# SE and IR for a reconciled MSC



## Lardofthedance (7 May 2012)

A married service couple are having extremely personal difficulties at a time when one member is posted. They did not divorce or seperate. They had extremely private circumstances to deal with. They reconcile their differences while one member is posted away with the children and HG&E. Why would they be not elidgable for SE and IR status and why, if something like this happens would CF some personal go to the extreme to ensure these benefits are not an option for this family? True story and it's a battle.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2012)

If they were not divorced or separated when the member was posted, I would think that they would be entitled.  Ask a clerk, and ask for solid references as to why not.  The only reason I could think of, is if a member moves HG&E without authority.

Check these:

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/db-as/faq/se-faf-eng.asp

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/208-eng.asp#sec-208-997


----------



## Lardofthedance (7 May 2012)

The orders and directives are there and supportive, and throw the CF's commitment to families on the plate as well.  The problem is conjecture and CF members trying to be lawyers.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2012)

Conjecture is _not_ regulation.  Ask the people who are supposed to know (RSM Clerks), not the wannabe lawyers.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 May 2012)

Lardofthedance said:
			
		

> A married service couple are having extremely personal difficulties at a time when one member is posted. They did not divorce or seperate. They had extremely private circumstances to deal with. They reconcile their differences while one member is posted away with the children and HG&E. Why would they be not elidgable for SE and IR status and why, if something like this happens would CF some personal go to the extreme to ensure these benefits are not an option for this family? True story and it's a battle.



Something don't smell right here......



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Ask the people who are supposed to know (RSM Clerks), not the wannabe lawyers.



I concur.


----------



## aesop081 (7 May 2012)

As usual, i am sure that there is more to this than just what the OP is saying here.


----------



## Lardofthedance (7 May 2012)

Yes there is more, but that's where pricvacy comes in. The facts are as they are.


----------



## DAA (7 May 2012)

From what I hear, there is suppose to be a clarification message coming out shortly that deals with IR/TR and MSC in particular.  The latest round of changes to these regulations neglected to address this specific issue.  Based on the "old" regulations, once you become part of an MSC and are not geographically co-located, you would have been entitled to the benefits of "low rate" SE (ie; Free R&Q and the daily amount).

As part of a new MSC, you do not have the ability to colocate with your spouse and that in itself should be considered as "service reasons".  As opposed to only one member being in the military, in which case you do have the ability to move your spouse to your current location.

Given the limited info which is provided, my best guess would be that you were originally receiving SE benefits, then the benefits were ceased and now you are trying to restart them.  In which case, it should be no different than two service members, not geographically co-located and being married for the first time.  One of which should be entitled to claim SE benefits.

Like I mentioned previously, the new regulations make no mention of Married Service Couples.  Hence, today, where one party of an MSC is posted and the other isn't.  The one posted actually has to request IR, believe it or not.....


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> In which case, it should be no different than two service members, not geographically co-located and being married for the first time.  One of which should be entitled to claim SE benefits.



Is that one of things they're considering changing?  I only ask because as it stands right now:



> There is no entitlement to SE if any of the following conditions are satisfied......
> 
> the member marries or forms a common-law partnership, after the change of strength date;



(See the second link in my first post).

So, if the people weren't co-located to begin with, SE can't be claimed when they get married.


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Is that one of things they're considering changing?  I only ask because as it stands right now:
> 
> (See the second link in my first post).
> 
> So, if the people weren't co-located to begin with, SE can't be claimed when they get married.



Except, there's children involved so I don't know how that would affect it. You also need one year of co-habitation to declare common-law status, but that status is immediately grantable upon the birth of a dependant. Wierd anyway. Something seems off. I find it truly interesting that the CF would post a married, apparently never seperated, married service couple away from each other without IR benefits. I'm thinking the marriage / kids occured after COS dates just as you state.

The rule regarding the non-entitlement to SE if you marry or become common law after the COS date has been there for many years however.
_______________________

I think the "change" that DAA has suggested is in the works has more to do with the new rules that state that members must actually live in the same residence together for a full one year period (unless child as per above) in order to be declared common law.

The issue there is that you could see (and there is) military couples who have lived together for 11 months and then see one posted away ... the new rules do NOT allow this couple to be granted common law status under the "seperation due to military reasons". Thus, even though they may own a house together etc, as they did not actually reside with each other for the full 12 month period - no status is granted, no SE is payable or due ... and careers treats them both as completely and utterly single members as that is what their MPRRs would read. They would then need to find themselves posted somehow to the same location at some point in the future to begin actually living together again for another full one year period to be able to declare.

If one was married to a civilian, a move for a month to hit that 1 year mark is possible and more-than-likely to occur. That's impossible for two CF members.

It is a new rule that did not consider the unique circumstances that MSCs (apter: those who are on their way to becoming MSCs) find themselves in; it's an impossibility.


