Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18

[ballz]

I never wrote the CCA’s CANFORGEN that says the chain of command has to authorize the necessity. If I wrote the CANFORGEN, it would say “you get one pair of boots per year, go!” so take your virtue signalling and fly the fuck somewhere else.

If my boss tells me I am responsible to ensure “xyz” in a process, then now it’s my job to figure out how and ensure I do that. You can’t say “I accept the risk” and also “you’re responsible for this” in the same sentence.

For what it’s worth, my recommendation as “No one has had a good pair of boot provided to them by the Queen in over 10 years, therefore everyone has a legitimate necessity. Free for all on 15 Aug, have a claim parade if req’d.” So again, take your high and mightiness somewhere else. My opinion aside, the CANFORGEN does poorly communicate intent. If the intent was to “accept the risk” but then directs lower Commanders to ensure there is a legitimate necessity in accordance with a set of guidelines.

Another unclear comms piece to this is that I *believe* that “establishing a legitimate need” was only meant for the initial purchase, which was to prevent 60k pers from buying a pair of boots on August 15th. That said, this is not communicated clearly. I believe that’s the case, but it does not say that in subsequent years this requirement will not be necessary. That’s what it implies, but it’s not spelled out, and as I said, poor reading comprehension skills are CAF-wide.

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.

Yeah, except all travel claims *must* be authorized personally by a Commanding Officer, etc… Yeah, no control measures around travel at all.

You're right, not all things need to be visually determined. But we're talking about *boots,* so again, besides "hope for the best," please explain how a Chain of Command confirms/authorizes the necessity without visually inspecting? Again, I'm not supporting the idea, I'm merely stating what's written in the damn order from CCA.

 

[Old EO Tech]

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.

Yes I'm beginning to regret posting on this subject.  Seems people forget that subordinate formation Commanders are allowed to be more perceptive in issuing direction just not less.  The CCA direction does not remove the ability of the Comd 3 Div, for instance from issuing more detailed direction.

 

[runormal]

You're right, not all things need to be visually determined. But we're talking about *boots,* so again, besides "hope for the best," please explain how a Chain of Command confirms/authorizes the necessity without visually inspecting? Again, I'm not supporting the idea, I'm merely stating what's written in the damn order from CCA.

Why not "hope for the best?" This initiative has essentially said that all of the boots that the CAF has tried to procure over the better part of a decade have been a failed experiment. So then does it really matter how worn out your issued boots are? If they were the "perfect" boot then we would still be issuing them to every soldier. We aren't, so I don't know why anyone is trying to fuck this up for the troops.

I do realize that you said this above and my comments aren't directed at you, just the idea.

 

[Georgian Bay]

C. THE LOCAL CHAIN OF COMMAND WILL ASSIST THE MEMBER WITH KEY INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE MEMBER CAN BE EXPECTED TO OPERATE IN. GUIDANCE FROM THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS NOT THE SAME AS ISSUING SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON THE TYPE OR MODEL OF FOOTWEAR TO BE PURCHASED.

The author of this CANFORGEN thought long and hard about what to put in. This paragraph is designed to stop the Chain of Command from making up their own rules.

No, you cannot delay the process.
No, you cannot select styles.
No, you cannot force soldiers to use a kit shop.

 

[Adam]

Has the scale of issue for combat boots changed?

I was under the impression that it was 2 pairs of general purpose, 2 pairs of wet weather, 2 pairs of desert, and one pair of mukluks?

I'm wearing my issued deserts but unfortunately I'll need new wet weathers soon enough.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

- This boot policy reminds me of units saying "you need a weekend leave pass" when the CAF Leave Policy signed off by CMP says "no leave pass required for normal weekends off".  Subordinates commanders having the ability to make things more restrictive argument.  Can anyone provide an actual reference that states that word for word or even close?

- If 3 Div is 'issuing their own directive', maybe the Officer who authorized the CANFORGEN should call the 3 Div Comd and ask why he/she thinks they have the authority to counter direction from higher.  *If* the folks at 3 Div think there is more clarification required, wouldn't the best COA be to address questions to the Author/authority of the policy, who could then updated/amend/etc the CANFORGEN for everyone's benefit?  Or, the answer might be "no, it was written specifically like that for a reason.  get the fuck on with it".

