Benefits Cut...

[armyvern]

Oh but they are on IR Status...

Just to clarify, my previous MSCs are not on IR status, but are treated the same and paid SE benefits IAW IR policy (even though we are not ourselves IR).

Regarding the 2nd CANFORGEN out on these cuts, I had posted that I consulted with CClerk, who went to DCBA who confirmed that these CANFORGENs regarding SE benefits and cuts are applicable to MSCs even though we are not IR precisely because we are entitled to our benefits IAW and as per IR policy.

Although this latest CANFORGEN clarifies that there are three groups, it still does not indicate any different application of SE benefits to any of those groups.

 

[McG]

Although this latest CANFORGEN clarifies that there are three groups, it still does not indicate any different application of SE benefits to any of those groups.

The CANFORGEN did state that there were three categories of DHGE movement related to a member who is posted (it made no mention of three groups/types of separated personnel as your post stated and, while there are links, the categories of DHGE movement and the groups of separated personnel are not directly analogous).  After listing the three categories of DHGE movement, the CANFORGEN in the next line identifies IR as something different.  Paragraph 9 of the CANFORGEN goes on to differentiate between SE and IR, pointing back to CBI 208.997 – SEPARATION EXPENSE as the authority for SE entitlement.  It is clear that the author of this CANFORGEN understands what IR is as something distinct from SE and the various types of DHGE movement.  The changes announced in the CANFORGEN are explicitly made to IR – they cannot be extrapolated to other SE entitled pers by a whim of the administering staff.

… these CANFORGENs regarding SE benefits and cuts are applicable to MSCs even though we are not IR precisely because we are entitled to our benefits IAW and as per IR policy.

No.  There is no IR policy that governs MSC entitlement to SE.  Rather there is a SE policy that grants entitlement based on a number of criteria.  This means that changes to IR are not automatically transposed on-top of other SE entitled members.  You’ve seen the policy; it is CBI 208.997 – SEPARATION EXPENSE.  It may be pedantic, but if your SMEs are telling you that you are governed under an IR policy, it is a sign that they are being sloppy in their interpretation and understanding of the policies that apply to you. 

Regarding the 2nd CANFORGEN out on these cuts, I had posted that I consulted with CClerk, who went to DCBA who confirmed that ...

I have been very successful on many occasions in getting my COs what they want and/or protecting my soldiers by demonstrating that higher staff officers are applying/enforcing their policies as they want or imagine those policies to be.  DCBA in particular is bad for this.  I personally saved myself several thousand dollars by showing in a grievance that DCBA was not applying its policies as written, and most recently (and more significantly) as an assisting officer I developed arguments that saved one of my soldiers six figures for DCBA attempting to impose policy as it wanted/imagined and not as it was written.

Vern,
Regardless of if you are hearing it from your CM and some desk officer in DCBA, you are settling for wrong answers.  Hold people’s feet to the fire and make them account for what is actually written in the CANFORGEN.  Don’t accept people telling you policy as they want or imagine it to be.

The only way that MSC will be held responsible for the costs of their separation at the four year mark will be if a new CANFORGEN or policy is published.

 

[DAA]

I fully understand the IR and SE policies.  I am just saying that what happened to us this past APS was well out in left field and had me scratching my head.  Here is what we had to deal with:

a.  the Posting Instruction identified our guy as part of an MSC and his move of DHG&E was tagged as "Restricted";

b.  para 6 of the Posting Instr states and I quote "members spouse is MCpl X who will be posted to CFB X with both members F&E.  Therefore it is expected, MCpl Y will apply for IR status."

c.  then from DCBA "there are currently no provisions within the latest policy that address the issue of MSC's, therefore, in order for them to receive SE benefits, they will have to go through the IR application process as it currently reads.  There is not much more that can be done until the Mil Pers Instr is promulgated from DGMC."

Made no sense what so ever to me but to get the member his benefits, we still had to do it, whether right or wrong.....

