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

Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18

IceBlue

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
8
Points
530
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

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
400
Points
910
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

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
8
Points
530
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?
 

Loch Sloy!

Jr. Member
Reaction score
18
Points
130
"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

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
107
Points
880
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

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
8
Points
530
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,222
Points
1,060
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?

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.

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!

Jr. Member
Reaction score
18
Points
130
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,019
Points
1,060
[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!

Jr. Member
Reaction score
18
Points
130
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

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,242
Points
1,160
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'  :whistle:
 

garb811

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
8
Points
530
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

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
400
Points
910
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

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
107
Points
880
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

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
8
Points
530
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"

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.
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.
 
Top