- *must purchase from kit shop*:  seriously?  I'd ignore that one flat out.  That defeats the purpose of people being able to get boots that work best 'for them'.  Likely an attempt to maintain uniformity or something.  Fuckin' idiotic regardless.

- Buddy that bought cowboy boots (if that happened), doesn't get reimbursed and is considered for some extras for being a smartass. 

- I was able to get 2 pair of LPO temperate safety boots replaced by dropping into Supply, who then told me to email a specific Sup Tech who does LPO boots.  I never spoke to the Sup Tech on the phone, face to face and no one said "I need to inspect your boots to determine if they are in need of replacement", that was for $400+ dollars of boots.  No one suspected me of trying to milk the system.  When the boots came in, I brought my used ones to supply, they took them, scrapped them (despite what the SAM says about special sizes, I don't need XX pairs of worn out safety boots when I retire, so I return mine) and handed me 2 new pair still in the boxes.

Being treated like an adult - priceless.

 

[Gunner98]

[rant]
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...  [/rant]

The CANFORGEN states:

D. THE MANAGEMENT OF CBT BOOTS WILL EVENTUALLY TRANSITION TO AN ON-LINE MODEL, SIMILAR TO THE ONE CURRENTLY IN PLACE FOR DEU ITEMS. THIS TRANSITION WILL BE EXECUTED OVER SEVERAL YEARS, AND WILL OCCUR IN 3 PHASES:

(1). PHASE 1. ENTITLED CAF MEMBERS WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE CBT BOOTS OF THEIR CHOICE BASED ON SIMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA AND LOCAL CHAIN OF COMMAND GUIDANCE, AND BE REIMBURSED FOR THIS EXPENSE UP TO A PRE-DETERMINED MAXIMUM DOLLAR VALUE. THIS IS AN INTERIM POLICY THAT WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL A PRE-QUALIFIED COMBAT BOOT PRODUCT LIST CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE.

So local command guidance starts at Div, Bde, Base, Unit - doesn't it?

 

[garb811]

Well, for one, I have never heard of a Division, or even a Bde, being referred to as a "local chain of command". In my experience, the local chain of command refers to the chain of command internal to a unit, or sub-element of a unit, within a geographical location.  Even when the Div or Bde HQ is collocated with a unit, I have never heard of either being referred to as the, "local chain of command."

If you read the FAQ, the idea of what "guidance" was going to be required is there:

14. What if I am unsure if my boots meet the requirements for my job?

You are highly encouraged to seek guidance from your chain of command when selecting combat boots and remember that the boots that you purchase must meet the requirements listed in the CANFORGEN. Non-compliant boots will not be reimbursed.

It is also clearly spelled out in the CANFORGEN that "guidance" on what an acceptable boot is does not equate to giving direction on what boot the member will buy.

Guidance is not the issuance of direction or altering the commander's intent, it is the provision of advice.  If the intent was for subordinate commanders to issue their own orders and directions, it would have been worded along the lines of, "...and direction of the chain of command." or something. 

 

[garb811]

Got this from a clerk friend...

 

[Gunner98]

Well, for one, I have never heard of a Division, or even a Bde, being referred to as a "local chain of command". In my experience, the local chain of command refers to the chain of command internal to a unit, or sub-element of a unit, within a geographical location.  Even when the Div or Bde HQ is collocated with a unit, I have never heard of either being referred to as the, "local chain of command."

garb811, my experience is much different than yours working in a national or international HQ. CANFORGENs provide announcements and direction that requires the consensus of a lot of people to draft and execute.  Everything outside the walls of the headquarters that drafted the message becomes a 'local' chain of command issue as the reader must deal with all levels above them. 

This particular CANFORGEN 127/18 - COMD CA 015/18 is a "program announcement by the Commander Canadian Army" with an aim to provide implementation direction.  It is not an order from the PM, MND or CDS that applies to all soldiers of the CAF. 