 

[bridges]

I fully understand the IR and SE policies.  I am just saying that what happened to us this past APS was well out in left field and had me scratching my head.  Here is what we had to deal with:

a.  the Posting Instruction identified our guy as part of an MSC and his move of DHG&E was tagged as "Restricted";

b.  para 6 of the Posting Instr states and I quote "members spouse is MCpl X who will be posted to CFB X with both members F&E.  Therefore it is expected, MCpl Y will apply for IR status."

c.  then from DCBA "there are currently no provisions within the latest policy that address the issue of MSC's, therefore, in order for them to receive SE benefits, they will have to go through the IR application process as it currently reads.  There is not much more that can be done until the Mil Pers Instr is promulgated from DGMC."

Made no sense what so ever to me but to get the member his benefits, we still had to do it, whether right or wrong.....

It sounds to me like MSCs' expenses related to CF-imposed separation should be automatically approved by the org that posts them apart.  IMO those members shouldn't have to apply for anything. 

It doesn't make sense to try to fit MSCs into the "boxes" designed for other situations - and especially not to compare MSCs to members who are choosing IR.  Unless the CF feels that it's the MSC's choice to be married in the first place?    :facepalm:    :2c:

 

[Paladium]

2 questions

I see all this info on IR but with respect to SE - my benefits still are ending in Feb 13? As in now stands?

I have been on IR for a few months what happens if I want to end it and have my family move with me here?  What do I have to do - initially the base authorized my IR for the first year.

Thanks

 

[DAA]

2 questions

I see all this info on IR but with respect to SE - my benefits still are ending in Feb 13? As in now stands?

I have been on IR for a few months what happens if I want to end it and have my family move with me here?  What do I have to do - initially the base authorized my IR for the first year.

Thanks

Check with your supporting orderly room.  To have the IR lifted you will first need to secure accommodations for your family.  Once this is done, then you can submit a request to have the IR lifted and then carry on with your relocation.

 

[McG]

I have been on IR for a few months what happens if I want to end it and have my family move with me here?  What do I have to do - initially the base authorized my IR for the first year.

Yes you can.  See para 15 of CFAO 209-28 for how.

 

[Paladium]

Thanks

 

[big45-70]

Has there been any update on this?  For those of us on course and married will our rations and quarters be cut after Febuary 1st?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There is no CANFORGEN out yet. 

Unofficially, the only thing I've seen is this post from a different thread. 

Perhaps a merge here Mods?

 

[DAA]

Seeing as the CANFORGEN came out sometime ago, I am actually surprised that there has been nothing to address the issue of Married Service Couples (MSC) not being co-located.

Which makes me wonder if the thought process on high has taken on a dramatic new look?    Such as --------- The CF posts you where ever and when ever they need to.  If you are part of an MSC not being co-located, oh well the CM tried to accommodate, it was your choice to marry another service member just like anyone else who got married, so you have some serious choices to make.    Only a thought!!!

I get the feeling that this may very be what is happening.......(pendulum swing).

 

[technophile]

I know I am leaving the door open for a blast of S*** from a few members here.

But, I fail to see the difference between a MSC and a military member and their spouse with civilian employment with regards to whether or not separation expenses and meals being cut is fair or not.

Should the advice " if  you are posted and your spouse doesn't want to leave their job then get out " apply to both groups here ?  If you are a MSC and posted apart, then shouldn't one make the " family sacrifice" and release ?

Some members spouses have put significant time into achieving their career goals, ( as I am sure military pers have ) only to be treated as second class citizens and forced to " be the good wife " and follow their husbands. ( or wives, whatever the case may be )  I don't see how a MSC differ in this regard and should and are asking to be  treated as "special".  Of course, the rules currently apply to both parties, but here I am hearing more arguing on this forum  from MSC who feel they should be treated differently.

I really feel for both groups in this situation.  I will be a tough decision this posting season when members are forced to chose their career or their family.  I am not choosing one side or the other, I just think the same rules should apply.

 

[DAA]

I know I am leaving the door open for a blast of S*** from a few members here.

But, I fail to see the difference between a MSC and a military member and their spouse with civilian employment with regards to whether or not separation expenses and meals being cut is fair or not.

Should the advice " if  you are posted and your spouse doesn't want to leave their job then get out " apply to both groups here ?  If you are a MSC and posted apart, then shouldn't one make the " family sacrifice" and release ?