----------



## DAA (8 May 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The rule regarding the non-entitlement to SE if you marry or become common law after the COS date has been there for many years however.
> _______________________
> 
> I think the "change" that DAA has suggested is in the works has more to do with the new rules that state that members must actually live in the same residence together for a full one year period (unless child as per above) in order to be declared common law.
> ...



The new regulations lumped everyone into the same category, which they should never have done.  In the past, if marriage or common-law status occurred "after" your COS date, there was no entitlement to SE benefits, except in the case of Married Service Couples.  For MSC's, one party was automatically entitled to the benefits of Low Rate SE but as it stands right now, there is no entitlement.

When you think about, if you married a non-military member, it is entirely within your ability to relocate them to your current location.  But in the case of married service couples, you cannot relocate either of the parties and this was deemed to be as a result of "service reasons", hence, the automatic entitlement to SE benefits.

It is definitely an issue which needs to be addressed and hopefully it will be, sooner rather than later.  Nevertheless, the op should submit a request to their supporting URS requesting Low Rate SE as part of a Married Service Couple and your supporting URS should be smart enough to staff the request to DCBA for review.

As far as the issue of common-law status is concerned, once you begin co-habitation, the clock starts ticking.  If your partner is also military and one of you is posted prior to the 12 month cohabitation period, then the clock should "reasonably" continue to tick.  I have seen a case such as this in the past and CL status was granted.  Why did DND pick 12 months?  Who knows, possibly a mean average based on the various provincial laws across Canada or to prevent rampant CL requests.  Nevertheless, I have also seen individuals cohabitating for short of the 12 months, get a posting instr, request CL Status, have it denied by their CO, then request a JAG review, resulting in approval.


----------



## Lardofthedance (8 May 2012)

Thanks DAA for the info regarding possible changes.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 May 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Why did DND pick 12 months?  Who knows, possibly a mean average based on the various provincial laws across Canada or to prevent rampant CL requests.  Nevertheless, I have also seen individuals cohabitating for short of the 12 months, get a posting instr, request CL Status, have it denied by their CO, then request a JAG review, resulting in approval.



Might have to do with CRA definition of Common Law?



> Common-law partner
> This applies to a person who is not your spouse (see above), with whom you are living in a conjugal relationship, and to whom at least one of the following situations applies. He or she:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> The new regulations lumped everyone into the same category, which they should never have done.  In the past, if marriage or common-law status occurred "after" your COS date, there was no entitlement to SE benefits, except in the case of Married Service Couples.  For MSC's, one party was automatically entitled to the benefits of Low Rate SE but as it stands right now, there is no entitlement.
> 
> When you think about, if you married a non-military member, it is entirely within your ability to relocate them to your current location.  But in the case of married service couples, you cannot relocate either of the parties and this was deemed to be as a result of "service reasons", hence, the automatic entitlement to SE benefits.
> 
> ...



The rule on no SE for after COS date has been there for quite a few years. Even for MSCs. It was there in 2009 of that I am absolutely certain ... and I am reasonably certain it was there in 2006 as well.


----------



## DAA (10 May 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The rule on no SE for after COS date has been there for quite a few years. Even for MSCs. It was there in 2009 of that I am absolutely certain ... and I am reasonably certain it was there in 2006 as well.



Here is the exact wording from the previous regulations prior to Jan 12 with regards to Married Service Couples.

"Art 2.3 - Service Couple (SC) Married or Common Law after Change of Strength (COS) Date.  When the married or common law partnership recognition is after the COS date, the beneift is limited to the low rate of SA.  There is no reimbursement for accommodation or meals.  Only one member of the SC may claim SA at any time, while the other possesses the HG&E in their principal residence."

In one of my previous posts above, I believe I said that members would be entitled to free R&Q but that is not the case.  Entitlement is for the SE portion only.


----------



## armyvern (10 May 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Here is the exact wording from the previous regulations prior to Jan 12 with regards to Married Service Couples.
> 
> "Art 2.3 - Service Couple (SC) Married or Common Law after Change of Strength (COS) Date.  When the married or common law partnership recognition is after the COS date, the beneift is limited to the low rate of SA.  There is no reimbursement for accommodation or meals.  Only one member of the SC may claim SA at any time, while the other possesses the HG&E in their principal residence."
> 
> In one of my previous posts above, I believe I said that members would be entitled to free R&Q but that is not the case.  Entitlement is for the SE portion only.



Yes, I know. I am one who was subject to above.  

