projects.



FTFY  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jul 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, one of the refs was scale of issue for RCAF, so maybe we're lumped in this one?





			
				BobSlob said:
			
		

> I think we'd fall into the Tier 2 category. Combats are also dress of the day for Aircrew. I can't wait to see brown boots around the Wing... looks so much better than black.



I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think RCAF members who are not posted to a C Army unit (and therefore entitled to the C Army SOI) will benefit from this.     

Yes, the RCAF SOI was one of the ref's, but I am also 99.9% sure that the NSNs for the RCAF TCB are different from the NSNs the C Army TCBs are.  */ASLEO nerd hat on/*, I've attached a portion of the Flight Comment article from 2008 that explains the specifications for the RCAF ECWB, CWWB, TCB and DCB.  You'll notice the specific ref's to the CSA Grade 1/steel toe/requirement for the boots to be fire resistant/etc as I've highlighted in the article.  *this is my source document when I talk to Wg Supply about the spec's LPO boots are required to replace, if available.  IOT to make sure that Army folks don't get the clunker Air Force TCBs, and that RCAF (or people posted to RCAF units) folks don't get the Army version TCBs, I'm assuming they have different NSNs.  Additionally, the issued RCAF boots (and, assumingly, the ones the Wing Supply produce in their list as LPOs) have been issued Technical Airworthiness and Operational Airworthiness Certifications. * /ALSEO nerd hat off/

*I've been doing LPO boots for 10+ years now, and when I changed from green to blue, when I had to get my LPO boots replaced, I *had* to go with safety boots - no option.  That was both with FLog Hfx and where I am posted now.  This included LPO desert combat boots when IMPACT spun up - I've attached the boot list Wg Supply had at the time, and you'll notice at the end of it, the only option for LPO DCBs for anyone who was air force was the safety toe version of the Reeboks.  I asked, and Wp Supply was not authorized to purchase soft toe boots (at least they were composite and light).

And while the CANFORGEN does list the RCAF SOI as a ref, it also says:



> SAFETY BOOTS, NAVAL CBT BOOTS AND OTHER TYPES OF OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENCE SUPPLY CHAIN (DSC) OR OTHER MEANS AS APPLICABLE.



With my dealing with Supply for the stuff that happened during IMPACT, I was CCd into an email from...I don't remember exactly who, but it was someone at the Div and the direction was "all RCAF personnel and non-RCAF personnel posted to the Div shall wear safety footwear".  

Remember back when the Air Force came out with the 'gortex rainjacket' and the Army didn't have them?  The RCAF purchased (ie 'funded') them, not the Army so the Army didn't get Gucci jackets initially.  When the CEMS project happened, I suspect the AF bought (funded) a crapload of boots that are warehoused around the country.  I don't think the RCAF will turf all those boots that are already bought and paid for and then fund this project as well.   :2c:

Again, I'd love to be proven wrong.  _However_, I will add I am in the process of replacing my LPO summer boots (aka Air Force temperate combat boots, IAW the Flight Comment article) as we speak, just late last week and Wing Supply has them ordered...and they have to be CSA grade 1 safety boots - no choice as that is the direction given to DSSPM from the Div.  The good thing now is composite's are being used in CSA Grade 1.  My Magnum summer boots and Bates winter boots are the same weight and comfort as the soft toe versions (not that it will help anyone who is not authorized LPO/special size boots in the RCAF).

*Personally, I think Safety toe should be mandatory for techs, maybe FEs and unfortunately AES Ops can't get away from it (we're required to have them for handling search & kill stores, IAW the Sono Ref Guide), but for the LRP fleet at least, I do not see a requirement for them for Pilots and ACSOs.  But, the Div didn't ask me for my opinion.   ;D


----------



## TCM621 (27 Jul 2018)

What are these CEMS boots you speak of. All I see are the steel toed version of the MKIV. I was hoping I could finally stop fighting with supply and just buy my boots now. I have to get a PT to sign off on a dermatology issue just so I can get boots that breath. It's so stupid. Even Sea boots would work but I can't get those because I'm Air Force.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Jul 2018)

CEMS (Clothing and Equipment Millennium Standard) was an Air Force project that started back around 2000 to provide the RCAF with some newer kit.  The project moved under ADM (Mat) I think and was completed a while ago AFAIK, all the deliverables are now being issued.  It included the 4 types of RCAF issued boots, the 'steel toed MKIV' ones are likely the TCBs and CWWBs:

- Extreme Cold Weather Boot
- Cold Wet Weather Boot (winter boot)
- Temperature Combat Boot (summer boot)
- Desert Combat Boot

They are detailed in the post above I made in the Flight Comment article from 2008 by the RCAF ALSEO.

They were all full leather, safety boots - these are the 'issued' RCAF boots you loath.  They are clunkers, a pair of size 10 TCBs weigh in about 5-6 lbs.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (28 Jul 2018)

In other words they’re complete garbage.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Jul 2018)

:nod:

They're junk! 

Summary:

- the C Army leadership realized the boot situation was UNSAT, and made efforts to work towards a real solution in the interim and long term.   :cheers:

- the RCAF leadership bought tons of crappy boots a decade ago and RCAF folks will wear them for the next XX years, regardless of how crappy they are because they didn't want to fund this program for safety boots.   :'(


----------



## runormal (28 Jul 2018)

I skimmed through the FAQ, and I'm impressed that somebody actually thought about this from the gate..

21. I am in the Primary Reserve working on Class B contract in a Tier 3 unit wearing DEU as dress of the day, but I am also serving in a Tier 2 unit as Class A on weekends. What is my entitlement?

You are authorized to have a Tier 2 entitlement and your Reserve Unit CO can certify this if required.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2018)

> (1). TIER 1: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS PER FISCAL YEAR (FY), EXCLUDING TAXES



I could see this perhaps changing after a year.

Rocky S2Vs cost $347 and I've seen them last 5 years of daily use and lots of field time. 

Not complaining though. 

So basically if a member buys a pair of boots after 15 August then they will be reimbursed up to $340 for the fiscal year until April 2019.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I could see this perhaps changing after a year.
> 
> Rocky S2Vs cost $347 and I've seen them last 5 years of daily use and lots of field time.
> 
> ...



That's so awesome my head just exploded.

Seriously. Nice work whoever in the CAF made this happen, and if they don't get at least an OMM out of this I'll take hostages


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I could see this perhaps changing after a year.
> 
> Rocky S2Vs cost $347 and I've seen them last 5 years of daily use and lots of field time.
> 
> ...


Been to Millbrook? Thought I saw pairs there for $239.

I think what you'll see is the market adjust, and boots that are just over the $340 limit will suddenly be on sale for $339.99. The flexibility will allow folks to hit up Boxing Day and Black Friday sales as well.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Jul 2018)

You could also ask for a military discount to bring the cost of the boots down to the allowance.


----------



## ballz (28 Jul 2018)

From my reading of it, $340 + applicable sales tax.... so if you're in a place like Ontario with 15% HST it's going to be $391... if you buy a pair of $347 boots ($399.05 after 15% HST) you're paying $8.05 while the CAF foots the other $391.


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Jul 2018)

Ask for an all in price. Nothing ventured; nothing gained.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jul 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> From my reading of it, $340 + applicable sales tax.... so if you're in a place like Ontario with 15% HST it's going to be $391... if you buy a pair of $347 boots ($399.05 after 15% HST) you're paying $8.05 while the CAF foots the other $391.



And Conservative politicians will scream about how bad it is the troops have to pay $8.05 for boots under the Liberals  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> And Conservative politicians will scream about how bad it is the troops have to pay $8.05 for boots under the Liberals  ;D



I will happily pay $8.05 out of my own pocket for a good set of boots...


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jul 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I will happily pay $8.05 out of my own pocket for a good set of boots...



At that price I'd buy you boots too  ;D


Its really an incredible move by the chain of command that's going to save soldiers money, save the overburdened  medical system time, save the overburdened clothing system time and save the military as a whole money (I think anyways).

I hope the approved list coming out has fairly wide arcs.


----------



## kratz (29 Jul 2018)

With so many items paid in full, we see it all too often where members of the CAF forget, 
and assume an entitlement that does not exist.

Boots $391 + HST = member paying $51 for boots that fit and actually enable the member to do his job.

Don't bother complaining to me over $51.


----------



## dimsum (30 Jul 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I will happily pay $8.05 out of my own pocket for a good set of boots...



That scheme isn't for aircrew though


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Jul 2018)

I know.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jul 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That scheme isn't for aircrew though


I can see how you'd need high-speed boots to walk from the taxi into your 4-star hotel room, after a gruelling day of sitting on your butt flying in circles for a few hours.    :nod:

        :stirpot:


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> And Conservative politicians will scream about how bad it is the troops have to pay $8.05 for boots under the Liberals  ;D



As awesome as this is, it's still bizarre and sad that we can't issue good boots to our troops, which is a tool about as basic and critical as any of the others we do our work with.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Jul 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I can see how you'd need high-speed boots to walk from the taxi into your 4-star hotel room, after a gruelling day of sitting on your butt flying in circles for a few hours.    :nod:
> 
> :stirpot:



Actually, I would like a set of boots that won't:

A) cripple me from being on my feet on the steel deck of a ship 14-16 hours per day

B) send me straight to the bottom of the ocean, should I have the misfortune to ever have to do a water egress from a helicopter


----------



## kev994 (30 Jul 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Actually, I would like a set of boots that won't:
> 
> A) cripple me from being on my feet on the steel deck of a ship 14-16 hours per day
> 
> B) send me straight to the bottom of the ocean, should I have the misfortune to ever have to do a water egress from a helicopter


Don’t forget freezing into hockey pucks to provide zero traction while simultaneously robbing your feet of any heat through the mandatory steel toe.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jul 2018)

I don't know what you zoomies are complaining about, the RCAF solved all your kit issues with leather jackets and pearl grey ranks.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't know what you zoomies are complaining about, the RCAF solved all your kit issues with leather jackets and pearl grey ranks.



Don't forget 1970s aviators!  All about LCF dude!


----------



## garb811 (30 Jul 2018)

Call me jaded but...

People think the same organization that has spent what, 15+ years? trying to get a boot that will work via the procurement process is suddenly going to be able to magically come up with a magical pre-approved list with boots that work?  If they could do that, we'd already be wearing these magical boots.  Further to that, I'd be shocked in Logistik agreed to provide more than 2 or 3 different variants via their site so once Phase 3 kicks in, I suspect a lot of people are going to be back to paying for their own boots again.

If we are lucky, we are going to end up in a PLD situation; stuck in limbo in phase 1.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jul 2018)

We'd be set if it was stuck in phase 1 forever. The only problem is dinosaur RSMs only approving black or all leather boots, severely limiting choice.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't know what you zoomies are complaining about, the RCAF solved all your kit issues with leather jackets and pearl grey ranks.



Whoa now...don't forget, we _also_ got new mess kit when Blondin was our Boss.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Jul 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> As awesome as this is, it's still bizarre and sad that we can't issue good boots to our troops, which is a tool about as basic and critical as any of the others we do our work with.



I fully agree. The inability to procure a decent boot for the troops is indicative of a bigger problem.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (31 Jul 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Call me jaded but...
> 
> People think the same organization that has spent what, 15+ years? trying to get a boot that will work via the procurement process is suddenly going to be able to magically come up with a magical pre-approved list with boots that work?  If they could do that, we'd already be wearing these magical boots.  Further to that, I'd be shocked in Logistik agreed to provide more than 2 or 3 different variants via their site so once Phase 3 kicks in, I suspect a lot of people are going to be back to paying for their own boots again.
> 
> If we are lucky, we are going to end up in a PLD situation; stuck in limbo in phase 1.



The US Military struggled with the same problems for years, now they have a list of 12+ different boots/boot manufacturers that are AR670-1/Berry compliant and are approved for wear. They purchased the boots using their Uniform allowance.

They've had this system in place for 10 years and there's no sign of it changing.


----------



## dimsum (31 Jul 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> The US Military struggled with the same problems for years, now they have a list of 12+ different boots/boot manufacturers that are AR670-1/Berry compliant and are approved for wear. They purchased the boots using their Uniform allowance.
> 
> They've had this system in place for 10 years and there's no sign of it changing.



The difference is that they have that many US manufacturers, which make it Berry compliant.  We don't, so if "buy Canadian" becomes a requirement then we're stuck to the same 1-2 producers.


----------



## Gunner98 (31 Jul 2018)

Greb was the boot manufacturer that provided us boots up to 1987:
In 1974, Greb Industries Limited was purchased by Warrington Products Limited of Mississauga. The company continued to manufacture footwear under the new owners, but the Greb division was then sold in 1987. The Bauer skate division, operating as Canstar Sports, had been relocated to Cambridge and was eventually sold to Nike. The last Greb plant in Kitchener, a Kodiak boot plant on Hayward Avenue, closed its doors in 1991. (Source: https://doorsclosedwaterloo.wordpress.com/greb-industries/)

I think at that time DND/CAF opted/had to go with H.H. Brown and then important shoe quotas were dropped.  

The deterioration in the Canadian share of the domestic market caused shoe manufacturers to seek the protection of the federal government against the flood of imports. The industry maintains that the current market share, less than 50%, threatens the survival not only of the Canadian footwear industry but also of related industries (eg, the leather industry) and many suppliers. In response to the shoe manufacturers' briefs, the government instituted protective measures against imports in 1977 by imposing quotas on all footwear coming into Canada. Quotas were to be in effect until December 1988. (Source: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/footwear-industry/)

Propping up failing Canadian industries through GCA/DND/CAF Buy Canadian rules have ensured that low cost, compliant contractors created ineffective clothing and footwear for soldiers for decades.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2018)

IIRC, the RCAF clunkers in service now are produced by Terra...


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jul 2018)

Any bets on if Canadian companies are lining up to try and sue the government for denying them an opportunity to make shitty boots for the militaty?


----------



## garb811 (31 Jul 2018)

Probably too much to hope that someone would be consolidating the data from the boots that people are going to be buying during phase 1 and taking a serious look at making the top "x" number of models the pre-approved list.  That would mean admitting knowing that the troops know what is best for them though.


----------



## Furniture (31 Jul 2018)

Was just looking at the Lowa and Danner sites for Canada. Seems there are a few decent looking options right now... Can't wait for higher to come down with the base policy. Where I work most wear the army boots that failed, so I imagine the RCAF will take a more enlightened approach to boots than anticipated by some, seems the people fixing planes need RCAF boots more than the rest of us on a Wing. The heaviest thing I carry most days at work is a coffee cup, and the hopes and dreams of a few Cpls... nothing that requires a safety toe.

To be honest I'd take a blanket statement allowing me to buy my own boots, even without reimbursement. I hate that my GP boots have my feet swimming in sweat after a few hours even in the dead of winter.