Drafting a CANFORGEN that will result in specific action by an individual soldier without further guidance from 'local chains of command' is quite difficult,  everyone who wears Temperate Combat Boots is not a member of the Army, for examples thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases.  They require local direction and likely funding because I don't think the Army is paying for their boots?

 

[hambley92]

Drafting a CANFORGEN that will result in specific action by an individual soldier without further guidance from 'local chains of command' is quite difficult,  everyone who wears Temperate Combat Boots is not a member of the Army, for examples thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases.  They require local direction and likely funding because I don't think the Army is paying for their boots?

This doesn't address the whole CoC direction/guidance argument, but just wanted to point out that actually the CANFORGEN includes the fin coding so while my unit doesn't fall under CA, we will most definitely be charging our boot charges to them  :nod:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This particular CANFORGEN 127/18 - COMD CA 015/18 is a "program announcement by the Commander Canadian Army" with an aim to provide implementation direction.  It is not an order from the PM, MND or CDS that applies to all soldiers of the CAF.

Not all CANFORGENs apply to each and every individual member of the CAF, but they apply to the CAF as a whole, no?  Isn't that why it is called a Canadian Forces General Order?

Drafting a CANFORGEN that will result in specific action by an individual soldier without further guidance from 'local chains of command' is quite difficult,  everyone who wears Temperate Combat Boots is not a member of the Army, for examples thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases.  They require local direction and likely funding because I don't think the Army is paying for their boots?

I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.  The info was covered unless I'm reading it wrong.  It is not only based on where you're posted, but what SOI you're entitled to.  If your SOI includes...

CANFORGEN 127/18 - COMD CA 015/18
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: COMBAT BOOT REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM
REFS: A. SCALE OF ISSUES: D01301 (CA), D01341 (RCAF), D11115 (DEPLOYED OP), D01116 (OFFICER CADETS), D01119 (ABORIGINAL PRGM), D01307 (CDN MP).

...then you're thru the first hoop.

Next hoop.  What specific boots does this cover?

THIS PROGRAM IS FOR TEMPERATE CBT BOOTS ONLY (NSNS 21-872-4291, 20-001-9296, 20-005-2273, 20-001-2410 OR 20-008-2050).  SAFETY BOOTS, NAVAL CBT BOOTS AND OTHER TYPES OF  OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENCE SUPPLY CHAIN (DSC) OR OTHER MEANS AS APPLICABLE

Seems even clearer;  if my SOI entitles me to those stock numbers, and I have those types of TCBs issued, the program covers it.

Next hoop.  What entitlement would I have, depending on the unit I'm posted to?

ENTITLEMENTS

A. ENTITLEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT IS BASED ON A TIERED SYSTEM WHICH TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH THE EXPECTED USAGE OF COMBAT BOOTS AND THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED.

(1). TIER 1: MEMBERS BELONGING TO A CMBG (INCLUDING PERMANENTLY AFFILIATED UNITS WITH A FORMAL COMMAND RELATIONSHIP TO THE CMBG), AS WELL AS ALL MEMBERS BELONGING TO THE CCSB, CMTC, CDTCS, CRPG HQ STAFF, CTC, JTF-X, CANSOFCOM UNITS AND ANY PRIMARY RESERVE MEMBER ON CLASS B SERVICE WITH THE AFORMENTIONNED ORGANIZATIONS.

(2). TIER 2: MEMBERS NOT LISTED ABOVE, BUT WHO WEAR COMBATS AS THE DRESS OF THE DAY AND ARE COVERED BY REF A, AS WELL AS CANSOFCOM HQ, DIVISIONAL HQS, CCSB HQ, CBG HQ AND UNITS, AND ANY PRIMARY RESERVE MEMBER ON CLASS A OR B SERVICE WITH THE AFORMENTIONNED ORGANIZATIONS.