You are preaching to the choir; no accommodations etc was also the rule in 2009 ... when I was subjected to it.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (10 May 2012)

I am only contributing here as I (sort of) went through this. The 'entitlement' for SE would be the same whether a MSC or not (Though I think the 'level' is different). 10 years ago (rules may have changed) I was separated from my wife with a divorce pending. I made this clear to the Ship's Office AND to a lawyer - I was entitled to SE. When my lawyer notified me my divorce was finalized (ironically on Valentine's Day 2002!), my SE stopped for the remainder of the deployed period.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 May 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> 10 years ago (rules may have changed) I was separated from my wife with a divorce pending. I made this clear to the Ship's Office AND to a lawyer - I was entitled to SE. When my lawyer notified me my divorce was finalized (ironically on Valentine's Day 2002!), my SE stopped for the remainder of the deployed period.



This actually makes sense.  CBI 208.997 has the definition of a spouse as "in relation to a member, does not include a spouse who is living separate and apart, *within the meaning of the Divorce Act*, from the member".  The Divorce Act defines a spouse as "either of two persons who are married to each other".

My interpretation of that (and of course, I could be wrong) is that even if a couple is legally _separated_, they are still _married_.  Not to mention, despite the fact of being separated (legally or not), the person on IR (or receiving SE) is still partly (or wholly) financially responsible for their primary residence.

I just wonder if the powers of authority would read it the same.


----------



## CountDC (10 May 2012)

wait for it - DCBA is doing briefs already and CANFORGEN's are staffed.

The powers of authority do not see it the same way.  Just to clarify  - the power of authority is TB not DND (that is stressed a lot in the brief)

There is a little known regulation in the books that require all us to notify our chain of command of any changes in our family situation including if we seperate.  The moment we seperate we are now considered single and all bets are off.  As explained to us in the brief if you are on IR and seperate then your IR is ceased.  

After the brief i really felt sorry for the single parents and MSC.  Lots of little things that in basic terms of my own screws them.  Don't have full custody of the child?  Lost of benefits.  Have someone over 18 living with you?  Lost of benefits.  On IR and your spouse moves?  careful - you may have a lost of benefits.

Apparently over the years we have seen a lot of things come out as approved pending TB approval which should not have been done.  Nothing is approved until TB has actually signed off on it.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 May 2012)

I'd be interested in seeing the TB interpretation then.   Just out of curiosity.

As far as parents who don't have full custody of children and spouses moving while one of them is on IR, I knew about those and don't see an issue with no and/or loss of benefits.  A couple who is separated but still _legally_ married, yes, there I see an issue.


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Apparently over the years we have seen a lot of things come out as approved pending TB approval which should not have been done.  _*Nothing is approved until TB has actually signed off on it.*_



Something that needs to be tattooed on to the arms & face of everyone ever posted to DGCB.  Remember the string of CANFORGENS from early 2011?  Had we initiaited the DGCB Tattoo Reinforcement Informational Program (D-TRIP) that whole ugly mess would have been avoided.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 May 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> This actually makes sense.  CBI 208.997 has the definition of a spouse as "in relation to a member, does not include a spouse who is living separate and apart, *within the meaning of the Divorce Act*, from the member".  The Divorce Act defines a spouse as "either of two persons who are married to each other".
> 
> My interpretation of that (and of course, I could be wrong) is that even if a couple is legally _separated_, they are still _married_.  Not to mention, despite the fact of being separated (legally or not), the person on IR (or receiving SE) is still partly (or wholly) financially responsible for their primary residence.
> 
> I just wonder if the powers of authority would read it the same.




Your interpretation may be off.  The phrase "within the meaning of the Divorce Act" possibly does not refer solely to the definition of a "spouse" but is more likely to be further defining the phrase "spouse who is living separate and apart".  In that case an individual who meets that criteria would not be considered a spouse under CBI 208.997.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/D-3.4/page-4.html#h-4


> Calculation of period of separation
> 
> (3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a),
> 
> ...


----------



## CountDC (10 May 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'd be interested in seeing the TB interpretation then.   Just out of curiosity.
> 
> As far as parents who don't have full custody of children and spouses moving while one of them is on IR, I knew about those and don't see an issue with no and/or loss of benefits.  A couple who is separated but still _legally_ married, yes, there I see an issue.



At first glance but then you get into the situations and realize maybe not.

A couple with no dependants seperate with no intent to get back together - should they still get the SE?

Neither parent has child on full time basis as they settle on a shared custody so neither is recognized as single parent.  Both are posted into theatres - who takes care of the kid?  A single parent may get an allowance to hire someone while the parents in this case are on their own. They also do not get to have them in the system as a dependant as they are not with them on a full time basis or sole custody and thus do not get to claim them on a move.

Our other couple instead of shared custody does a sole custody arrangement where parent 1 has child 10 months of year, parent 2 has child for Jul and Aug.  Parent 2 gets posted across the country in Jul and as they currently have the child on a full time basis they get to claim them on the move.  6 months later parent 1 gets posted and gets to claim the child too as they now have the child on a full time basis.