----------



## ballz (1 Aug 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Probably too much to hope that someone would be consolidating the data from the boots that people are going to be buying during phase 1 and taking a serious look at making the top "x" number of models the pre-approved list.  That would mean admitting knowing that the troops know what is best for them though.



The Army SM put out for a return on types of boots a few months ago... I thought for sure it was for an interim solution, not an actual boot allowance. Anyway, on the acims site for the G4 boot working group, he has a presentation on some of the more popular ones. For instance, it states that the Rocky SV2s were the only boot that was received from all Divisions.

However, I question how well-executed this return was. I work in a Div HQ so I received it from the senior non-com that works in my cell who received it from the HQ SM.. however, I know a lot of Combat Arms folks in our Div HQ that never received it... so I can only imagine if it didn't even make from L1 to L2 properly just how many people at unit level were solicited...

Hopefully they take another kick at that one...


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Aug 2018)

Rocky's are solid (har har).

When I was LPOing boots the supply tech gave me the "old" order form and explained that Rockys werent an option on the new form- which is crazy


----------



## Bzzliteyr (1 Aug 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> The Army SM put out for a return on types of boots a few months ago... I thought for sure it was for an interim solution, not an actual boot allowance. Anyway, on the acims site for the G4 boot working group, he has a presentation on some of the more popular ones. For instance, it states that the Rocky SV2s were the only boot that was received from all Divisions.
> 
> However, I question how well-executed this return was. I work in a Div HQ so I received it from the senior non-com that works in my cell who received it from the HQ SM.. however, I know a lot of Combat Arms folks in our Div HQ that never received it... so I can only imagine if it didn't even make from L1 to L2 properly just how many people at unit level were solicited...
> 
> Hopefully they take another kick at that one...



I'm a G3 guy and I *think* some of us filled out that questionnaire. I'm not sure it moved higher or not. 

Have a link to that ACIMS G4 working group?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Aug 2018)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Have a link to that ACIMS G4 working group?



It's here.  https://army.ca/forums/threads/29061/post-1541087.html#msg1541087


----------



## Georgian Bay (6 Aug 2018)

So, now that we can get boots that work what are you looking at?
I tried on a pair of Lowas, they won't work. For some reason they don't make 'tactical' boots in wide.  Looking at Merrell Moabs (if they are tall enough) or 5.11 taclite/halcyons. 

Any others out there to consider?


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Aug 2018)

Georgian Bay said:
			
		

> So, now that we can get boots that work what are you looking at?
> I tried on a pair of Lowas, they won't work. For some reason they don't make 'tactical' boots in wide.  Looking at Merrell Moabs (if they are tall enough) or 5.11 taclite/halcyons.
> 
> Any others out there to consider?



Rocky makes their boots in wide and extra wide, I find them very comfortable just remember to order half a size larger if you do a lot of rucking/walking in them so you have room if your feet swell.


----------



## danteh (6 Aug 2018)

With these new regs being activated on the 15th does that mean I can wear my SWATs on my SQ on the 20th without getting in trouble?


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Aug 2018)

danteh said:
			
		

> With these new regs being activated on the 15th does that mean I can wear my SWATs on my SQ on the 20th without getting in trouble?



That's up to your course staff, no one here can answer that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Aug 2018)

Aaaaaaaand an order just came down not to go out and buy any boots after the magical 15 August date  until  the CAF approves a list of what's allowed.

I'm sure that won't take long  8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2018)

I thought 'what was allowed' was described in the CANFORGEN.  This a case of units, etc *giving direction* IAW that para 8 thing in Chap 1 of the dress regs instead of the CANFORGEN left and right of arcs?


----------



## Remius (16 Aug 2018)

We currently have a wait out thing going on as well.  Our unit still needs to hash out a process.


----------



## kratz (16 Aug 2018)

Units making up their own policy, contrary to the CANFORGEN. Jarnhamar's unit is skipping phase I and II with this order.



> D. THE MANAGEMENT OF CBT BOOTS WILL EVENTUALLY TRANSITION TO AN ON-LINE MODEL, SIMILAR TO THE ONE CURRENTLY IN PLACE FOR DEU ITEMS. THIS TRANSITION WILL BE EXECUTED OVER SEVERAL YEARS, AND WILL OCCUR IN 3 PHASES:
> 
> (1). *PHASE 1. ENTITLED CAF MEMBERS WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE CBT BOOTS OF THEIR CHOICE BASED ON SIMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA AND LOCAL CHAIN OF COMMAND GUIDANCE*, AND BE REIMBURSED FOR THIS EXPENSE UP TO A PRE-DETERMINED MAXIMUM DOLLAR VALUE. THIS IS AN INTERIM POLICY THAT WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL A PRE-QUALIFIED COMBAT BOOT PRODUCT
> LIST CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE.


----------



## kratz (16 Aug 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> We currently have a wait out thing going on as well.  Our unit still needs to hash out a process.



There's nothing to hash out. Units were notified 3 weeks ago.
90% of the process is contained within the CANFORGEN itself.



> 1.   PROCESS FOR PHASE 1
> 
> A. PRIOR TO PURCHASING CBT BOOTS, INDIVIDUALS MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND. REFS C AND E PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THIS DETERMINATION. INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PURCHASE A CBT BOOT THAT MEETS THE ABOVE SELECTION
> CRITERIA. NON-COMPLIANT BOOTS WILL NOT BE REIMBURSED.
> ...


----------



## dimsum (16 Aug 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> Units making up their own policy, contrary to the CANFORGEN. Jarnhamar's unit is skipping phase I and II with this order.



Maybe they thought "local chain of command guidance" was to "wait out".   ???


----------



## Remius (16 Aug 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> There's nothing to hash out. Units were notified 3 weeks ago.
> 90% of the process is contained within the CANFORGEN itself.



It is when the CC isn't on the ground yet and a non clerk is trying to keep things from catching fire.  There are still details that are vague and with reserve units stood down and scattered to the four winds until a few weeks from now getting CoC authorization is a bit difficult at this time.  I already have troops trying to claim boots purchased before Aug 15 because they can't read.  

So yes.  Some things still need to be hashed out.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> Units making up their own policy, contrary to the CANFORGEN. Jarnhamar's unit is skipping phase I and II with this order.



There is this para from CFP 265, though, that gets used/misused from time to time...

CFP 265, Ch 1 - Command, Control and Staff Duties, (Control) Para 8:

8.  Control is exercised by local commanders who may standardize the dress of subordinates on any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements and alternative or optional items, subject to overall command direction.

* ref the yellow text - IMO the CANFORGEN is 'higher command direction'.  I'm betting there are those who would not agree and will want to introduce some _standardization/uniformity_ into the equation.  Uniformity is important in some regards, mostly for parades if the topic is boots as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Aug 2018)

Originally the plan was that an official boot list would come out after 3 years, but now we're told to wait until an approved list is released. So, maybe we'll get the thumbs up in 3 years lol


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Originally the plan was that an offices boot list would come out after 3 years, but now we're told to wait until an approved list is released. So, maybe we'll get the thumbs up in 3 years lol



Any idea how 'high' the order was issued at? Coy, Bn, Brigade?  Army, pan-CAF?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Aug 2018)

I hear some places are waiting on a DIV policy to come down...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2018)

Isn't the CANFORGEN clear enough?   :


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Uniformity is important in some regards, mostly for parades if the topic is boots as far as I'm concerned.



But how does a unit enforce uniformity of combat boots on parade when the supply system is unable to supply a uniform quantity of said boots? I suppose a large enough unit with a stocked kit shop could say "Change of command parade dress will be in Cadpat with xxx model of tan boot. Those lacking a pair of xxx know where the regimental kit shop is." --- but that's certainly subverting the intent of the recent Canforgen.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Aug 2018)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> But how does a unit enforce uniformity of combat boots on parade when the supply system is unable to supply a uniform quantity of said boots? I suppose a large enough unit with a stocked kit shop could say "Change of command parade dress will be in Cadpat with xxx model of tan boot. Those lacking a pair of xxx know where the regimental kit shop is." --- but that's certainly subverting the intent of the recent Canforgen.



That makes it easier then: formal parades = DEUs


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Aug 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That makes it easier then: formal parades = DEUs



Sounds good to me. I've done change of command parades in DEU, in combats, and once even in the paint-by-numbers garrison dress.

But of course, as soon as we had a decent contract to provide DEU clothing directly to the troops, we decided that we didn't want to wear DEU very much anymore, and instead wanted to wear a uniform that was never in stock and had mismatched footwear.

No doubt that once everything is stabilized for Cadpat and boots, every unit will shelve the Cadpat and then start wanting to have parades in a mix of patrol blues and Multicam. Nobody's ever happy.


----------



## dimsum (16 Aug 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That makes it easier then: formal parades = DEUs



I'm surprised formal parades are in anything other than DEU.  In the midst of a heatwave here (as well as everyone else), thankfully they let the Sqn change of command parade be in 3B this year.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Aug 2018)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> ... have parades in a mix of patrol blues and Multicam. Nobody's ever happy.



Oxfords, grey wool socks, multicam pants, patrol blue tunic with DEU shirt and tie, and wide-brimmed CADPAT bushcap.  Outdoors when it's sunny and 33 degrees Celsius... in the shade.


----------



## ballz (16 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Isn't the CANFORGEN clear enough?   :



No, and there are some staff officers working seriously hard to overthink it all and ensure the entire intent of the boot allowance is undermined.


----------



## MJP (16 Aug 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> No, and there are some staff officers working seriously hard to overthink it all and ensure the entire intent of the boot allowance is undermined.



Yup I hope from my minor level of influence we institute a level of relative common sense.  The army based on my early read if a certain div policy is still stuck in 1980.


----------



## Old EO Tech (16 Aug 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> Yup I hope from my minor level of influence we institute a level of relative common sense.  The army based on my early read if a certain div policy is still stuck in 1980.



Well I can say the 3 Div policy is pretty common sense, we only specified that boots have to be "military in nature" because technically the CANFORGEN would allow cowboy boot etc...


----------



## RocketRichard (16 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well I can say the 3 Div policy is pretty common sense, we only specified that boots have to be "military in nature" because technically the CANFORGEN would allow cowboy boot etc...


Can get behind cowboy boots as most of 3 Div is in cowboy country. Giddiup!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Aug 2018)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> But how does a unit enforce uniformity of combat boots on parade when the supply system is unable to supply a uniform quantity of said boots? I suppose a large enough unit with a stocked kit shop could say "Change of command parade dress will be in Cadpat with xxx model of tan boot. Those lacking a pair of xxx know where the regimental kit shop is." --- but that's certainly subverting the intent of the recent Canforgen.



I forgot to consider that not all CofC parades are in DEU;  like Dimsum's Sqn, our Sqn CofC recently was in 3B.  I've only done one CofC parade in combats, with FFO but that was in the reserves 20 years ago or something.  I think "parade" and my mind automatically thinks "DEU".


----------



## MJP (17 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well I can say the 3 Div policy is pretty common sense, we only specified that boots have to be "military in nature" because technically the CANFORGEN would allow cowboy boot etc...



Your assessment and mine off that policy differs.... Mostly in the execution not the intent.


----------



## Old EO Tech (17 Aug 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> Your assessment and mine off that policy differs.... Mostly in the execution not the intent.



Well TBH if the sub formations can't follow Div direction there are ways to sort that out....


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2018)

There are two parts in that policy that MJP read that are directly related to execution and are a result of overthinking and would actually defeat the intent and whole point of the boot allowance. One of them was quickly scrapped, the other... punching holes in people's boots... remains to be seen what will happen with that. If it goes through, the saving grace of that silliness is that no one will follow it.

And the fact that cowboy boots were being brought up is just another example of overthinking. First of all, if units need a Division Commander to sign a directive to sort that out for them, perhaps they should be employed at McDonald's instead. Secondly, if a soldier is stupid enough to use his allowance on purchasing a pair of cowboy boots, guess what? He still needs a pair of boots for his job that he'll have to pay for himself. For the 1 guy in 10,000 that does that and saves $100 through mischievously claiming cowboy boots, the sum total value of the risks aren't worth the paper the policy will be printed on.


----------



## Old EO Tech (17 Aug 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> There are two parts in that policy that MJP read that are directly related to execution and are a result of overthinking and would actually defeat the intent and whole point of the boot allowance. One of them was quickly scrapped, the other... punching holes in people's boots... remains to be seen what will happen with that. If it goes through, the saving grace of that silliness is that no one will follow it.
> 
> And the fact that cowboy boots were being brought up is just another example of overthinking. First of all, if units need a Division Commander to sign a directive to sort that out for them, perhaps they should be employed at McDonald's instead. Secondly, if a soldier is stupid enough to use his allowance on purchasing a pair of cowboy boots, guess what? He still needs a pair of boots for his job that he'll have to pay for himself. For the 1 guy in 10,000 that does that and saves $100 through mischievously claiming cowboy boots, the sum total value of the risks aren't worth the paper the policy will be printed on.



I know the punching holes in old boots was not something we supported either.  But we'll see what the commander thinks in the end.  As for cowboy boots, well I would not under estimate how dumb some people can be.  But there are other things in the proposed directive like ensuring CO's don't dictate that unit members have to buy the boots from the Regt Kit shop, and you know that would happen, either officially or not.  So that has to be black and white in the order.


----------



## IceBlue (17 Aug 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Oxfords, grey wool socks, multicam pants, patrol blue tunic with DEU shirt and tie, and wide-brimmed CADPAT bushcap.  Outdoors when it's sunny and 33 degrees Celsius... in the shade.




That sounded exactly like change parade to me.


----------



## garb811 (17 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> ...  But there are other things in the proposed directive like ensuring CO's don't dictate that unit members have to buy the boots from the Regt Kit shop, and you know that would happen, either officially or not.  So that has to be black and white in the order.


[rant]
What in the ever loving frig?!  This is why the system bogs down and why the troops in some organizations have no faith in the chain of command.  Punching holes in boots?  Why, are worried that there is going to be a massive fraud perpetrated by the troops recycling the same busted up pair of boots?  The entitlement is not unlimited, the max is 1 pair a year at a whopping $340.  If there is someone who feels the need to recycle the pair of boots, the impact is going to be so miniscule that the time and effort being wasted on a Div directive will make it look like peanuts.  

The Comd of 3 Div is worried his COs are going to "order" the troops to buy boots at the kit shop so there has to be a directive in place to ensure that doesn't happen?  Is he similarly concerned about COs ordering female troops to buy their bras from the Regt'l kit shop?  What about COs who might ban the troops from bringing in their own lunches and snacks? If they want to eat, they have to buy from the Regt'l canteen!  If that is truly a concern about the COs in 3 Div, that they are so morally and ethically bankrupt that they would order that to happen, there should be a whole bunch of firings going on.

