• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Benefits to Deployed Pers with No Dependants

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
101
Points
730
For the CBI experts here.

I've been told by several finance clerks that I'm entitled to F&E Storage costs on completion of my deployment, due to having no dependants. But a winger of mine (who I replaced in Bahrain) said he found an obscure order that states if said deployed person is getting per diem, then they are not entitled to re-imbursement of storage costs. Is this correct? I'd hate for my buddy to miss out on some money due to a non-existent instruction.

Cheers!
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
10
Points
430
Perhaps in the same section that authorizes storage of a vehicle while deployed and pays for maintenance at end of tour to bring vehicle back on road.  Most deployment clerks don’t even know about that one.
 

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
71
Points
480
Ditch said:
Perhaps in the same section that authorizes storage of a vehicle while deployed and pays for maintenance at end of tour to bring vehicle back on road.  Most deployment clerks don’t even know about that one.

I remember the first time I asked about that, I had a deployment clerk flat out deny such a thing was possible.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
118
Points
680
FSTO said:
For the CBI experts here.

I've been told by several finance clerks that I'm entitled to F&E Storage costs on completion of my deployment, due to having no dependants. But a winger of mine (who I replaced in Bahrain) said he found an obscure order that states if said deployed person is getting per diem, then they are not entitled to re-imbursement of storage costs. Is this correct? I'd hate for my buddy to miss out on some money due to a non-existent instruction.

Cheers!

Maybe ask you buddy for the exact reference so that we can examine it.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
101
Points
730
Makes sense; and here is his reply email.

"Found it. It is CBI Chapter 10 - Foreign Service Instructions, 10.4.02 - Meal Entitlements.

“Section 10.4 applies to an unaccompanied member or a member with no dependants on a deployment or assignment when entitlements to ship or store household goods and effects at public expense does not apply.”

CJOC’s argument to me was if I was to have my HG&E stored and paid for at public expense I would no longer be entitled to the meal allowance, which was obviously much greater than the storage costs."

Is CJOC right? I kinda doubt it, but then I have skin in this game and of course I'm biased.

A more dispassionate assessment would be appreciated.
Cheers!

 
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
168
Points
680
FSTO said:
Makes sense; and here is his reply email.

"Found it. It is CBI Chapter 10 - Foreign Service Instructions, 10.4.02 - Meal Entitlements.

%u201CSection 10.4 applies to an unaccompanied member or a member with no dependants on a deployment or assignment when entitlements to ship or store household goods and effects at public expense does not apply.%u201D

CJOC%u2019s argument to me was if I was to have my HG&E stored and paid for at public expense I would no longer be entitled to the meal allowance, which was obviously much greater than the storage costs."

Is CJOC right? I kinda doubt it, but then I have skin in this game and of course I'm biased.

A more dispassionate assessment would be appreciated.
Cheers!

While it may not be exactly on point, this grievance summary may be useful.

https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2014-118.html
# 2014-118 - Meal Expenses, Military Foreign Service Instruction (MFSI), Relocation Expenses, Storage Fees

Case Summary
F&R Date: 2014-11-28

The grievor, a member without dependents, stated that he was given wrong advice regarding the allowances to which he was entitled while posted overseas. He states that the information he received led him to sell his car at a loss and prevented him from storing his furniture at public expense. More than a year after he was granted the meal allowance, an audit revealed that the allowance had been granted in error on the basis of the belief that he was married and had a dependant. The grievor claimed reimbursement of the meal allowance, to which he contends that he is entitled in accordance with the Military Foreign Service Instruction (MFSI), and he requested compensation for the financial losses he incurred as a result of his posting.

Acting as Initial Authority (IA), the Chief of Staff, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, determined that the grievor was in fact entitled to store his property at public expense notwithstanding the prohibition on movement and storage of household goods and effects (HG and E) clearly set out in the grievor's posting instruction. The IA concluded that the grievor was not entitled to the meal allowance since he was entitled to storage of his goods at taxpayer expense. Noting as well that the grievor had divorced shortly before his posting, the IA acknowledged that this situation had been administered erroneously and that the errors could have been avoided if all of the parties had been duly informed in a timely manner of the change to his marital status.