Single parents also have to be careful when they have a child over 18.  Even though that child may be going to University full time plus working part time to pay for it if the parent gets sent into theatre they will not qualify for the child care allowance as they have an 18 year old living with them.  if that same child was 17 and a bum then they would qualify.  Know any single parents with a boarder?  Hope they have a written lease if they want the benefit.  Course message better say "must stay in quarters" and not just "quarters are available" if you live local.

On SE?  Do not have any of your immediate family members come and stay with you for a total of 30 days in a 365 day period - you no longer qualify for SE.    Have your spouse visit one weekend a month plus xmas holidays and you are done.  Better put them in a hotel instead.

Lots of other little things people wouldn't normally think of that I am sure will not be seen as fair by the members involved.  If you have a chance to attend one of the DCBA briefs I highly recommend it.  Quite an eye opener for a lot of people.

One I did like - no more upgrades to business class for those that do not normally qualify. All those LCol CO's that got used to it are not going to be happy about that.  The old "it's my budget and I get to spend it how I like" just isn't going to cut it anymore.

and  if you are one of those armchair lawyers that look at the book, say "well it doesn't say I can't" and get paid the claim.  Guess what - not happening anymore.  Let's see if I can get the quote - "if it isn't in there then it isn't" or something like that.  Basically if it isn't in the regulation then no you can't do it.

Still want to try for some of them?  Then staff them to DCBA who will be happy to tell you why your answer is no with all the pertinent refs.

In case anyone is wondering - the CDS and staff (or me) may not agree with the policies but do not have the authority to over rule them.  TB sets the policy, CDS gets to set the CF admin procedures.  CDS can have DBCA try to get a change made by TB but you can be sure that is a long and difficult process.  The policies do not just affect the CF but all Federal departments.  I know we were already turned down on one change because of this and DCBA has been working very hard on getting some old things approved.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 May 2012)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Your interpretation may be off.  The phrase "within the meaning of the Divorce Act" possibly does not refer solely to the definition of a "spouse" but is more likely to be further defining the phrase "spouse who is living separate and apart".  In that case an individual who meets that criteria would not be considered a spouse under CBI 208.997.



So the definition of "living separate and apart" is from the Divorce Act, not the definition of "spouse".  Not surprising......

CountDC, I am pretty well aware of the rest of the new rules having been inundated with several emails, including a PowerPoint right after Christmas holidays.  At any rate, I think in some cases, they're going to have grievances.

But, I have no dog in this fight.   :dunno:


----------



## bridges (11 May 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> One I did like - no more upgrades to business class for those that do not normally qualify. All those LCol CO's that got used to it are not going to be happy about that.  The old "it's my budget and I get to spend it how I like" just isn't going to cut it anymore.



I know this is a tangent - but we got the same dir, and at the same time, we were told that for civilian employees we MUST book business class for flights over a certain duration - we couldn't allow the employees to waive it, which most of them wanted to do.  As we periodically send both civ employees and DND mbrs into theatre, sometimes together, it makes for a strange return trip when, after six months working together in the field, one goes back business class (not their preference) and the other economy, on the same plane.

Anyway... yes, I echo the necessity of going to the briefings and paying attention to what's approved by TB and what isn't.  DND has a history of allowing things that later have to be ceased, if not clawed back.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 May 2012)

No.

There are very specific travel instructions issued for public servants that do not necessarily mirror what we do with members of the CF.  When booking travel for mixed groups of civil servants and members of the CF, use extreme caution.


----------



## CountDC (11 May 2012)

"I think in some cases, they're going to have grievances."

I can see a fair number happening.  Gonna be a real interesting time for the next little while.   People will have to realize though just becuase the grievance board approves their grievance and the CDS agrees does not mean they win.  It will still have to go through another loop.


----------



## dapaterson (11 May 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> One I did like - no more upgrades to business class for those that do not normally qualify. All those LCol CO's that got used to it are not going to be happy about that.  The old "it's my budget and I get to spend it how I like" just isn't going to cut it anymore.



If that was happening, there should have been recovery action, disciplinary action and administrative action long ago.

If superiors permitted such things, their heads should be rolling as well.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 May 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If that was happening, there should have been recovery action, disciplinary action and administrative action long ago.
> 
> If superiors permitted such things, their heads should be rolling as well.



We could say that about any number of situations, couldn't we?


----------



## bridges (11 May 2012)

As an aside to the aside, while we're awaiting the CANFORGEN on SE/IR for MSC:   I think it was around the time that Daniel Pearl was killed, when I found myself no longer wanting to refer to "heads rolling", about any issue.  On the day Pearl's death was announced there were a couple of unrelated headlines about punitive action, using that phrase, and the editors got an earful.  Not that they could have known ahead of time, but it just hasn't held any appeal for me since.     

And it's been a long time since I saw anyone flying business class, for DND work.  I'm sure it's done, but getting rarer all the time.


----------