The CANFORGEN was clear, *effective* 15 Aug, troops have the entitlement within the broad guidelines published, and here it is, 17 Aug and 3 Div is still ******* around trying to get a totally unnecessary Div directive published.  And, of course, being the Army, if Div publishes a directive, that means Bde is going to feel the need to publish a directive, which means the units are going to feel the need to publish a written directive...  It's going to be next FY before the poor Pte at the coalface is given the thumbs up to go and buy some boots and by that point the directives will be so confining that there is only going to be one boot that fits the requirements.

As for troops misusing the allowance...  Stop treating the troops as kids.  If you catch someone abusing it, there are ample avenues in place to deal with that without layering on a thousand minor and inconsequential safeguards that do nothing but force subordinates to waste time and energy.  Perfect example about how we go on and on about "mission command" and then communicate to our more junior leaders that we really don't trust them.  If we can't trust a CO to get it right on the issue of a $340 boot allowance, how in the hell do we trust them to lead a BG in combat?
[/rant]


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2018)

And I quickly regret making that post. While it can be frustrating, I suppose the purpose of having staff is to have a large pile of considerations and through consultation having the garbage ones filtered out while what is good remains. The Comd hasn’t even seen it yet and I’ve already seen one of the bigger issues tossed out pretty quickly and another consideration that never even made it to the draft. There is nothing to say any of the problems identified aren’t being addressed by equally or more competent people and it will be a better policy given all the consultation, so it’s a little early for criticism, purely mea culpa on that one.

The CANFORGEN did need clarification at some level, it even discussed that Chain of Command guidance would be required, etc. I actually wish they would have waited until they had an approved boot list, because this Phase 1 thing is unnecessary for the one extra week it would take to make an approved list.

I don’t doubt for a second that across the country CO’s, probably more so through their RSMs, would limit people to buying at the Unit kit shop. Some of this might have been out of being morally bankrupt, some of it may be out of good intentions that were poorly thought out. Good intentions being to ensure simplicity and some level of control. The CANFORGEN / FAQ specifically directs that an approved list will not be used, and as you can see from posters above, some places have done that regardless. There really is no geographic area that is immune to a serious lack of reading comprehension skills. Other places are pushing out a “pre-approved” list i.e. you’re not limited to these boots, but FYI they are “pre-approved” and I happen to think that’s a good idea.


----------



## garb811 (17 Aug 2018)

Sorry, not buying it.  Comd CA's staff has already worked this problem and presented him with a solution that he is comfortable assuming the risk on.  While not perfect, the intent is clear and is enough to launch on.

Has 3 Div pushed direction down to subordinate units that pers are not to proceed with purchases?


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Aug 2018)

How difficult does this have to be? Just wondering


----------



## Loch Sloy! (17 Aug 2018)

"Has 3 Div pushed direction down to subordinate units that pers are not to proceed with purchases?"

Yes. Pre-approval is required prior to purchase and then confirmation that the boots are GTG prior to wear. See below for excerpts from the actual directive.



> Prior to purchasing combat boots, members will obtain a CF 52 claim form from their OR (included at Annex A is the CA issued CF 52, with Unit Authorization procedure on reverse.  Note that in subsequent years beyond initial purchase, unit OR staff will annotate the form with the date of the last claim purchase).  The member then presents their boots to be replaced to their chain of command (minimum rank Sgt) to determine if replacement is required – if so, their chain of command will sign authorizing the purchase based on need and condition of existing boots, marking them as having been replaced by an obvious cut to or whole punch to the tongue.





> Once purchased, members will present new boots (unworn) to their chain of command (minimum rank Sgt, normally the same individual who authorized replacement) who will confirm the boots meet CANFORGEN/unit requirements and annotate the revers of the claim, unit authorization portion, that boots meet the CANFORGEN and unit requirements.  (If the chain of command does not agree that the boots meet the CAF/unit requirement, the individual has the option to return the unworn boots since the expense will not be claimable, and purchase another style/pair that do – same claim form can still be used).


----------



## cld617 (17 Aug 2018)

I'm almost glad I wasn't covered by this canforgen, because being out of pocket and just going to buy what I want seems like significantly less stress than the hurdles some are setting up.


----------



## kratz (17 Aug 2018)

Where does the need for this directive come from?



> ...marking them as having been replaced by an obvious cut to or whole punch to the tongue.



As discussed earlier, the boots are being subsidized. If I pay more than the subsidized amount, the CA does not automatically own the boots.
So how do they explain the need to cut, or put holes in my boots?

I understand the process, if compared to issued ankle parade boots. But those ankle boots are 100% owned and issued via CAF clothing.
With this CANFORGEN, these combat boots are not wholly owned by the CA.


----------



## garb811 (17 Aug 2018)

Wow, that Directive contradicts the actual CANFORGEN and FAQ...



> a. PRIOR TO PURCHASING CBT BOOTS, INDIVIDUALS MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND. REFS C AND E PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THIS DETERMINATION. INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PURCHASE A CBT BOOT THAT MEETS THE ABOVE SELECTION CRITERIA. NON-COMPLIANT BOOTS WILL NOT BE REIMBURSED.





> 19. Do I have to bring my old boots in before I can buy another pair?
> 
> No. However, members are not expected to buy boots if they do not have a genuine need for them. Prior to purchasing combat boots, individuals must first confirm that they have a legitimate need for a new pair of boots, and this requirement must be accepted by their chain of command.  Furthermore, all members who are covered by the applicable scale of issue are responsible to always have two pairs of serviceable combat boots.



I further note that the requirement to record when the last reimbursement was made is superfluous, as the policy states quite clearly that the entitlement is per FY.  So, in essence, if I have two pairs of clapped out boots, I can buy one replacement set on 31 March and the second on 1 April and be reimbursed for both, if my entitlement is 1 pair a year.

Is there a directive stating worn bras must be brought in for inspection prior to new bras being purchased, with an obvious cut or whole <sic> punch made to one of the cups as well?  Asking for a friend.


----------



## Remius (17 Aug 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> Where does the need for this directive come from?
> 
> As discussed earlier, the boots are being subsidized. If I pay more than the subsidized amount, the CA does not automatically own the boots.
> So how do they explain the need to cut, or put holes in my boots?
> ...



Maybe it has to do with CF issued boots.  Troop shows his CAF boot and why he needs a replacement.  ie tread worn, falling apart etc.


----------



## Loch Sloy! (17 Aug 2018)

The requirement to punch the tongue seem a little far fetched but it makes some sense if the goal is to limit unnecessary boot purchases; the entitlement isn't simply 1pr /yr (or 2 or 3) it is one per interval "as required". Otherwise theoretically the whole section could present Cpl Bloggins' clapped out brothel creepers as justification for new boots. But if that is the reason it does seem to show a lack of faith in the troops by the CofC...

I actually don't think the procedure in the directive is terribly cumbersome, but only because someone had the good sense to delegate the authorization authority down to the Sgt. level. Sect commanders are likely the best people to make these calls anyway.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Aug 2018)

[quote author=Loch Sloy] 

Prior to purchasing combat boots, members will obtain a CF 52 claim form from their OR (included at Annex A is the CA issued CF 52, with Unit Authorization procedure on reverse.  Note that in subsequent years beyond initial purchase, unit OR staff will annotate the form with the date of the last claim purchase).  The member then presents their boots to be replaced to their chain of command (minimum rank Sgt) to determine if replacement is required – if so, their chain of command will sign authorizing the purchase based on need and condition of existing boots, marking them as having been replaced by an obvious cut to or whole punch to the tongue.

Once purchased, members will present new boots (unworn) to their chain of command (minimum rank Sgt, normally the same individual who authorized replacement) who will confirm the boots meet CANFORGEN/unit requirements and annotate the revers of the claim, unit authorization portion, that boots meet the CANFORGEN and unit requirements.  (If the chain of command does not agree that the boots meet the CAF/unit requirement, the individual has the option to return the unworn boots since the expense will not be claimable, and purchase another style/pair that do – same claim form can still be 

[/quote]

That sounds retarded. So now random any trade Sgts+ are the authority on whether boots are worn out enough to warrant replacement? 

Kratz you beat me to it. Good luck putting holes in someone's $500 Lowas.


----------



## Loch Sloy! (17 Aug 2018)

> Is there a directive stating worn bras must be brought in for inspection prior to new bras being purchased, with an obvious cut or whole <sic> punch made to one of the cups as well?  Asking for a friend.



 :rofl: Coffee hit my keyboard...


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That sounds retarded. So now random any trade Sgts+ are the authority on whether boots are worn out enough to warrant replacement?
> 
> Kratz you beat me to it. Good luck putting holes in someone's $500 Lowas.



It could bring to life a whole new entrepreneurial spirit in the CAF as soldiers with worn out boots flog them on various Air Softer websites as 'Operationally Proven Combat Footwear'.

A smart kid could even set up his/ her own website or something.... just sayin'


----------



## garb811 (17 Aug 2018)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> The requirement to punch the tongue seem a little far fetched but it makes some sense if the goal is to limit unnecessary boot purchases; the entitlement isn't simply 1pr /yr (or 2 or 3) it is one per interval "as required". Otherwise theoretically the whole section could present Cpl Bloggins' clapped out brothel creepers as justification for new boots. But if that is the reason it does seem to show a lack of faith in the troops by the CofC...
> 
> I actually don't think the procedure in the directive is terribly cumbersome, but only because someone had the good sense to delegate the authorization authority down to the Sgt. level. Sect commanders are likely the best people to make these calls anyway.


But the whole point is the National level has explicitly stated that there is absolutely no requirement to bring in the old boots for inspection, let alone there being a requirement to physically damage the boot. This is someone sending the message that even though the Comd CA trusts the troops won't abuse the process, "they" don't and therefore they are going to be treated as children.

I'd be more concerned about some enterprising Sgt being a dick and totally destroying the boot because "they are being replaced so you can't wear them again, ever!" notwithstanding the fact that just because the boots aren't fit for the field anymore, it doesn't mean they are totally dead and can't be used around the yard or whatever.


----------



## hambley92 (17 Aug 2018)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> "Has 3 Div pushed direction down to subordinate units that pers are not to proceed with purchases?"
> 
> Yes. Pre-approval is required prior to purchase and then confirmation that the boots are GTG prior to wear. See below for excerpts from the actual directive.



I don't think I can accurately express how happy I am that the 3 Div direction does not apply to me. What a ridiculous system. I was responsible for coming up with my unit's direction and all that was required was to weed out the stuff people don't care about (phase 2 and 3) and summarize the important parts so that folks can go buy some boots. It's really not that difficult.


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2018)

I am 100% against punching a hole in the boot for numerous reasons i.e. I need to have more than one pair of boots, the whole point of a boot allowance was to get rid of the one-for-one exchanges, the member owns the boot not the Queen, etc.

That said, talking about clarity here... The FAQ says no you don't need to bring them in, the CANFORGEN says "MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND *THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND*"

Someone please explain how the Chain of Command can do that without looking at the boot?

Furthermore... does a CO have to go to his Bde Comd to have his boot inspected and the "necessity" authorized? Etc.


----------



## hambley92 (17 Aug 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> That said, talking about clarity here... The FAQ says no you don't need to bring them in, the CANFORGEN says "MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND *THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND*"
> 
> Someone please explain how the Chain of Command can do that without looking at the boot?



"Sgt I have one pair of purchased boots from last FY. I'd like to buy a second pair and use my current ones as my backups as it is always a good idea to have two pairs of appropriate boots for courses, exercises, deployments etc. Can I go get a second pair so that I don't have crappy issued ones?"

"Why yes Cpl good foresight and explanation. Go get a second pair and keep your old ones as backups."

That was easy.


----------



## kratz (17 Aug 2018)

A member's CoC authorizes a myriad of items, actions ect...daily (weekly...).

Does a CoC have to visually see soldiers board the plane on TD? Replace his bra? or wash a vehicle?

Authorize does NOT have to equate to visually determine.


----------



## garb811 (17 Aug 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> I am 100% against punching a hole in the boot for numerous reasons i.e. I need to have more than one pair of boots, the whole point of a boot allowance was to get rid of the one-for-one exchanges, the member owns the boot not the Queen, etc.
> 
> That said, talking about clarity here... The FAQ says no you don't need to bring them in, the CANFORGEN says "MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND *THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND*"
> 
> ...


I dunno, maybe trusting the troop isn't going to lie to you about needing a new pair of boots?  I guess maybe I'm looking at things a bit differently than some; after all, I have Cpls who come in, gun up, grab a set of keys and hit the road for 12 hours without me constantly wondering if I can trust them to act in accordance with their training, ethics and values.  

When I find out they aren't, at that point I take action.  I don't presuppose that I need to babysit everyone simply because someone "might" do something wrong.  Again, the difference between treating soldiers like adults as opposed to children.


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2018)

I never wrote the CCA’s CANFORGEN that says the chain of command has to authorize the necessity. If I wrote the CANFORGEN, it would say “you get one pair of boots per year, go!” so take your virtue signalling and fly the fuck somewhere else.

If my boss tells me I am responsible to ensure “xyz” in a process, then now it’s my job to figure out how and ensure I do that. You can’t say “I accept the risk” and also “you’re responsible for this” in the same sentence.

For what it’s worth, my recommendation as “No one has had a good pair of boot provided to them by the Queen in over 10 years, therefore everyone has a legitimate necessity. Free for all on 15 Aug, have a claim parade if req’d.” So again, take your high and mightiness somewhere else. My opinion aside, the CANFORGEN does poorly communicate intent. If the intent was to “accept the risk” but then directs lower Commanders to ensure there is a legitimate necessity in accordance with a set of guidelines.

Another unclear comms piece to this is that I *believe* that “establishing a legitimate need” was only meant for the initial purchase, which was to prevent 60k pers from buying a pair of boots on August 15th. That said, this is not communicated clearly. I believe that’s the case, but it does not say that in subsequent years this requirement will not be necessary. That’s what it implies, but it’s not spelled out, and as I said, poor reading comprehension skills are CAF-wide.



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> A member's CoC authorizes a myriad of items, actions ect...daily (weekly...).
> 
> Does a CoC have to visually see soldiers board the plane on TD? Replace his bra? or wash a vehicle?
> 
> Authorize does NOT have to equate to visually determine.



Yeah, except all travel claims *must* be authorized personally by a Commanding Officer, etc… Yeah, no control measures around travel at all.

You're right, not all things need to be visually determined. But we're talking about *boots,* so again, besides "hope for the best," please explain how a Chain of Command confirms/authorizes the necessity without visually inspecting? Again, I'm not supporting the idea, I'm merely stating what's written in the damn order from CCA.