(3). TIER 3: MEMBERS WHO WEAR DEU AS THE DRESS OF THE DAY AND ARE COVERED BY REF A, AS WELL AS ANY PRIMARY RESERVE MEMBER ON CLASS A OR B SERVICE NOT WORKING IN A TIER 1 OR 2 ORGANIZATION.

Okay, so now I know what Tier I fall into, if any. 

Next hoop.  What can I be reimbursed for and how often during Ph1?

B. INDIVIDUAL REIMBURSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED AS FOLLOWS:

(1). TIER 1: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS PER FISCAL YEAR (FY), EXCLUDING TAXES.
(2). TIER 2: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS EVERY TWO FYS, EXCLUDING TAXES.
(3). TIER 3: ONE PAIR OF BOOTS NOT TO EXCEED 340 DOLLARS EVERY THREE FYS, EXCLUDING TAXES.

Using your example "thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases", if they are entitled to/issued the NSNs off the SOIs in Ref A, then they likely fall into Tier 2.

Maybe I'm missing something here?

Assuming the thousands of Health Services personnel and other Army and non-Army personnel posted to non-Army Bases are Tier 2 for purposes of the boot program, are wearing the right stock number boots off the SOIs in ref A, what are the requirements/criteria the boots they individually purchase?

BOOT SELECTION CRITERIA.

A. NOTWITHSTANDING THE DESIRE FOR INCREASED FLEXIBILITY, THE CAF ALSO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE OPERATIONAL FOOTWEAR IN USE BY CAF MEMBERS IS SAFE FOR USE, ADHERES TO DRESS REGULATIONS AND WILL MEET THE DEMANDS OF AN OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT.

B. THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MUST BE MET WHEN SELECTING BOOTS FOR INDIVIDUAL PURCHASE AND REIMBURSEMENT:

(1). COLOUR. BROWN IS PREFERRED, BUT BLACK OR TAN IS ACCEPTABLE AS PART OF PHASE 1.
(2). TEMPERATURE RANGE. SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO OPERATE IN TEMPERATE CONDITIONS, BETWEEN PLUS 4 CELSIUS AND PLUS 35 CELSIUS.
(3). HEIGHT. MINIMUM 15 CM, MAXIMUM 23CM, AS MEASURED FROM INSIDE THE BOOT, ON TOP OF THE FOOTBED TO THE HIGHEST POINT.
(4). SOLE. NON-MARKING, FUEL, OIL, AND ACID RESISTANT NITRILE RUBBER OUTSOLE.
C. THE LOCAL CHAIN OF COMMAND WILL ASSIST THE MEMBER WITH KEY INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE MEMBER CAN BE EXPECTED TO OPERATE IN. GUIDANCE FROM THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS NOT THE SAME AS ISSUING SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON THE TYPE OR MODEL OF FOOTWEAR TO BE PURCHASED.

Honestly, it all seems pretty straight forward to me.  The hardest part might be Junior NCMs and Officer figuring out what SOI, NSNs and Tier they fit into.  This is a part the CofC and Supply should be able to clarify easily.

I've said before, I live and breathe at the tactical sub-unit level, but I don't see the big gapping hole in the CANFORGEN or intent behind it.  In this case, 3 Div wanting to issue it's own direction and telling mbr's they aren't to get boots goes against the direction in the Order from HHQ. 

* one thing I wish the Supply system would do is to differentiate between Army, Air and Navy boots by name.  The RCAF has a temperate combat boot, but it is also a safety boot.  Call it a temperate safety boot or temperate flying boot or something. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am only going to take a little poke at something Simian said here: As a member of the CAF, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "obey" any "order" from the PM or the MND. In fact they cannot issue any "orders" to the CAF. They are not in my chain of command, which goes through the CDS to the Governor-General, then the Queen.

Sorry, I may sound like a jerk for saying that, but to me it's always been an important distinction - which makes the military into an Institution of the Nation rather than an administrative department of the government of the day.

I have always bristled at any suggestion that I do the biding of a partisan government in current power. I serve the Queen - and thus, the Country in the purest sense.

 

[Adam]

I'm interested in a purchasing combat boots from a supplier is the USA.  Does anyone know if international customs fees will be viewed as tax or as additional shipping charges?