The Committee noted that the posting instruction clearly indicated that the grievor had no dependants and prohibited both the shipping and the storage of his HG and E. The Committee found that the grievor was entitled to the meal allowance during his deployment overseas because his situation fully met the eligibility criteria set out in Chapter 10 of the MFSI. The Committee also found that by forbidding the grievor to move and store his HG and E, he had been treated unfairly and differently from other CAF members, in that reasonable expenses incurred by him in connection with or resulting from his posting to Haiti were not repaid to him.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) grant the meal allowance to the grievor for the duration of his posting abroad and, in addition, review his situation with a view to reimbursing eligible and reasonable expenses incurred by him as a result of his posting. Regarding the loss incurred through the sale of his personal vehicle, the Committee recommended that the CDS forward the file to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation, for assessment purposes in accordance with the Treasury Board's Directive on Claims and Ex Gratia Payments.

CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2016%u201306%u201324

The CDS partly upheld the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. Regarding the meal allowance, the CDS said that he agreed with the Committee's conclusion that the grievor's posting message prohibited both the shipment and storage of his HG&E and that, as a result, he was eligible for this allowance under the MFSI. The CDS did not agree with the Committee's conclusion regarding the sale of the grievor's vehicle. Judging that this was a personal decision, that the case contained no elements demonstrating that the grievor had lost money during this transaction and that the grievor had not provided any information on the value of his vehicle at the time of sale, CDS disagreed with the Committee's recommendation that the case be transferred to DCCL for evaluation.
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
1
Points
230
The first question I would ask is where in the policy does it authorize you to store F&E at public expense (PMV not being considered F&E as per policy).
Chapter 10 allows for storage of F&E on a posting, but not an attach posting or period of TD. You (and the previous member in the position) would have been entitled to custodial fees and storage of a PMV at crown expense if there were no dependants living at the normal place of residence.

Now there are likely plenty of other policies that are at cross purposes with this one (such as some bases make living in members vacate single quarters when on deployment) and IR policy for those who separated from their NOK and F&E.

Your best bet would be to contact the DOURs at CJOC to confirm your true entitlements. Your local "fin" clerks will not have the most up to date and accurate information (and as FIN clerks vs HRAs, they are no longer the policy specialists for this type of activity).
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
101
Points
730
captloadie said:
The first question I would ask is where in the policy does it authorize you to store F&E at public expense (PMV not being considered F&E as per policy).
Chapter 10 allows for storage of F&E on a posting, but not an attach posting or period of TD. You (and the previous member in the position) would have been entitled to custodial fees and storage of a PMV at crown expense if there were no dependants living at the normal place of residence.

Now there are likely plenty of other policies that are at cross purposes with this one (such as some bases make living in members vacate single quarters when on deployment) and IR policy for those who separated from their NOK and F&E.

Your best bet would be to contact the DOURs at CJOC to confirm your true entitlements. Your local "fin" clerks will not have the most up to date and accurate information (and as FIN clerks vs HRAs, they are no longer the policy specialists for this type of activity).

Done, now waiting for the answer.

Here is the paragraph in my posting message regarding the applicable CBI:

B. IAW CBI 208.84(5) STORAGE OF FURNITURE AND EFFECTS - MEMBERS
WITHOUT DEPENDANTS. A MEMBER WITHOUT DEPENDANTS IS AUTHORIZED TO
STORE FURNITURE AND EFFECTS WHEN THE CDS PROHIBITS THE MOVEMENT OF
FURNITURE AND EFFECTS. MEMBER WILL RETURN TO THE CURRENT GEO
LOCATION
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
480
with that you are entitled to storage of F&E under the CBI and not the meal allowance under MFSI.

If you really wanted to get picky on things and the wording - even if you do not put your stuff into storage and claim it there is no entitlement to the meal allowance.  The wording in the MFSI is a bit fuzzy which always causes issues as people see it their way. 

when entitlements to ship or store household goods and effects at public expense do not apply

it could be said that in your case as the message does indicate the authorization the fact that you do not claim the authorized entitlement does not mean you qualify for another.  The storage does apply just that you have not claimed it.    Of course there are those on the other side that would say as you did not claim then it does not apply and thus the meal allowance is an entitlement. 

I fully support  FSTO - contact, get the answer in writing and hold onto it.    Regardless of FSA or HRA neither trade are really policy specialists for this, most I have talked to have never even heard of the MFSI's (training failure?).   
 
Top