----------



## Old EO Tech (17 Aug 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> And I quickly regret making that post. While it can be frustrating, I suppose the purpose of having staff is to have a large pile of considerations and through consultation having the garbage ones filtered out while what is good remains. The Comd hasn’t even seen it yet and I’ve already seen one of the bigger issues tossed out pretty quickly and another consideration that never even made it to the draft. There is nothing to say any of the problems identified aren’t being addressed by equally or more competent people and it will be a better policy given all the consultation, so it’s a little early for criticism, purely mea culpa on that one.
> 
> The CANFORGEN did need clarification at some level, it even discussed that Chain of Command guidance would be required, etc. I actually wish they would have waited until they had an approved boot list, because this Phase 1 thing is unnecessary for the one extra week it would take to make an approved list.
> 
> I don’t doubt for a second that across the country CO’s, probably more so through their RSMs, would limit people to buying at the Unit kit shop. Some of this might have been out of being morally bankrupt, some of it may be out of good intentions that were poorly thought out. Good intentions being to ensure simplicity and some level of control. The CANFORGEN / FAQ specifically directs that an approved list will not be used, and as you can see from posters above, some places have done that regardless. There really is no geographic area that is immune to a serious lack of reading comprehension skills. Other places are pushing out a “pre-approved” list i.e. you’re not limited to these boots, but FYI they are “pre-approved” and I happen to think that’s a good idea.



Yes I'm beginning to regret posting on this subject.  Seems people forget that subordinate formation Commanders are allowed to be more perceptive in issuing direction just not less.  The CCA direction does not remove the ability of the Comd 3 Div, for instance from issuing more detailed direction.


----------



## runormal (17 Aug 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> You're right, not all things need to be visually determined. But we're talking about *boots,* so again, besides "hope for the best," please explain how a Chain of Command confirms/authorizes the necessity without visually inspecting? Again, I'm not supporting the idea, I'm merely stating what's written in the damn order from CCA.



Why not "hope for the best?" This initiative has essentially said that all of the boots that the CAF has tried to procure over the better part of a decade have been a failed experiment. So then does it really matter how worn out your issued boots are? If they were the "perfect" boot then we would still be issuing them to every soldier. We aren't, so I don't know why anyone is trying to fuck this up for the troops.

I do realize that you said this above and my comments aren't directed at you, just the idea.


----------



## Georgian Bay (17 Aug 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> C. THE LOCAL CHAIN OF COMMAND WILL ASSIST THE MEMBER WITH KEY INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE MEMBER CAN BE EXPECTED TO OPERATE IN. GUIDANCE FROM THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS NOT THE SAME AS ISSUING SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON THE TYPE OR MODEL OF FOOTWEAR TO BE PURCHASED.



The author of this CANFORGEN thought long and hard about what to put in. This paragraph is designed to stop the Chain of Command from making up their own rules. 

No, you cannot delay the process.
No, you cannot select styles.
No, you cannot force soldiers to use a kit shop.


----------



## Adam (18 Aug 2018)

Has the scale of issue for combat boots changed?

I was under the impression that it was 2 pairs of general purpose, 2 pairs of wet weather, 2 pairs of desert, and one pair of mukluks?

I'm wearing my issued deserts but unfortunately I'll need new wet weathers soon enough.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Aug 2018)

- This boot policy reminds me of units saying "you need a weekend leave pass" when the CAF Leave Policy signed off by CMP says "no leave pass required for normal weekends off".  Subordinates commanders having the ability to make things more restrictive argument.  Can anyone provide an actual reference that states that word for word or even close?

- If 3 Div is 'issuing their own directive', maybe the Officer who authorized the CANFORGEN should call the 3 Div Comd and ask why he/she thinks they have the authority to counter direction from higher.  *If* the folks at 3 Div think there is more clarification required, wouldn't the best COA be to address questions to the Author/authority of the policy, who could then updated/amend/etc the CANFORGEN for _everyone's_ benefit?  Or, the answer might be "no, it was written specifically like that for a reason.  get the fuck on with it".

- *must purchase from kit shop*:  seriously?  I'd ignore that one flat out.  That defeats the purpose of people being able to get boots that work best 'for them'.  Likely an attempt to maintain uniformity or something.  Fuckin' idiotic regardless.

- Buddy that bought cowboy boots (if that happened), doesn't get reimbursed and is considered for some extras for being a smartass.  

- I was able to get 2 pair of LPO temperate safety boots replaced by dropping into Supply, who then told me to email a specific Sup Tech who does LPO boots.  I never spoke to the Sup Tech on the phone, face to face and no one said "I need to inspect your boots to determine if they are in need of replacement", that was for $400+ dollars of boots.  No one suspected me of trying to milk the system.  When the boots came in, I brought my used ones to supply, they took them, scrapped them (despite what the SAM says about special sizes, I don't need XX pairs of worn out safety boots when I retire, so I return mine) and handed me 2 new pair still in the boxes.

Being treated like an adult - priceless.


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Aug 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> [rant]
> The CANFORGEN was clear, *effective* 15 Aug, troops have the entitlement within the broad guidelines published, and here it is, 17 Aug and 3 Div is still ******* around trying to get a totally unnecessary Div directive published.  And, of course, being the Army, if Div publishes a directive, that means Bde is going to feel the need to publish a directive, which means the units are going to feel the need to publish a written directive...  [/rant]



The CANFORGEN states:

D. THE MANAGEMENT OF CBT BOOTS WILL EVENTUALLY TRANSITION TO AN ON-LINE MODEL, SIMILAR TO THE ONE CURRENTLY IN PLACE FOR DEU ITEMS. THIS TRANSITION WILL BE EXECUTED OVER SEVERAL YEARS, AND WILL OCCUR IN 3 PHASES:

(1). PHASE 1. ENTITLED CAF MEMBERS WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE CBT BOOTS OF THEIR CHOICE *BASED ON SIMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA AND LOCAL CHAIN OF COMMAND GUIDANC*E, AND BE REIMBURSED FOR THIS EXPENSE UP TO A PRE-DETERMINED MAXIMUM DOLLAR VALUE. THIS IS AN INTERIM POLICY THAT WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL A PRE-QUALIFIED COMBAT BOOT PRODUCT LIST CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE.

So local command guidance starts at Div, Bde, Base, Unit - doesn't it?


----------



## garb811 (18 Aug 2018)

Well, for one, I have never heard of a Division, or even a Bde, being referred to as a "local chain of command". In my experience, the local chain of command refers to the chain of command internal to a unit, or sub-element of a unit, within a geographical location.  Even when the Div or Bde HQ is collocated with a unit, I have never heard of either being referred to as the, "local chain of command."

If you read the FAQ, the idea of what "guidance" was going to be required is there:



> 14. What if I am unsure if my boots meet the requirements for my job?
> 
> You are highly encouraged to seek *guidance* from your chain of command when selecting combat boots and remember that the boots that you purchase must meet the requirements listed in the CANFORGEN. Non-compliant boots will not be reimbursed.



It is also clearly spelled out in the CANFORGEN that "guidance" on what an acceptable boot is does not equate to giving direction on what boot the member will buy.

Guidance is not the issuance of direction or altering the commander's intent, it is the provision of advice.  If the intent was for subordinate commanders to issue their own orders and directions, it would have been worded along the lines of, "...and direction of the chain of command." or something.


----------



## garb811 (18 Aug 2018)

Got this from a clerk friend...


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Aug 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Well, for one, I have never heard of a Division, or even a Bde, being referred to as a "local chain of command". In my experience, the local chain of command refers to the chain of command internal to a unit, or sub-element of a unit, within a geographical location.  Even when the Div or Bde HQ is collocated with a unit, I have never heard of either being referred to as the, "local chain of command."



garb811, my experience is much different than yours working in a national or international HQ. CANFORGENs provide announcements and direction that requires the consensus of a lot of people to draft and execute.  Everything outside the walls of the headquarters that drafted the message becomes a 'local' chain of command issue as the reader must deal with all levels above them.  

This particular CANFORGEN 127/18 - COMD CA 015/18 is a "program announcement by the Commander Canadian Army" with an aim to provide implementation direction.  It is not an order from the PM, MND or CDS that applies to all soldiers of the CAF.  

Drafting a CANFORGEN that will result in specific action by an individual soldier without further guidance from 'local chains of command' is quite difficult,  everyone who wears Temperate Combat Boots is not a member of the Army, for examples thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases.  They require local direction and likely funding because I don't think the Army is paying for their boots?


----------



## hambley92 (18 Aug 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Drafting a CANFORGEN that will result in specific action by an individual soldier without further guidance from 'local chains of command' is quite difficult,  everyone who wears Temperate Combat Boots is not a member of the Army, for examples thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases.  They require local direction and likely funding because I don't think the Army is paying for their boots?



This doesn't address the whole CoC direction/guidance argument, but just wanted to point out that actually the CANFORGEN includes the fin coding so while my unit doesn't fall under CA, we will most definitely be charging our boot charges to them  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Aug 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> This particular CANFORGEN 127/18 - COMD CA 015/18 is a "program announcement by the Commander Canadian Army" with an aim to provide implementation direction.  It is not an order from the PM, MND or CDS that applies to all soldiers of the CAF.



Not all CANFORGENs apply to each and every individual member of the CAF, but they apply to the CAF as a whole, no?  Isn't that why it is called a Canadian Forces General Order?



> Drafting a CANFORGEN that will result in specific action by an individual soldier without further guidance from 'local chains of command' is quite difficult,  everyone who wears Temperate Combat Boots is not a member of the Army, for examples thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases.  They require local direction and likely funding because I don't think the Army is paying for their boots?



I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.  The info was covered unless I'm reading it wrong.  It is not only based on where you're posted, but what SOI you're entitled to.  If your SOI includes... 



> CANFORGEN 127/18 - COMD CA 015/18
> BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
> SUBJ: COMBAT BOOT REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM
> REFS: A. SCALE OF ISSUES: D01301 (CA), D01341 (RCAF), D11115 (DEPLOYED OP), D01116 (OFFICER CADETS), D01119 (ABORIGINAL PRGM), D01307 (CDN MP).



...then you're thru the first hoop.

Next hoop.  What specific boots does this cover?



> THIS PROGRAM IS FOR TEMPERATE CBT BOOTS ONLY (NSNS 21-872-4291, 20-001-9296, 20-005-2273, 20-001-2410 OR 20-008-2050).  SAFETY BOOTS, NAVAL CBT BOOTS AND OTHER TYPES OF  OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENCE SUPPLY CHAIN (DSC) OR OTHER MEANS AS APPLICABLE



Seems even clearer;  if my SOI entitles me to those stock numbers, and I have those types of TCBs issued, the program covers it.

Next hoop.  What entitlement would I have, depending on the unit I'm posted to?



> ENTITLEMENTS
> 
> A. ENTITLEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT IS BASED ON A TIERED SYSTEM WHICH TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH THE EXPECTED USAGE OF COMBAT BOOTS AND THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED.
> 
> ...



Okay, so now I know what Tier I fall into, if any.  

Next hoop.  What can I be reimbursed for and how often during Ph1?



> B. INDIVIDUAL REIMBURSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED AS FOLLOWS:
> 
> (1). TIER 1: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS PER FISCAL YEAR (FY), EXCLUDING TAXES.
> (2). TIER 2: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS EVERY TWO FYS, EXCLUDING TAXES.
> (3). TIER 3: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS EVERY THREE FYS, EXCLUDING TAXES.



Using your example "_thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases_", if they are entitled to/issued the NSNs off the SOIs in Ref A, then they likely fall into Tier 2.

Maybe I'm missing something here?

Assuming the thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases are Tier 2 for purposes of the boot program, are wearing the right stock number boots off the SOIs in ref A, what are the requirements/criteria the boots they individually purchase?



> BOOT SELECTION CRITERIA.
> 
> A. NOTWITHSTANDING THE DESIRE FOR INCREASED FLEXIBILITY, THE CAF ALSO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR IN USE BY CAF MEMBERS IS SAFE FOR USE, ADHERES TO DRESS REGULATIONS AND WILL MEET THE DEMANDS OF AN OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT.
> 
> ...



Honestly, it all seems pretty straight forward to me.  The hardest part might be Junior NCMs and Officer figuring out what SOI, NSNs and Tier they fit into.  This is a part the CofC and Supply should be able to clarify easily.

I've said before, I live and breathe at the tactical sub-unit level, but I don't see the big gapping hole in the CANFORGEN or intent behind it.  In this case, 3 Div wanting to issue it's own direction and telling mbr's they aren't to get boots goes against the direction in the Order from HHQ.  

* one thing I wish the Supply system would do is to differentiate between Army, Air and Navy boots by name.  The RCAF has a temperate combat boot, but it is also a safety boot.  Call it a temperate safety boot or temperate flying boot or something.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Aug 2018)

I am only going to take a little poke at something Simian said here: As a member of the CAF, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "obey" any "order" from the PM or the MND. In fact they cannot issue any "orders" to the CAF. They are not in my chain of command, which goes through the CDS to the Governor-General, then the Queen.

Sorry, I may sound like a jerk for saying that, but to me it's always been an important distinction - which makes the military into an Institution of the Nation rather than an administrative department of the government of the day.

I have always bristled at any suggestion that I do the biding of a partisan government in current power. I serve the Queen - and thus, the Country in the purest sense.


----------



## Adam (19 Aug 2018)

I'm interested in a purchasing combat boots from a supplier is the USA.   Does anyone know if international customs fees will be viewed as tax or as additional shipping charges? 

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/BELLEVILLE-775-EXTREME-COLD-WEATHER-600G-INSULATED-WATERPROOF-BOOTS-ALL-SIZES/192209621919?hash=item2cc096139f%3Am%3AmrJWwft6miOX6vfI-qFB_rA&var=492133207772


----------



## garb811 (19 Aug 2018)

Adam said:
			
		

> I'm interested in a purchasing combat boots from a supplier is the USA.   Does anyone know if international customs fees will be viewed as tax or as additional shipping charges?
> 
> https://www.ebay.ca/itm/BELLEVILLE-775-EXTREME-COLD-WEATHER-600G-INSULATED-WATERPROOF-BOOTS-ALL-SIZES/192209621919?hash=item2cc096139f%3Am%3AmrJWwft6miOX6vfI-qFB_rA&var=492133207772


How do those boots meet the suggested temperature range?  It doesn’t say in the description but just looking at the name and amount of thinsulate there is no way you are going to be able to wear those within anything butnthe lowest portion of the suggested range and not roast your feet. 

That would be a bigger concern than customs because I doubt those are going to be covered and buying them from the states is going to make getting them refunded a bitch. 