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/BELLEVILLE-775-EXTREME-COLD-WEATHER-600G-INSULATED-WATERPROOF-BOOTS-ALL-SIZES/192209621919?hash=item2cc096139f%3Am%3AmrJWwft6miOX6vfI-qFB_rA&var=492133207772
 

 

[garb811]

I'm interested in a purchasing combat boots from a supplier is the USA.  Does anyone know if international customs fees will be viewed as tax or as additional shipping charges?

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/BELLEVILLE-775-EXTREME-COLD-WEATHER-600G-INSULATED-WATERPROOF-BOOTS-ALL-SIZES/192209621919?hash=item2cc096139f%3Am%3AmrJWwft6miOX6vfI-qFB_rA&var=492133207772

How do those boots meet the suggested temperature range?  It doesn’t say in the description but just looking at the name and amount of thinsulate there is no way you are going to be able to wear those within anything butnthe lowest portion of the suggested range and not roast your feet.

That would be a bigger concern than customs because I doubt those are going to be covered and buying them from the states is going to make getting them refunded a bitch.

(2). TEMPERATURE RANGE. SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO OPERATE IN TEMPERATE CONDITIONS, BETWEEN PLUS 4 CELSIUS AND PLUS 35 CELSIUS.

 

[Gunner98]

I am only going to take a little poke at something Simian said here: As a member of the CAF, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "obey" any "order" from the PM or the MND. In fact they cannot issue any "orders" to the CAF. They are not in my chain of command, which goes through the CDS to the Governor-General, then the Queen.

Sorry, I may sound like a jerk for saying that, but to me it's always been an important distinction - which makes the military into an Institution of the Nation rather than an administrative department of the government of the day.

I have always bristled at any suggestion that I do the biding of a partisan government in current power. I serve the Queen - and thus, the Country in the purest sense.

I see your point when it comes to the Queen/GG giving Royal assent to things like the  Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Labour Code.

But when Ralph Goodale states, "We have accepted an official request for assistance from the Province of BC to help in the fight against the wildfires. Through air support & personnel, the Government of Canada will support affected communities & First Responders who are courageously taking on this battle."  I don't see Queen or GG blessing the order, isn't it the "partisan government in power" making the decision?

As per QR&O Chapter 2:

2.06 - CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATION - CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF
Section 18 of the National Defence Act provides:

"18. (1) The Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be the Chief of the Defence Staff, who shall hold such rank as the Governor in Council may prescribe and who shall, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the Minister, be charged with the control and administration of the Canadian Forces.

(2) Unless the Governor in Council otherwise directs, all orders and instructions to the Canadian Forces that are required to give effect to the decisions and to carry out the directions of the Government of Canada or the Minister shall be issued by or through the Chief of the Defence Staff."

 

[TCM621]

I am only going to take a little poke at something Simian said here: As a member of the CAF, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "obey" any "order" from the PM or the MND. In fact they cannot issue any "orders" to the CAF. They are not in my chain of command, which goes through the CDS to the Governor-General, then the Queen.

Sorry, I may sound like a jerk for saying that, but to me it's always been an important distinction - which makes the military into an Institution of the Nation rather than an administrative department of the government of the day.

I have always bristled at any suggestion that I do the biding of a partisan government in current power. I serve the Queen - and thus, the Country in the purest sense.

Just to make you a little angrier, the D/MND is actually the CDS's boss for all practical purposes. Despite the fact that the CDS and the D/MND are supposed to be equals, in the absence of the minister the deputy "speaks with his voice". This means that while the MND is flying around the country doing PR stops the D/MND is actually in charge.

 

[Kerosen]

Hi, do you guys (or girlz) know where we can buy the Brown issued boots, i want to buy my self some
without passing thru the new process and because too i just had a new black pair issued on august 20th
by the army (that i hate very much because it hurts my ankle)

Thank you all

 

[theprivate]

Now that BOOTFORGEN is out, you should look in to buying them civi side.

 

[Kerosen]

i found a place in Montréal that as issued boots thanks