Some members spouses have put significant time into achieving their career goals, ( as I am sure military pers have ) only to be treated as second class citizens and forced to " be the good wife " and follow their husbands. ( or wives, whatever the case may be )  I don't see how a MSC differ in this regard and should and are asking to be  treated as "special".  Of course, the rules currently apply to both parties, but here I am hearing more arguing on this forum  from MSC who feel they should be treated differently.

I really feel for both groups in this situation.  I will be a tough decision this posting season when members are forced to chose their career or their family.  I am not choosing one side or the other, I just think the same rules should apply.

And this is exactly what I think may be the "new thought".......

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I know I am leaving the door open for a blast of S*** from a few members here.

But, I fail to see the difference between a MSC and a military member and their spouse with civilian employment with regards to whether or not separation expenses and meals being cut is fair or not.

Should the advice " if  you are posted and your spouse doesn't want to leave their job then get out " apply to both groups here ?  If you are a MSC and posted apart, then shouldn't one make the " family sacrifice" and release ?

Some members spouses have put significant time into achieving their career goals, ( as I am sure military pers have ) only to be treated as second class citizens and forced to " be the good wife " and follow their husbands. ( or wives, whatever the case may be )  I don't see how a MSC differ in this regard and should and are asking to be  treated as "special".  Of course, the rules currently apply to both parties, but here I am hearing more arguing on this forum  from MSC who feel they should be treated differently.

I really feel for both groups in this situation.  I will be a tough decision this posting season when members are forced to chose their career or their family.  I am not choosing one side or the other, I just think the same rules should apply.

Disagree.  In a MSC situation where they are posted to different locations, has their employer really left them with a choice?  "quit your job" isn't really a choice now is it?  What if you are 18-19 years into a IE20 and close to an earned pension?

The difference really comes down to the word "choice", and MSC posted to 2 different locations are not left with a REALISTIC one ('release or suck it up' doesn't fall into the def of realistic in this context IMO).

:2c:

 

[TiffyMurmur]

Has anyone actually looked at what the budget cuts are specifically?
There was someone who posted a link in a different thread (I can't find it again for the life of me) that stated every single change that will start Feb 1st.

Two of the changes popped out at me, 1 is that they will no longer pay lawyers fees or pay to break your mortgage upon a new posting, the other was about the rations. Everyone, whether deployed, temporary posted, or on training (for whatever reason) will now be paying for rations. Married CF personnel will be exempt from paying for their quarters Only.

Just what I read. Don't know how true it is.

I am not interested in the separation benefit, but having to pay for rations will set my family behind a tad

 

[PMedMoe]

There was someone who posted a link in a different thread (I can't find it again for the life of me) that stated every single change that will start Feb 1st.

It's right here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106874.0.html

 

[Eye In The Sky]

These changes, like all negative changes, will result in a lower GAFF for a lot of ppl, IMO.

But, they don't care about that.   

 

[TiffyMurmur]

It's right here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106874.0.html

Thanks for grabbing that for me 

 

[Quellefille]

Has anyone actually looked at what the budget cuts are specifically?
There was someone who posted a link in a different thread (I can't find it again for the life of me) that stated every single change that will start Feb 1st.

Two of the changes popped out at me, 1 is that they will no longer pay lawyers fees or pay to break your mortgage upon a new posting

Lawyers fees and penalties aren't covered anymore because we live in a world of portable mortgages.  if you are in the CF, you should know better than to sign a non-portable mortgage.  There are issues with this cause people have unexpected problems(banks refusing to blend and port the mortgage when they move to a place where the housing costs are lower or higher)  They still pay the fees tp buy and sell the home, just not the fees for breaking your mortgage

 

[Strike]

Lawyers fees and penalties aren't covered anymore because we live in a world of portable mortgages.  if you are in the CF, you should know better than to sign a non-portable mortgage.  There are issues with this cause people have unexpected problems(banks refusing to blend and port the mortgage when they move to a place where the housing costs are lower or higher)  They still pay the fees tp buy and sell the home, just not the fees for breaking your mortgage

And so what about those who are posted out to areas where they are not permitted to buy, like OUTCAN?  Sure, we should all be able to port our mortgages, but sometimes you still have to break one and it's not a choice.