> (2). TEMPERATURE RANGE. SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO OPERATE IN TEMPERATE CONDITIONS, BETWEEN PLUS 4 CELSIUS AND PLUS 35 CELSIUS.


----------



## Gunner98 (19 Aug 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am only going to take a little poke at something Simian said here: As a member of the CAF, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "obey" any "order" from the PM or the MND. In fact they cannot issue any "orders" to the CAF. They are not in my chain of command, which goes through the CDS to the Governor-General, then the Queen.
> 
> Sorry, I may sound like a jerk for saying that, but to me it's always been an important distinction - which makes the military into an Institution of the Nation rather than an administrative department of the government of the day.
> 
> I have always bristled at any suggestion that I do the biding of a partisan government in current power. I serve the Queen - and thus, the Country in the purest sense.



I see your point when it comes to the Queen/GG giving Royal assent to things like the  Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Labour Code.

But when Ralph Goodale states, "We have accepted an official request for assistance from the Province of BC to help in the fight against the wildfires. Through air support & personnel, the Government of Canada will support affected communities & First Responders who are courageously taking on this battle."  I don't see Queen or GG blessing the order, isn't it the "partisan government in power" making the decision?

As per QR&O Chapter 2:

2.06 - CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATION - CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF
Section 18 of the National Defence Act provides:

"18. (1) The Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be the Chief of the Defence Staff, who shall hold such rank as the Governor in Council may prescribe and who shall,* subject to the regulations and under the direction of the Minister,* be charged with the control and administration of the Canadian Forces.

(2) Unless the Governor in Council otherwise directs, all orders and instructions to the Canadian Forces that are required to give effect to the decisions and to carry out the *directions of the Government of Canada or the Minister shall be issued by or through the Chief of the Defence Staff.*"


----------



## TCM621 (22 Aug 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am only going to take a little poke at something Simian said here: As a member of the CAF, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "obey" any "order" from the PM or the MND. In fact they cannot issue any "orders" to the CAF. They are not in my chain of command, which goes through the CDS to the Governor-General, then the Queen.
> 
> Sorry, I may sound like a jerk for saying that, but to me it's always been an important distinction - which makes the military into an Institution of the Nation rather than an administrative department of the government of the day.
> 
> I have always bristled at any suggestion that I do the biding of a partisan government in current power. I serve the Queen - and thus, the Country in the purest sense.



Just to make you a little angrier, the D/MND is actually the CDS's boss for all practical purposes. Despite the fact that the CDS and the D/MND are supposed to be equals, in the absence of the minister the deputy "speaks with his voice". This means that while the MND is flying around the country doing PR stops the D/MND is actually in charge.


----------



## Kerosen (30 Sep 2018)

Hi, do you guys (or girlz) know where we can buy the Brown issued boots, i want to buy my self some
without passing thru the new process and because too i just had a new black pair issued on august 20th 
by the army (that i hate very much because it hurts my ankle)

Thank you all


----------



## theprivate (1 Oct 2018)

Now that BOOTFORGEN is out, you should look in to buying them civi side.


----------



## Kerosen (6 Oct 2018)

i found a place in Montréal that as issued boots thanks


----------



## Furniture (18 Oct 2018)

Just had a town hall with the RCAF CWO, the air force is proceeding with a new non-safety boot project... So there is no plan at this time to expand the BOOTFORGEN awesomeness to the RCAF Wings. 

On the bright side in about 17 years or so the RCAF will go with a boot purchase programme similar to what the CA is doing now.  :not-again:


----------



## kev994 (18 Oct 2018)

You can’t get leading change points without a new boot project.


----------



## dimsum (19 Oct 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Just had a town hall with the RCAF CWO, the air force is proceeding with a new non-safety boot project... So there is no plan at this time to expand the BOOTFORGEN awesomeness to the RCAF Wings.
> 
> On the bright side in about 17 years or so the RCAF will go with a boot purchase programme similar to what the CA is doing now.  :not-again:



Will they finally recognize that not all RCAF members need safety boots, including half of the aircrew?


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Oct 2018)

How much time and effort is wasted on these projects.

FFS.  Why can’t we just have a fucking boot allowance.   Do we really need project after fucking project?   It’s not complicated, we aren’t rebuilding Skylab here, it’s boots...

I’m growing tired of the same old crap, especially since more often than not the solution is simple.  Yet we always take the long complicated route.  I know I’m a cynic, but these projects do nothing more than boost individual PERs, when in reality individuals should be penalized for their inefficiencies.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Oct 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> How much time and effort is wasted on these projects.
> 
> FFS.  Why can’t we just have a ******* boot allowance.   Do we really need project after ******* project?   It’s not complicated, we aren’t rebuilding Skylab here, it’s boots...
> 
> I’m growing tired of the same old crap, especially since more often than not the solution is simple.  Yet we always take the long complicated route.  I know I’m a cynic, but these projects do nothing more than boost individual PERs, when in reality individuals should be penalized for their inefficiencies.



But you're getting some brand new fighter jets, right?


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Oct 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> But you're getting some brand new fighter jets, right?



I see what you did there...  

;D


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Oct 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> But you're getting some brand new fighter jets, right?



If by new you mean they’ve never been on a canadian register then brand spanking new ;D


----------



## Zoomie (19 Oct 2018)

Way too much talk about boots by the RCAF.  I’m wearing the same pair of issued army WWB from 2002.  Probably the last time I polished them too...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2018)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Way too much talk about boots by the RCAF.  I’m wearing the same pair of issued army WWB from 2002.  Probably the last time I polished them too...



That sounds unsafe.  What if you dropped your coffee cup and injured yourself on duty?  I've heard VAC won't cover your injury.... :tsktsk:


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Oct 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If by new you mean they’ve never been on a canadian register then brand spanking new ;D



Let's just hope they've pried the 'tinnies' and fag butts out of the ejector mechanisms...


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Oct 2018)

Don't worry guys, only took the Army 20 years to figure it out. At least you got leather jackets.


----------



## dimsum (20 Oct 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't worry guys, only took the Army 20 years to figure it out. At least you got leather jackets.



...which you can’t wear flying.  Who thought that would be a good idea?!


----------



## cld617 (20 Oct 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ...which you can’t wear flying.  Who thought that would be a good idea?!



Officers who think it's reasonable to add a $400 piece of optional kit for walking to/from their car.


----------



## Rheostatic (1 Nov 2018)

Since during phase 1 we have to confirm that the boots meet the four criteria listed in the CANFORGEN, I think it would be helpful to have a list of the boots that are confirmed to be compliant (to save us all from repeating the work). 

For example, I have someone who wants to buy a pair of Rocky S2V: https://www.rockyboots.com/rocky/mens/footwear/rocky-s2v-tactical-military-boot/FQ0000102.html

(1). COLOUR. BROWN IS PREFERRED, BUT BLACK OR TAN IS ACCEPTABLE AS PART OF PHASE 1. 
OK, available in black or coyote brown.

(2). TEMPERATURE RANGE. SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO OPERATE IN TEMPERATE CONDITIONS, BETWEEN PLUS 4 CELSIUS AND PLUS 35 CELSIUS. 
Probably OK, but "We do not give our garments or boots a temperature rating because multiple factors affect how an item performs in the cold (fit, activity level, personal tolerance to cold)."

(3). HEIGHT. MINIMUM 15 CM, MAXIMUM 23CM, AS MEASURED FROM INSIDE THE BOOT, ON TOP OF THE FOOTBED TO THE HIGHEST POINT. 
"8 Inches in height". They're 20.3 cm on the outside so probably OK for the inside measurement.

(4). SOLE. NON-MARKING, FUEL, OIL, AND ACID RESISTANT NITRILE RUBBER OUTSOLE. 
*Non-compliant*. From the manufacturer's website:


			
				https://www.rockyboots.com/rocky/mens/footwear/rocky-s2v-tactical-military-boot/RKC050.html?dwvar_RKC050_color=CQ said:
			
		

> · 2 months ago
> Hello, I am looking at these boots for the Canadian armed forces new boot reimbursement program. The program requires eligible boots to be the following: (4). SOLE. NON-MARKING, FUEL, OIL, AND ACID RESISTANT NITRILE RUBBER OUTSOLE. Do they?
> 
> answer
> ...



Am I being too picky here? I notice that CANEX sells these boots.


----------



## BDTyre (1 Nov 2018)

That's funny, because I have a PowerPoint dated 1 Dec 2017 from 1 CMBG and the second slide states "The first 5 slides are the boots that rated highest across the Bde, the other recommendations made the list, but, didn’t score high enough to make the list that was submitted to Div.  All boots on list meet the requirements laid out in CANFORGEN 127/18."

And lo and behold, #3 of the top 5 is the Rocky S2V Tactical Military Boot. Of course, my boss has already signed off on Rockys for several people and we have others who've been wearing them for a few years.

I'd trust the manufacturer...obviously some more research was needed before compiling the list.



			
				Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Since during phase 1 we have to confirm that the boots meet the four criteria listed in the CANFORGEN, I think it would be helpful to have a list of the boots that are confirmed to be compliant (to save us all from repeating the work).
> 
> For example, I have someone who wants to buy a pair of Rocky S2V: https://www.rockyboots.com/rocky/mens/footwear/rocky-s2v-tactical-military-boot/FQ0000102.html
> 
> ...


----------



## RocketRichard (1 Nov 2018)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> That's funny, because I have a PowerPoint dated 1 Dec 2017 from 1 CMBG and the second slide states "The first 5 slides are the boots that rated highest across the Bde, the other recommendations made the list, but, didn’t score high enough to make the list that was submitted to Div.  All boots on list meet the requirements laid out in CANFORGEN 127/18."
> 
> And lo and behold, #3 of the top 5 is the Rocky S2V Tactical Military Boot. Of course, my boss has already signed off on Rockys for several people and we have others who've been wearing them for a few years.
> 
> I'd trust the manufacturer...obviously some more research was needed before compiling the list.


Speaking of boots. Has anyone found a good pair of brown leather boots yet? I was going to buy Lowa Mountains in brown but they’re all sold out. Any other suggestions?  TIA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## IRepoCans (2 Nov 2018)

There's some offerings from across the pond:

Altberg boots in MOD Brown (a whole slew of variants), Hanwag SF LX/GTX Boots again in MOD Brown, and they even have an higher cut Aku Pilgrim in MOD Brown.

All of which are highly received, especially the latter two. They are, however, pricey given the conversion from Pounds to CAD plus shipping.


----------



## Rheostatic (2 Nov 2018)

These guys are advertising the Altberg Defender as CANFORGEN 127/18-Compliant, which is nice to see. 
https://rampartcorp.com/collections/boots/products/bootforgen?variant=13590965190767
Hopefully we'll start seeing product details that show compliance with the CAF temperature and sole requirements, like we see with boots marketed to US and UK soldiers.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Nov 2018)

The majority of aftermarket boots I've seen worn in the last few years have been rockeys.

I can't help but wonder if the sole criteria was put in place to accommodate certain Canadian made boots down the road a couple years when we will be buying from a specific approved list online.


----------



## Rheostatic (2 Nov 2018)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> That's funny, because I have a PowerPoint dated 1 Dec 2017 from 1 CMBG and the second slide states "The first 5 slides are the boots that rated highest across the Bde, the other recommendations made the list, but, didn’t score high enough to make the list that was submitted to Div.  All boots on list meet the requirements laid out in CANFORGEN 127/18."


Got a link you can share?


----------



## RocketRichard (2 Nov 2018)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> These guys are advertising the Altberg Defender as CANFORGEN 127/18-Compliant, which is nice to see.
> https://rampartcorp.com/collections/boots/products/bootforgen?variant=13590965190767
> Hopefully we'll start seeing product details that show compliance with the CAF temperature and sole requirements, like we see with boots marketed to US and UK soldiers.


Thanks eh.  These look interesting. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BDTyre (2 Nov 2018)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Got a link you can share?



No link but I have the PowerPoint. It's too big to upload though.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (2 Nov 2018)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> No link but I have the PowerPoint. It's too big to upload though.



open and screen cap low res jogs


----------



## BDTyre (2 Nov 2018)

Here are the two relevant screens.



			
				Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> open and screen cap low res jogs


----------



## BDTyre (29 Nov 2018)

While the Rocky's may not meet spec, it seems that certain styles of Dr. Martens might....the rubber soles are oil and slip resistant.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Nov 2018)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> While the Rocky's may not meet spec, it seems that certain styles of Dr. Martens might....the rubber soles are oil and slip resistant.



Don't buy Doc Martens... unless you're planning on hosting a Skin Head reunion (and are looking for little bovver, mate) of course 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGFmDFMIvhQ


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2018)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> While the Rocky's may not meet spec, it seems that certain styles of Dr. Martens might....the rubber soles are oil and slip resistant.



How do S2Vs not meet spec? ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## RocketRichard (30 Nov 2018)

Bought the Altberg Defenders. Trialling them now. They seem fine. Won’t be able to test in the field until February or so. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BDTyre (2 Dec 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> How do S2Vs not meet spec? ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G



The soles apparently do not meet the spec...I believe someone else had posted about this earlier in the thread. The info came direct from Rocky.


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2018)

I knew the requirement about soles was going to be another problem with this policy. It's no doubt a carryover from our silly procurement system and the whole "statement of requirements" crap. Guaranteed the company that made our crappy old boots checked off that box and justified it by saying "solle is made of rubber" and that was that.

Now a bunch of companies are caught off guard. I've used Meindls for almost 10 years and I've never seen it "oil, fuel, and slip resistant" marked on them anywhere, in any of their specs. This week I looked at a new pair and on the bottom of the sole it was stamped "oil, fuel, and slip resistant."

I was hoping common sense would prevail but of course, it won't... that is, until all the companies stamp it on their soles and then no one will need to use their brain and we'll all be happy campers again.

Ironically, the whole boot allowance thing was largely based off of the Rocky SV2s..... :facepalm:


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Dec 2018)

:facepalm: indeed...  :not-again:

Maybe in due course, Rocky can update their moulds.  The S2V is a stand up boot.  :2c:

Regards

G2G


----------



## Piece of Cake (21 Mar 2019)

Hello, I'm in need of some assistance with regards to the bootforgen.  I recently purchased a pair of boots from a well known manufacturer that happens to be in the US. I used my USD visa to pay for the boots. Unfortunately my clerk is saying the claim cannot be processed because it is not in Canadian funds.  The amount of the boots is well within the 340 Canadian dollar limit.  Also the canforgen does speak to foreign currency, "FUNDING ENTITLEMENT. REGULAR SHIPPING COSTS AND FOREIGN CURRENCY

EXCHANGE COSTS WILL BE REIMBURSED ONLY IF THEY ARE WITHIN THE 340"

It seems logical to me that the CAF can use the BOC exchange rate on the date of purchase and do the exchange. Anyone ever experienced this issue? And if so, was it resolved?


