Author Topic: Lost - Missing Kit ( merged )  (Read 69009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline brokendude

  • New Member
  • **
  • 670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 33
Re: Lost - Missing Kit ( merged )
« Reply #150 on: October 24, 2018, 15:07:54 »
Just an update.   I recently was found to be responsible for the loss of my kit, even though I was literally hospitalized and not present when it went missing.   CO ordered me to pay full maximum of $250.  What a greasy move.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 58,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 985
  • Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Re: Lost - Missing Kit ( merged )
« Reply #151 on: October 24, 2018, 15:41:30 »
Already tried, they Haven't seen anything. I think I need to have it replaced, but I have no idea how much it costs. Is it possible to have only one glove get replaced?

That would require another set being split somewhere else along the line, so typically no. (Although I personally know of one instance when I worked in Supply where an item in a set was damaged and the good item was switched out to a member who was in a similar situation as you. That isn't the norm though as everything needs to be accounted for.)
« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 15:45:26 by BeyondTheNow »
"Stop worrying about getting back to who you were before it all went wrong. To heal is to understand that the person you've since become is the one who's most capable of doing whatever it is you were put here to do."~SR

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 158,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,399
Re: Lost - Missing Kit ( merged )
« Reply #152 on: October 24, 2018, 15:44:53 »
Just an update.   I recently was found to be responsible for the loss of my kit, even though I was literally hospitalized and not present when it went missing.   CO ordered me to pay full maximum of $250.  What a greasy move.

You don't have to accept the CO's decision and can refuse.  The CO/UNIT will then need to staff it higher.
QR&O 38.03 is your friend here.  I am on mobile but do a site:army.ca search on Google for the QR&O. Some good posts out there and in this thread by Pusser earlier to your original posts
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline 211RadOp

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,358
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 845
  • Now is the tyme....damn missed again....Now is the
Re: Lost - Missing Kit ( merged )
« Reply #153 on: October 25, 2018, 07:43:35 »
You don't have to accept the CO's decision and can refuse.  The CO/UNIT will then need to staff it higher.
QR&O 38.03 is your friend here.  I am on mobile but do a site:army.ca search on Google for the QR&O. Some good posts out there and in this thread by Pusser earlier to your original posts

Link to 38.03
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-38.page#cha-038-03
“Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes." Jim Carrey
"Do unto others, then run." Benny Hill
"There's no better feeling in the world than a warm pizza box on your lap." Kevin James

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,796
Re: Lost - Missing Kit ( merged )
« Reply #154 on: October 25, 2018, 10:42:18 »
Just an update.   I recently was found to be responsible for the loss of my kit, even though I was literally hospitalized and not present when it went missing.   CO ordered me to pay full maximum of $250.  What a greasy move.

A commanding officer has absolutely NO authority to order that administrative deduction.  He can ask, but he can't make you.  QR&O 38.03 (Administrative Deductions) states:

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this article, where he is of the opinion that liability under article 38.01 exists and that reimbursement is warranted under the circumstances, an administrative deduction from the pay account of the officer or non-commissioned member concerned in an amount sufficient to make reimbursement in full or in part may be ordered by:

a.  a commanding officer, except when

    i.  the amount of the proposed deduction exceeds $ 200,

   ii.  the officer or non-commissioned member concerned objects on the grounds that the proposed deduction is unwarranted or excessive, or

   iii.  a loss of or deficiency in public funds is involved;


It is perhaps convoluted, but this effectively means that a CO cannot order an administrative deduction in ANY amount.  All the member has to do is object.  If the member objects, the CO has no choice but to forward this up chain of command.  QR&O 38.03 goes on to state that a Formation Commander can only ORDER a deduction of $50, a Commander of a Command $100 and the CDS $250.  At each level the member can object, which forces the issue to the next level.  The buck (well, 250 of them) only stops at the CDS.

It is also worth noting that QR&O 38.03 also states:

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (8), before any administrative deduction is ordered under paragraph (2) or increased under paragraph (9), the officer or non-commissioned member concerned shall be given the opportunity to object on the grounds that the proposed deduction is unwarranted or excessive.

(4) Where wilfulness is not involved and liability arises under subparagraph (1)(a) or (b) or paragraph (2) of article 38.01 only by reason of negligence on the part of an officer or non-commissioned member:

a.  no administrative deduction shall be imposed if the negligence is of a minor character, being negligence that does not involve recklessness, undue carelessness or intentional commission of a wrongful act or an intentional omission to perform a legal duty; or

b.  where the negligence is not of a minor character, an administrative deduction ordered under paragraph (2) shall not exceed i.where the amount involved is $ 25 or less the full amount,

   ii.  where the amount involved is more than $ 25 and not more than $ 100, one-half of the amount or $ 25 whichever is the greater,

   iii.  where the amount involved is more than $ 100 and not more than $ 300, one-third of the amount or $ 50 whichever is the greater,

   iv.  where the amount involved is more than $ 300 and not more than $ 500, one-quarter of the amount or $ 100 whichever is the greater, or

   v.  where the amount involved is more than $ 500, one-fifth of the amount or $ 125 whichever is the greater, subject to the limitation that where liability arises out of his negligence in operating a motor vehicle the deduction shall not exceed $ 250.


The CO in question (if what the OP is saying is true) seems to have missed the mark on a number of points.


Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 275,911
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,500
Policy on LSR and paying for items as a kit
« Reply #155 on: February 10, 2019, 10:08:46 »
Question about LSRs and return policy.

A member is issued a rucksack, with all the components including pockets.

The member has to return the item but is missing a pocket.  The member is told the item complete is considered a kit so he has to put in a LSR for the whole item and would be charged money for the whole set up and not just a pocket.

If the member submits the LSR for the lost pocket/kit and has to pay whatever % for the whole kit does the member hold on to the rest of the kit since he's "paying for it" or would he have to return all the other parts, even though he's technically paying for it?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 10:20:43 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,796
Re: Policy on LSR and paying for items as a kit
« Reply #156 on: February 12, 2019, 13:46:17 »
Question about LSRs and return policy.

A member is issued a rucksack, with all the components including pockets.

The member has to return the item but is missing a pocket.  The member is told the item complete is considered a kit so he has to put in a LSR for the whole item and would be charged money for the whole set up and not just a pocket.

If the member submits the LSR for the lost pocket/kit and has to pay whatever % for the whole kit does the member hold on to the rest of the kit since he's "paying for it" or would he have to return all the other parts, even though he's technically paying for it?

You should turn in what you have, but the loss report should explain in detail what happened.  There is no way you should (or actually can) be held accountable for the cost of the entire kit.  See the above posts.  Your CO cannot order you to pay anything (although he can ask nicely).  You always have the right to object and you can in fact offer to pay a depreciated value (i.e. the cost of the missing pocket).  There is not a Stores Section in the entire CAF that does not have a bin full of replacement parts scavenged from other rucksacks that have been turned in with missing pieces.  A replacement pocket can be found for sure!
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.