----------



## dimsum (21 Mar 2019)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Hello, I'm in need of some assistance with regards to the bootforgen.  I recently purchased a pair of boots from a well known manufacturer that happens to be in the US. I used my USD visa to pay for the boots. Unfortunately my clerk is saying the claim cannot be processed because it is not in Canadian funds.  The amount of the boots is well within the 340 Canadian dollar limit.  Also the canforgen does speak to foreign currency, "FUNDING ENTITLEMENT. REGULAR SHIPPING COSTS AND FOREIGN CURRENCY
> 
> EXCHANGE COSTS WILL BE REIMBURSED ONLY IF THEY ARE WITHIN THE 340"
> 
> It seems logical to me that the CAF can use the BOC exchange rate on the date of purchase and do the exchange. Anyone ever experienced this issue? And if so, was it resolved?



I would assume that if you had the receipt or credit card statement that showed the exchange rate, it would be good.  Also, a CC statement would show how much you paid in CAD.


----------



## MJP (21 Mar 2019)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Hello, I'm in need of some assistance with regards to the bootforgen.  I recently purchased a pair of boots from a well known manufacturer that happens to be in the US. I used my USD visa to pay for the boots. Unfortunately my clerk is saying the claim cannot be processed because it is not in Canadian funds.  The amount of the boots is well within the 340 Canadian dollar limit.  Also the canforgen does speak to foreign currency, "FUNDING ENTITLEMENT. REGULAR SHIPPING COSTS AND FOREIGN CURRENCY
> 
> EXCHANGE COSTS WILL BE REIMBURSED ONLY IF THEY ARE WITHIN THE 340"
> 
> It seems logical to me that the CAF can use the BOC exchange rate on the date of purchase and do the exchange. Anyone ever experienced this issue? And if so, was it resolved?



Escalate the issue higher in your clerk's CoC, foreign currency claims are common and solved the way you laid out


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Mar 2019)

As stated above take your monthly Visa credit card statement that shows the Cdn$ amt and name of supplier along with your receipt which verifies the name of the supplier/amt from the Visa statement,  so the clk can correlate the two. The Visa statement should show the USD converted to Cdn$.

Is "my clk" the Chief Clk? If not, see the CC.

P.S the Bank of Canada exchange rate is not what Visa charges. Visa charges approx. $0.035 commission on each USD exchanged.


----------



## Piece of Cake (21 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> As stated above take your monthly Visa credit card statement that shows the Cdn$ amt and name of supplier along with your receipt which verifies the name of the supplier/amt from the Visa statement,  so the clk can correlate the two. The Visa statement should show the USD converted to Cdn$.
> 
> Is "my clk" the Chief Clk? If not, see the CC.
> 
> P.S the Bank of Canada exchange rate is not what Visa charges. Visa charges approx. $0.035 commission on each USD exchanged.



As stated in the original post, this was charged to a USD visa. Thus it is posted to the card in US funds.


----------



## MJP (21 Mar 2019)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> As stated in the original post, this was charged to a USD visa. Thus it is posted to the card in US funds.



Solved easily by using the exchange rate at the BOC on that day


----------



## Piece of Cake (21 Mar 2019)

MJP said:
			
		

> Solved easily by using the exchange rate at the BOC on that day



Thank you


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Mar 2019)

Piece of Cake, missed in your post that you used a USD credit card. Have you looked at this Cdn credit card?

Home Trust Preferred Visa Card.  No fee currency exchange. 

https://www.hometrust.ca/credit-cards/preferred-visa-card/


•	No annual fee
•	1% CashBack with no limits to your total rewards
•	No restrictions on where you earn your rewards
•	Roadside Assist membership at no extra charge
•	No foreign currency conversion surcharges (US, Europe, etc)


Auto Rental Collision Insurance
Need to rent a car? Use your Visa when paying and you’ll get Visa’s Auto Rental Collision and Loss coverage.


----------



## ballz (21 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> As stated above take your monthly Visa credit card statement that shows the Cdn$ amt and name of supplier along with your receipt which verifies the name of the supplier/amt from the Visa statement,  so the clk can correlate the two. The Visa statement should show the USD converted to Cdn$.
> 
> Is "my clk" the Chief Clk? If not, see the CC. see the Unit FSA.
> P.S the Bank of Canada exchange rate is not what Visa charges. Visa charges approx. $0.035 commission on each USD exchanged.



The Chief Clerk is an HRA and doesn't handle claims processing anymore or employ the FSAs that do.



			
				Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Hello, I'm in need of some assistance with regards to the bootforgen.  I recently purchased a pair of boots from a well known manufacturer that happens to be in the US. I used my USD visa to pay for the boots. Unfortunately my clerk is saying the claim cannot be processed because it is not in Canadian funds.  The amount of the boots is well within the 340 Canadian dollar limit.  Also the canforgen does speak to foreign currency, "FUNDING ENTITLEMENT. REGULAR SHIPPING COSTS AND FOREIGN CURRENCY
> 
> EXCHANGE COSTS WILL BE REIMBURSED ONLY IF THEY ARE WITHIN THE 340"
> 
> It seems logical to me that the CAF can use the BOC exchange rate on the date of purchase and do the exchange. Anyone ever experienced this issue? And if so, was it resolved?



This is a very simple matter. Whoever is saying this about it not being paid because it is USD is wrong. Escalate it to their supervisor, and if their supervisor doesn't correct it, grieve it. Seriously, do not let this one go, it's ridiculous.

The CF-52, for which boots are claimed on, even has "foreign currency" and "rate of exchange" written right on it for this purpose.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Mar 2019)

> The Chief Clerk is an HRA and doesn't handle claims processing anymore or employ the FSAs that do.



Thanks. Been out for awhile. As a matter of fact on 4 Aug I get my 12 years of retirement CD. ;D


----------



## QM (22 Mar 2019)

I paid for mine in Euros and had zero problems getting my refund in Canadian dollars, converted by the Clerk at what the rate was on the day of purchase. Your Clerk is wrong, full stop. So, push back.


----------



## SentryMAn (27 Mar 2019)

The Clerk is incorrect in their determination that you are not entitled due to paying in USD funds.

Many of our military units proceed across international borders and require claims settled with exchange calculations, we even issue Foreign currencies at times.

IF you are talking with a Clerk, head to the 2IC Fin, if talking to the Fin Super Visor, head into the ICFin office, if that's not working head to the CClk's office(Likely an FSA but still has power in the OR's) and if they aren't helping, talk to your units Fin Officer(if they are around).

One of them should be of sound mind and be able to get the claim finalized for you.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2020)

In the "Quelle surprise!" department, Boulet is bemoaning BOOTFORGEN.  

Translation below per Google Translate



> “There is no Canadian boot that is supplied for the Canadian military; these are all imported boots, ”lamented Louis Boulet, vice-president of G.A. Boulet companies.
> 
> Mr. Boulet pointed out that the amount of the allowance paid to the soldiers is twice as high as the price at which his company sold his boots to National Defense.



https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/07/07/des-bottes-etrangeres-pour-les-militaires-1


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the "Quelle surprise!" department, Boulet is bemoaning BOOTFORGEN.
> 
> Translation below per Google Translate
> 
> https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/07/07/des-bottes-etrangeres-pour-les-militaires-1



In a lack of sympathy, I'll send him the massive blisters his ridiculously stoopid boots caused me on a BFT a few years ago. 

After I healed up I switched back to my good old Mk IIIs and never had a problem again, of course.


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In a lack of sympathy, I'll send him the massive blisters his ridiculously stoopid boots caused me on a BFT a few years ago.
> 
> After I healed up I switched back to my good old Mk IIIs and never had a problem again, of course.



I swear those god damn things were made so we never skip leg day.

Edit:  I stand corrected after looking at EITS's post.  The RCAF cripplers are Terras, not Boulets.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the "Quelle surprise!" department, Boulet is bemoaning BOOTFORGEN.
> 
> Translation below per Google Translate
> 
> https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/07/07/des-bottes-etrangeres-pour-les-militaires-1



Which boots were these ones; the Army Cold Wet Weather ones?  

IIRC, Terra made all the CEMS (Air Force) project boots aka "the cripplers".  I'll happily stick with my LPO Magnums and Bates, thank you.    :nod:


----------



## BeyondTheNow (8 Jul 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Which boots were these ones; the Army Cold Wet Weather ones?
> 
> IIRC, Terra made all the CEMS (Air Force) project boots aka "the cripplers".  I'll happily stick with my LPO Magnums and Bates, thank you.    :nod:



I had the same question...the GP black boots that weighed a ton (not the Gortex), or one of the 3 varying shades/styles of brown, yet all still substandard. (I’ve been issued all of them, except the darkest brown that laced up and had material on either side.) Oh, and was issued a set of desert boots too.  :


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2020)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I had the same question...the GP black boots that weighed a ton (not the Gortex), or one of the 3 varying shades/styles of brown, yet all still substandard. (I’ve been issued all of them, except the darkest brown that laced up and had material on either side.) Oh, and was issued a set of desert boots too.  :



They made all of those.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (8 Jul 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> They made all of those.



I see...

Totally irrelevant. I’m taken back to stories/folklore of cadpat boots. (Before my time.) Curious—Did they make those too?


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2020)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I see...
> 
> Totally irrelevant. I’m taken back to stories/folklore of cadpat boots. (Before my time.) Curious—Did they make those too?



I think so.  They are essentially the GPB but in CADPAT.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2020)

CADPAT boots were a trial item that never made it into wide production or distribution.


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CADPAT boots were a trial item that never made it into wide production or distribution.



Thank god.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Thank god.



I am trying to imagine a CSM ordering his company to buy multiple colours of polish and polish each square the proper colour.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I am trying to imagine a CSM ordering his company to buy multiple colours of polish and polish each square the proper colour.



Even worse idea than the jack boots for the garrison dress...thankfully kept mostly within the walls of NDHQ.


----------



## quadrapiper (8 Jul 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IIRC, Terra made all the CEMS (Air Force) project boots aka "the cripplers".


Those things were (are?) unbelievably awful. Made my civvy heavy, even taller, Viberg steeltoes feel like runners.


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Even worse idea than the jack boots for the garrison dress...thankfully kept mostly within the walls of NDHQ.



That would have been hilarious and awful to see.  At least Boulet (which makes cowboy boots) might deliver a good product


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jul 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That would have been hilarious and awful to see.  At least Boulet (which makes cowboy boots) might deliver a good product



I had a pair of Boulet cowboy boots years ago; they weren’t bad, but nowhere near as nice as a pair of hand-crafted Hondo boots I got in El Paso a ‘few’ tears ago...and still going strong. 

Any contracted Boulet combat boot I’ve worn (several variants of the GPs and the worst desert boot made ever) have been blisteringly horrible. It would be interesting if the journalist had included not just an interview with Monsieur Boulet himself, but also a survey of all the wearers of the boot...I don’t think it would be glowing at all...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That would have been hilarious and awful to see.  At least Boulet (which makes cowboy boots) might deliver a good product



Thankfully some people have made an effort to remember!!!

https://www.facebook.com/526846973997802/photos/ms.c.eJxFyskJADAMA7CNSm3jHPsvlkco~;QohEi3DATvUBwvEgh6gWKTuh9yRA87BDZo~-.bps.a.1671933656155789/1671935176155637/?type=3&theater

http://mpmuseum.org/securworkdress.html

Don't worry, though, you can still get in on the action!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Those things were (are?) unbelievably awful. Made my civvy heavy, even taller, Viberg steeltoes feel like runners.



Still being issued;  the tech's don't seem to mind them it seems.  I despised them after 10 seconds after I walked in them.  Thankfully, wearing crappy liners in combat boots in the late 80s and 90s screwed my arches.  Orthotics = LPO for me.


----------



## quadrapiper (8 Jul 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Still being issued;  the tech's don't seem to mind them it seems.  I despised them after 10 seconds after I walked in them.  Thankfully, wearing crappy liners in combat boots in the late 80s and 90s screwed my arches.  Orthotics = LPO for me.


I don't know their usual working environment - fairly static, or lots of tramping around?


----------



## Haggis (3 Aug 2021)

I see the end of BOOTFORGEN is on the horizon as the GoC awarded a combat  boot making contract to a Québec-based company in a Liberal riding.


----------



## cld617 (3 Aug 2021)

The CAF is still responsible to provide recruits footwear, lets hope that's what this is for.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Aug 2021)

Haggis said:


> I see the end of BOOTFORGEN is on the horizon as the GoC awarded a combat  boot making contract to a Québec-based company in a Liberal riding.


Boot FORGEN was phase 1, remember? The program eventually is suppise to offer 3 different boot types on logistik unicorp eventually


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Aug 2021)

Haggis said:


> I see the end of BOOTFORGEN is on the horizon as the GoC awarded a combat  boot making contract to a Québec-based company in a Liberal riding.


Not just that, they gave it to the company that failed on the original LTB replacement boots. Royer made those side zip ones that fell apart walking from the parking lot to work.

Best part of the announcement? 7 million dollar contract created 5 jobs.


----------



## brihard (3 Aug 2021)

Haggis said:


> I see the end of BOOTFORGEN is on the horizon as the GoC awarded a combat  boot making contract to a Québec-based company in a Liberal riding.


Their factory is in a federal CPC, provincial CAQ riding.


----------



## Haggis (3 Aug 2021)

brihard said:


> Their factory is in a federal CPC, provincial CAQ riding.


You are correct and I am not.  The announcement was made in Sherbrooke, a Liberal riding.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Aug 2021)

From what I can gather this has been a fiasco. The political will to tell Canadian shoe makers their products suck and the CAF can buy world wide isn’t there - to the detriment of the soldiers.


----------



## MilEME09 (4 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> From what I can gather this has been a fiasco. The political will to tell Canadian shoe makers their products suck and the CAF can buy world wide isn’t there - to the detriment of the soldiers.


The fact the company failed once before to deliver boots that worked to the CAF shows this was political


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> ... the CAF can buy world wide isn’t there ...


They CAN, but in Canada, on bigger buys, anyway, they often don't (or, politically speaking, aren't allowed to).


----------



## MJP (4 Aug 2021)

Haggis said:


> I see the end of BOOTFORGEN is on the horizon as the GoC awarded a combat  boot making contract to a Québec-based company in a Liberal riding.



That was my initial thought but the delivery date of by Feb 2023 and the overall numbers are low.  I suspect that this is a boot for new recruits and replacements in places when LPO is not an option (for a variety of reasons). Been wrong before but we will see!


----------



## dapaterson (4 Aug 2021)

Assuming 8k recruits annually, Reg and Res, each issued two pairs, then 40k pairs is a 2 1/2 year supply for recruits only.


----------



## dimsum (4 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Best part of the announcement? 7 million dollar contract created 5 jobs.


Yeah, I don't know why they bothered with that sentence.


----------



## Navy_Pete (4 Aug 2021)

Meanwhile, my old mark 1s are still going strong, and would just need to swap out the sole to get them to last another decade.  Use them all the time as generic boots, now that I no longer have to do silly bugger stuff.

Super glad the Navy has no part of this; the sea boots with the zipper on the side are pretty comfortable, and last at least a few years (unless you blow out the zipper). Mine are scuffed but still serviceable, and when I had a step tracker on was walking about 10k a day (and doing something stupid like 40-80 flights of stairs or more). Probably not fit for what the Army needs, but really glad we don't have to deal with this. Being on your feet 18 hours a day can suck enough even with comfy boots.


----------



## dimsum (4 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Super glad the Navy has no part of this; the sea boots with the zipper on the side are pretty comfortable, and last at least a few years (unless you blow out the zipper)


Once again, I'm surprised why the RCAF didn't team up with the RCN on boots and fire-retardant operational clothing.

Aside from anti-spark and anti-FOD requirements for aircrew (which aren't that different than being on ship anyway), most requirements are similar.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Aug 2021)

LOL buy this man a beer (from the CAF FB page)

*Mike Stinger
Everyone please take a moment to recognize the public affairs officer who will be dealing with this thread. Thank you for your service!*


----------



## Maxman1 (6 Aug 2021)

cld617 said:


> The CAF is still responsible to provide recruits footwear, lets hope that's what this is for.



_For now..._


----------



## Mills Bomb (6 Aug 2021)

This seems to have really stirred a lot of anger online. 

I think we're at the point where even new recruits are beginning to realize the kit they are issued is often very sub-standard compared to the countries we work with. I suppose the first step to change is awareness, and it seems a lot of members are waking up to the fact this government's procurement system results overwhelmingly in outdated and poor quality kit; boots, tac-vest, rain jacket, ruck, etc. etc.  

I've heard the rumours that nobody in Canada can produce decent quality uniforms and kit. That seems like BS to me when we're the home of top of the line outdoor companies like Arcteryx. 

If we could just get it together as a country and procure some decent stuff it would probably be one of the best things for moral and recruitment. I realize this is entirely political and unlikely to happen, but maybe someday!


----------



## dimsum (6 Aug 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> I think we're at the point where even new recruits are beginning to realize the kit they are issued is often very sub-standard compared to the countries we work with.


Yes.

However, having worked with some of those partner nations for an extended period of time, I'll say that most nations have literally the same gripes (ok, maybe Jamaica doesn't complain about their winter kit so much) about uniforms and kit.  

It's partially that most of the CAF doesn't see the other social media forums of other countries.  CAF Reddit and US military subreddits aren't that different in the level of griping.  Same with UK, Australia, etc.  

Am I saying that our kit is amazing?  No.  What I'm saying is that we (Canadians) don't generally hear the complaints about other military kit from their own personnel, so we think only we have this issue.


----------



## Mills Bomb (6 Aug 2021)

Having known people in other militaries, I agree with you. The US Marines are constantly complaining about kit as well; they often feel their kit is typically not as good as the US Army however it's still miles above the CAF.  

I don't think there's any doubt that the CAF issues better equipment than most 2nd and 3rd world countries. 

That being said, if you look at the British, US, Australians, Germans, etc. it would be hard to argue that what we're procuring is acceptable. I mean the rain jackets aren't even waterproof after a few uses in the field, the boots fall apart, and the field gear is really lacking to say the least.


----------



## Weinie (6 Aug 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> Having known people in other militaries, I agree with you. The US Marines are constantly complaining about kit as well; they often feel their kit is typically not as good as the US Army however it's still miles above the CAF.
> 
> I don't think there's any doubt that the CAF issues better equipment than most 2nd and 3rd world countries.
> 
> That being said, if you look at the British, US, Australians, Germans, etc. it would be hard to argue that what we're procuring is acceptable. I mean the rain jackets aren't even waterproof after a few uses in the field, the boots fall apart, and the field gear is really lacking to say the least.


At what point does "lowest bidder" start to have ramifications.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> At what point does "lowest bidder" start to have ramifications.


Lowest bidder should be a major consideration, if the government can shell out billions for covid relief, they can fork over an extra million or two to get a quality boot maker.


----------



## Navy_Pete (7 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> At what point does "lowest bidder" start to have ramifications.


Lowest technically compliant bidder.... it has ramifications as soon as your tech requirements in the contract don't meet the actually demand. That can be really hard to get right, especially for something like footwear that is really a personal preference and depends on a lot on your biomechanics as well. It's an approach that works great for buying widgets with a clear requirement and known usage, but kind of useless here. There are other approaches, but we have some pretty clear restrictions from PSPC and require the selection criteria to be clear and objective. Doing some kind of buy and try could work, but you would need a lot and if we get a bad set of boots in the mix could mess up a lot of people in the trials, and also would mean we'd probably buy hundreds of different boots to try it out.

Honestly we'd be better off just giving recruits some money before they show up and tell them they have to buy two sets of boots that meet bootforgen rules. The number of people with stress fractures in their feet with this companies first effort was crazy, and a lot of that was just with rucking in basic; 6-8 weeks of salary to recover plus the treatment pays for a pretty high quality boot (which we did anyway, because the cheap boots broke their feet).


----------



## Maxman1 (7 Aug 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> I don't think there's any doubt that the CAF issues better equipment than most 2nd and 3rd world countries.



The Russian Army only started issuing socks in 2013.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Aug 2021)

Maxman1 said:


> The Russian Army only started issuing socks in 2013.


Funny, I had recruits last summer not even get socks


----------



## RedFive (7 Aug 2021)

I'm a decade into this organization and have still never been issued my actual full scale of kit.


----------



## Kilted (7 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Honestly we'd be better off just giving recruits some money before they show up and tell them they have to buy two sets of boots that meet bootforgen rules. The number of people with stress fractures in their feet with this companies first effort was crazy, and a lot of that was just with rucking in basic; 6-8 weeks of salary to recover plus the treatment pays for a pretty high quality boot (which we did anyway, because the cheap boots broke their feet).


Compared to some of the other stupid things you see in the first few weeks of BMQ, I could see that going very badly.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Aug 2021)

Maxman1 said:


> The Russian Army only started issuing socks in 2013.


As an aside, foot wraps, worn properly, are more effective than socks.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> Compared to some of the other stupid things you see in the first few weeks of BMQ, I could see that going very badly.


I agree, issuing boots to recruits is a lot easier then tracking who needs reimbursement, and not all recruits can afford the buy boots right away.


----------



## Kilted (7 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I agree, issuing boots to recruits is a lot easier then tracking who needs reimbursement, and not all recruits can afford the buy boots right away.


I was more concerned with what kind of boots they might show up with.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Aug 2021)

Does wish.com have a BOOTFORGEN section?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> I was more concerned with what kind of boots they might show up with.


The simple solution is for CANEX in the Mega to stock a good selection of approved boots. Each recruit gets marched in there by section/platoon and they get to pick two pairs. If it is under the approved limit, they get charged to the Crown. If they are over the limit, the recruit pays the difference.


----------



## Navy_Pete (7 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> Compared to some of the other stupid things you see in the first few weeks of BMQ, I could see that going very badly.


Yeah, me too, but our current approach is already going very badly just in a different way. SKTs CANEX solution would be great if we could get CANEX onboard, but imagine there are probably some arms length rules that we have to follow.

On the flip side I had a pair of tactical boots that I picked up at the PX that were amazing; can't remember the brand, but the felt like hightop running shoes and made for great hiking boots. I beat the heck out of those for 5 years and think they were lost in a move before I could wear them out. They were less than $100.


----------



## dimsum (7 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Yeah, me too, but our current approach is already going very badly just in a different way. SKTs CANEX solution would be great if we could get CANEX onboard, but imagine there are probably some arms length rules that we have to follow.
> 
> On the flip side I had a pair of tactical boots that I picked up at the PX that were amazing; can't remember the brand, but the felt like hightop running shoes and made for great hiking boots. I beat the heck out of those for 5 years and think they were lost in a move before I could wear them out. They were less than $100.


Now that "tan" is an approved colour, I'm just glad that I can wear my Belleville tan boots in Canada.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Aug 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The simple solution is for CANEX in the Mega to stock a good selection of approved boots. Each recruit gets marched in there by section/platoon and they get to pick two pairs. If it is under the approved limit, they get charged to the Crown. If they are over the limit, the recruit pays the difference.


You put that damn common sense away before someone makes it through BMQ without having thier feet destroyed by garbage Royer boots.


----------



## MJP (7 Aug 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The simple solution is for CANEX in the Mega to stock a good selection of approved boots. Each recruit gets marched in there by section/platoon and they get to pick two pairs. If it is under the approved limit, they get charged to the Crown. If they are over the limit, the recruit pays the difference.


It would be an interesting way of doing it, finding a way to replicate that success across Canada especially for the PRes BMQ not held near major bases would be an obstacle to overcome. Not impossible though

At the end of the day we still need some GP type of boot in stock for emergency purposes, I would prefer it not be Royer though


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Aug 2021)

The problem with boots is that is that, on the one hand, you want national production so you can both have some emergency stock in hand and be able to ramp up production in case of sustained emergency and on the other hand, it is one of those products that is near impossible to write bidding specs for to determine compliance against.

So, IMHO, this is one of those cases where we abandon the "call-for-tender/lowest compliant bidding" approach. What I think should be done is the following: Whenever a new booth order is required, the CAF goes around to the various Canadian manufacturers and purchase 100 "samples" of the boot that manufacturer makes that is of the proper style and colour, say ten each in ten different sizes. When the CAF has five or six hundred such boots (from 5 or 6 manufacturers) they are issued for two months to various personnel and evaluated at the end of the period. The ones that turn out crappy, you simply deselect as "non-compliant". All the ones that are found to be satisfactory, you invite the manufacturer to bid on the whole production, then and only then, you pick the lowest bidder of the ones that were invited to bid - on the understanding that you keep the "samples" for comparison of the product actually delivered (just to keep it honest).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Aug 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> The problem with boots is that is that, on the one hand, you want national production so you can both have some emergency stock in hand and be able to ramp up production in case of sustained emergency and on the other hand, it is one of those products that is near impossible to write bidding specs for to determine compliance against.
> 
> So, IMHO, this is one of those cases where we abandon the "call-for-tender/lowest compliant bidding" approach. What I think should be done is the following: Whenever a new booth order is required, the CAF goes around to the various Canadian manufacturers and purchase 100 "samples" of the boot that manufacturer makes that is of the proper style and colour, say ten each in ten different sizes. When the CAF has five or six hundred such boots (from 5 or 6 manufacturers) they are issued for two months to various personnel and evaluated at the end of the period. The ones that turn out crappy, you simply deselect as "non-compliant". All the ones that are found to be satisfactory, you invite the manufacturer to bid on the whole production, then and only then, you pick the lowest bidder of the ones that were invited to bid - on the understanding that you keep the "samples" for comparison of the product actually delivered (just to keep it honest).


Or you invite all the “compliant” bidders to stock boots at CANEX. If their boots are good- the troops will buy them, they get paid and the boot makers have incentive to maintain/improve quality.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Aug 2021)

I am only talking about the emergency stocks that the CAF wants to keep in hand, not the individual ongoing users needs that are still covered by the BOOTFORGEN.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Aug 2021)

BOOTFORGEN is transitory and a stop gap in its nature and design.  Eventually boots will be stocked on Logistik and we will be back to wearing what ever boot meets the SOR.   Everyone lost their proverbial shit with this Royer announcement - evidently no one read the CANFORGEN where it clearly stated that buying your own boots was temporary…


----------



## MJP (9 Aug 2021)

Zoomie said:


> BOOTFORGEN is transitory and a stop gap in its nature and design.  Eventually boots will be stocked on Logistik and we will be back to wearing what ever boot meets the SOR.   Everyone lost their proverbial shit with this Royer announcement - evidently no one read the CANFORGEN where it clearly stated that buying your own boots was temporary…


REEEing aside word on the street is that BOOTFORGEN will stay and not go into the next stage

Time will tell if that just means it transitions later than planned but my money is on buying boots is here to stay.


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Aug 2021)

MJP said:


> REEEing aside word on the street is that BOOTFORGEN will stay and not go into the next stage
> 
> Time will tell if that just means it transitions later than planned but my money is on buying boots is here to stay.


Not sure how to embed tweets, but here's the CAF tweet; (edit: doesn't show in the preview, but apparently automatically grabs the tweet, which is handy)

The recently announced boots contract created concern among some CAF members and the public about BOOTFORGEN. We can confirm that BOOTFORGEN remains in place. The new boots are primarily for new recruits. If you’re currently eligible for BOOTFORGEN, the program remains.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423367585245106177


----------



## MJP (9 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Not sure how to embed tweets, but here's the CAF tweet; (edit: doesn't show in the preview, but apparently automatically grabs the tweet, which is handy)
> 
> The recently announced boots contract created concern among some CAF members and the public about BOOTFORGEN. We can confirm that BOOTFORGEN remains in place. The new boots are primarily for new recruits. If you’re currently eligible for BOOTFORGEN, the program remains.
> 
> ...


I was referring to longer term plan, while the tweet was to calm the REEEEE crowd  

I imagine any change to this will be end of days as we know it


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423367585245106177


but how to polish them asks the RSM?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> but how to polish them asks the RSM?



Brown polish?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (9 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> . . .
> 
> Honestly we'd be better off just giving recruits some money before they show up and tell them they have to buy two sets of boots that meet bootforgen rules. *The number of people with stress fractures in their feet with this companies first effort was crazy*, and a lot of that was just with rucking in basic; 6-8 weeks of salary to recover plus the treatment pays for a pretty high quality boot (which we did anyway, because the cheap boots broke their feet).



Do you know if any study confirmed this or is this just anecdotal observation?  Not having any experience with that company's boots other than the complaints I saw on this means, I can't make any judgement on whether their design or poor quality contributed to an increased incidence of stress fractures, particularly among recruits.  However, (and my experience with the subject is dated) lower extremity injuries are/were the most common medical complaint among recruits.  It's also the one of the most common generally among all soldiers.  In some of the studies that I've reviewed that looked at the issue, when that factor was analyzed, the type or brand of footwear did not significantly contribute to an increase in stress fractures.

My interest in the subject was piqued back in the 1980s when I was in the SurgGen branch at NDHQ.  There had been a few anecdotal observations about an increase in foot related medical complaints at the various basic training establishments (back then Cornwallis, St. Jean and Chilliwack) and a note ended up on my desk to have a look at the stats and write a briefing note for my director.  In those days before computers (or at least not on every desk) that required a lot of pulling of paper from archives.  There had been a slight increase in sick parade visits for such complaints (I looked at a ten year trend) but nothing that got any money to do a formal study.  At the time I did a journal search to see if this had been looked at by anyone else.  It had been; there were journal articles from medical types in a few other countries that addressed the issue.  The one that most sticks in my mind was from Singapore.  Their conclusion (and one that was somewhat echoed by some of the other articles) was that the increase of foot complaints was mostly down to a societal change - specifically the footwear worn by youths.  While at one time the wearing of leather footwear (shoes or boots) was a normal thing even as a youngster, by the late 1980s there were now generations who had never worn solid leather footwear (especially combat boots or similar) until they went to basic training.  All they had ever put on their feet before military service time were sneakers and flipflops.


----------



## dimsum (9 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> but how to polish them asks the RSM?


----------



## RangerRay (9 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1423367585245106177



My feet hurt looking at them!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Aug 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Do you know if any study confirmed this or is this just anecdotal observation?  Not having any experience with that company's boots other than the complaints I saw on this means, I can't make any judgement on whether their design or poor quality contributed to an increased incidence of stress fractures, particularly among recruits.  However, (and my experience with the subject is dated) lower extremity injuries are/were the most common medical complaint among recruits.  It's also the one of the most common generally among all soldiers.  In some of the studies that I've reviewed that looked at the issue, when that factor was analyzed, the type or brand of footwear did not significantly contribute to an increase in stress fractures.
> 
> My interest in the subject was piqued back in the 1980s when I was in the SurgGen branch at NDHQ.  There had been a few anecdotal observations about an increase in foot related medical complaints at the various basic training establishments (back then Cornwallis, St. Jean and Chilliwack) and a note ended up on my desk to have a look at the stats and write a briefing note for my director.  In those days before computers (or at least not on every desk) that required a lot of pulling of paper from archives.  There had been a slight increase in sick parade visits for such complaints (I looked at a ten year trend) but nothing that got any money to do a formal study.  At the time I did a journal search to see if this had been looked at by anyone else.  It had been; there were journal articles from medical types in a few other countries that addressed the issue.  The one that most sticks in my mind was from Singapore.  Their conclusion (and one that was somewhat echoed by some of the other articles) was that the increase of foot complaints was mostly down to a societal change - specifically the footwear worn by youths.  While at one time the wearing of leather footwear (shoes or boots) was a normal thing even as a youngster, by the late 1980s there were now generations who had never worn solid leather footwear (especially combat boots or similar) until they went to basic training.  All they had ever put on their feet before military service time were sneakers and flipflops.


I read something similar, but can no longer remember the source.

I seem to recall that the other issue is that people no longer walk or run any significant distance in their day to day lives. The foot is a complex piece of biological engineering that needs to be exercised and strengthened.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Aug 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Do you know if any study confirmed this or is this just anecdotal observation?  Not having any experience with that company's boots other than the complaints I saw on this means, I can't make any judgement on whether their design or poor quality contributed to an increased incidence of stress fractures, particularly among recruits.  However, (and my experience with the subject is dated) lower extremity injuries are/were the most common medical complaint among recruits.  It's also the one of the most common generally among all soldiers.  In some of the studies that I've reviewed that looked at the issue, when that factor was analyzed, the type or brand of footwear did not significantly contribute to an increase in stress fractures.
> 
> My interest in the subject was piqued back in the 1980s when I was in the SurgGen branch at NDHQ.  There had been a few anecdotal observations about an increase in foot related medical complaints at the various basic training establishments (back then Cornwallis, St. Jean and Chilliwack) and a note ended up on my desk to have a look at the stats and write a briefing note for my director.  In those days before computers (or at least not on every desk) that required a lot of pulling of paper from archives.  There had been a slight increase in sick parade visits for such complaints (I looked at a ten year trend) but nothing that got any money to do a formal study.  At the time I did a journal search to see if this had been looked at by anyone else.  It had been; there were journal articles from medical types in a few other countries that addressed the issue.  The one that most sticks in my mind was from Singapore.  Their conclusion (and one that was somewhat echoed by some of the other articles) was that the increase of foot complaints was mostly down to a societal change - specifically the footwear worn by youths.  While at one time the wearing of leather footwear (shoes or boots) was a normal thing even as a youngster, by the late 1980s there were now generations who had never worn solid leather footwear (especially combat boots or similar) until they went to basic training.  All they had ever put on their feet before military service time were sneakers and flipflops.


Also Singapore, their problems extend past flip flops


----------



## GK .Dundas (9 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Also Singapore, their problems extend past flip flops


Ah yes, the infamous" combat maid"  .


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Aug 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Do you know if any study confirmed this or is this just anecdotal observation?  Not having any experience with that company's boots other than the complaints I saw on this means, I can't make any judgement on whether their design or poor quality contributed to an increased incidence of stress fractures, particularly among recruits.  However, (and my experience with the subject is dated) lower extremity injuries are/were the most common medical complaint among recruits.  It's also the one of the most common generally among all soldiers.  In some of the studies that I've reviewed that looked at the issue, when that factor was analyzed, the type or brand of footwear did not significantly contribute to an increase in stress fractures.
> 
> My interest in the subject was piqued back in the 1980s when I was in the SurgGen branch at NDHQ.  There had been a few anecdotal observations about an increase in foot related medical complaints at the various basic training establishments (back then Cornwallis, St. Jean and Chilliwack) and a note ended up on my desk to have a look at the stats and write a briefing note for my director.  In those days before computers (or at least not on every desk) that required a lot of pulling of paper from archives.  There had been a slight increase in sick parade visits for such complaints (I looked at a ten year trend) but nothing that got any money to do a formal study.  At the time I did a journal search to see if this had been looked at by anyone else.  It had been; there were journal articles from medical types in a few other countries that addressed the issue.  The one that most sticks in my mind was from Singapore.  Their conclusion (and one that was somewhat echoed by some of the other articles) was that the increase of foot complaints was mostly down to a societal change - specifically the footwear worn by youths.  While at one time the wearing of leather footwear (shoes or boots) was a normal thing even as a youngster, by the late 1980s there were now generations who had never worn solid leather footwear (especially combat boots or similar) until they went to basic training.  All they had ever put on their feet before military service time were sneakers and flipflops.


It was anecdotal, but out of a platoon of 50ish of us, 3 had stress fractures in their feet (one had it in both) just in our course, and all had the royer boots. A number of the other people that didn't have stress fractures would slip everywhere when it got below freezing. There was also a whole whack of people stumping around on PAT at the time for the same kind of foot fracture from other serials. From what my wingers were saying, it was common enough that there was a SOP for those boots to get vibram soles dropped on at a local cobbler.

Then when the army types went to battle school, a few others dropped off their courses with stress fractures, and at some point all of them got told to stop wearing the royer boots unless they had been resoled.

So anecdotal, but with a really high correlation of the same type of boots. Not necessarily causal, but if dozens of people have the same busted feet, and all are wearing the same boot, with no one else having the same issue with different boots, it's a reasonable assumption to make a causal link as a precaution. That was back in 2005/2006ish, so pretty fuzzy on the details, but we ended up partly carrying the two tough SOBs that limped through the final ruck march with busted feet so they didn't have to redo the entire officer course, so it sticks out.

From what I remember, they said the boots were pretty stiff, but the soles got really hard when they got cold, so the boots stopped flexing and didn't absorb anything, so I could see that being an issue. They were also skating, as soon as there was a bit of frost on the ground, so even without the foot fractures they were a safety issue. I think it was their mulligan boots that fell apart, so no idea how they had gotten a third kick at the can. Just from a risk to personnel and liability perspective it makes no sense not to blacklist them from future CAF contracts, but 'fairness and transparency' rules the procurement game.

Edit to add: the people with busted feet came from in a variety of sizes and fitness levels, but some had worn work boots daily for years and still found them really uncomfortable, so don't think it was an unfamiliarity with that type of footwear. They were just really crappy boots for walking in. If the problem is immediately fixed by swapping the soles, probably a good link.


----------



## MJP (9 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> So anecdotal, but with a really high correlation of the same type of boots. Not necessarily causal, but if dozens of people have the same busted feet, and all are wearing the same boot, with no one else having the same issue with different boots, it's a reasonable assumption to make a causal link as a precaution. That was back in 2005/2006ish, so pretty fuzzy on the details, but we ended up partly carrying the two tough SOBs that limped through the final ruck march with busted feet so they didn't have to redo the entire officer course, so it sticks out.


The Royer boot that most people are talking about is the more recent (2015/16ish) zippered boot that had massive quality control issues. The boot I remember from 2005/6 having the slipping issue was the wet weather boot which had a sole replacement strategy applied to it after everyone and their dog fell wearing them the moment the temps dropped.  I can't remember if that was Royer or not honestly but once the sole was replaced I didn't mind it.  It was an overly heavy boot from what I recall.


----------



## dimsum (9 Aug 2021)

MJP said:


> The Royer boot that most people are talking about is the more recent (2015/16ish) zippered boot that had massive quality control issues. The boot I remember from 2005/6 having the slipping issue was the wet weather boot which had a sole replacement strategy applied to it after everyone and their dog fell wearing them the moment the temps dropped.  I can't remember if that was Royer or not honestly but once the sole was replaced I didn't mind it.  It was an overly heavy boot from what I recall.


I'm pretty sure those boots were Boulet.


----------



## MJP (9 Aug 2021)

dimsum said:


> I'm pretty sure those boots were Boulet.


Sounds familiar, almost makes me wish I kept some of my boots when I retired....almost.  Regardless I am sure that even the temperate boot was crap as well, I just remember falling in the parking lot heading into work at like -1 wearing the WWBs!


----------



## Maxman1 (10 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Also Singapore, their problems extend past flip flops


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> SKTs CANEX solution would be great if we could get CANEX onboard, but imagine there are probably some arms length rules that we have to follow.



CANEX in my location is stocking some of the boots on the approved list from the RCAF;  I bought my pair of coyote Rocky SV2s from the Canex ($334.99/pr before tax...).   The whole process for me took a few days, and the money was back in my bank account in about...5 working days.

And...happily, my trade made it on the "safety toe not required list" (shout-out to whoever wrote 'should' in the Sono Ref Guide for the safety footwear piece).

As for the MEGA Canex keeping enough of the approved boots in stock, in the required sizes...that sounds like a gold mine to me.  Not sure if it has improved since I left there as staff ('07 timeframe) but the kit issue, boots included, would be accurately described as "a clusterfuck" so the boot parade thru the CANEX might actually work better than it did at the GSS-run clothing stores.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Aug 2021)

dimsum said:


> I'm pretty sure those boots were Boulet.



Yup.  The 'army' CWWBs...I remember people putting screws into the heels in hopes they'd reduce the 'skate' capability of them.









						Canadian Forces Army Temperate Combat Boots 255/100 Made by Terra Size 8  | eBay
					

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Canadian Forces Army Temperate Combat Boots 255/100 Made by Terra Size 8 at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!



					www.ebay.ca
				




The RCAF 'CEMS' (_Clothing and Equipment Millennium Standard) _project boots (air force steel toe Temp Cbt Boot, CWWB and Desert Cbt Boot) were made by Terra IIRC (and were sub-standard by most people's accounts, mine included).


----------



## dimsum (13 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> approved list from the RCAF


Can you share the link to the list?


----------



## Maxman1 (13 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yup.  The 'army' CWWBs...I remember people putting screws into the heels in hopes they'd reduce the 'skate' capability of them.



Maybe go all out and drive hobnails and heel plates in them.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Aug 2021)

RangerRay said:


> My feet hurt looking at them!


----------



## Zoomie (13 Aug 2021)

dimsum said:


> Can you share the link to the list?


It’s on the A4 site at 1 CAD.   USAF safe to fly list.


----------



## captloadie (13 Aug 2021)

There is a problem with the safe to fly list. It was the most recent one that was available to the Air Staff to fast track the process, but it is out of date and very few of the boots listed are still available, or meet the Cdn requirement (not all boots on the list are approved for CAF use - eg. not the sage green boots or the safety boot versions). Attempts have been made to get an updated list from the USAF, get an in house list created and approved, and to have local support units use their best judgement in approving boots similar to those on the list that meet the standard.

Also check what the latest waivers from your flt readiness folks, as some have basically said wear anything that meets the basic standard for the army folks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Aug 2021)

dimsum said:


> Can you share the link to the list?



sure, it’s on a AIRGEN IIRC.  I am back at the Sqn next Wed and DVPNI- Free now 😁


----------



## Zoomie (14 Aug 2021)

Some fleets are pushing their own style boots through the OA process, staffing them up and putting them on the list.  The LRP community is one such fleet.


----------



## kev994 (14 Aug 2021)

captloadie said:


> There is a problem with the safe to fly list. It was the most recent one that was available to the Air Staff to fast track the process, but it is out of date and very few of the boots listed are still available, or meet the Cdn requirement (not all boots on the list are approved for CAF use - eg. not the sage green boots or the safety boot versions). Attempts have been made to get an updated list from the USAF, get an in house list created and approved, and to have local support units use their best judgement in approving boots similar to those on the list that meet the standard.
> 
> Also check what the latest waivers from your flt readiness folks, as some have basically said wear anything that meets the basic standard for the army folks.


Yeah, I only found one boot (S2V) in the list that is available and meets the requirements of the canforgen, luckily readily available at Canex for $334 or something like that.


----------



## kev994 (14 Aug 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Some fleets are pushing their own style boots through the OA process, staffing them up and putting them on the list.  The LRP community is one such fleet.


Adding boots to the list? Or declaring that they want everyone to wear the same boot?


----------



## Zoomie (14 Aug 2021)

kev994 said:


> Adding boots to the list? Or declaring that they want everyone to wear the same boot?


Adding their own flavour to acceptable boots.  Expanding the list per se.   Similar to what the rotary wing fleets did to allow Matterhorn style boots years before BOOTFORGEN was imagined.


----------



## Zoomie (14 Aug 2021)

kev994 said:


> Yeah, I only found one boot (S2V) in the list that is available and meets the requirements of the canforgen, luckily readily available at Canex for $334 or something like that.


They seem decent enough.  Been wearing them for a couple of months now.   Zero cost to the user so that’s a plus…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Aug 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Some fleets are pushing their own style boots through the OA process, staffing them up and putting them on the list.  The LRP community is one such fleet.



We are?  Didn't know that...any idea what brand/model?

Ditto on the S2Vs, and they also take my orthotic insoles v-good.


----------



## Zoomie (15 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> We are?  Didn't know that...any idea what brand/model?


No details passed to me - my contact at 1 CAD mentioned it in passing when I was questioning the USAF safe to fly memo.


----------

