Medical travel reimbursement

[Jarnhamar]

It's wild to hear that. I'm surprised , but maybe not that much because of our medical system.

You're not "volunteering" because you're getting paid by the government. The government isn't supposed to pay employees to volunteer at organizations.

You could work for an organization that takes volunteers but that would be a part of a RTD program and it wouldn't (or I should say shouldn't) be "working from home".

In any case it sounds like it's working for you though so that's great. Cheers.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I totally get that they won't pay me to go to work. I'm no fool. But when your doc says your work is home. Wtf are you supposed to do. People that lives in pmq gets their entire trip covered because the live in PMQ but people like me, get fucked over.


P.s "Be grateful" is a bit much when I know that the life insurance I have for my wife does cover transport to specialised medical appt. It's the same with the forces. They are our life insurance because we HAVE to use the military health system.

You want to challenge the policy, go ahead. You can write to CMP and get them to adjucate but you don’t have much of a leg to stand on (don’t go the grievance route - you’re challenging the policy itself, not the interpretation of a policy). The policy, as written, doesn’t allow for your whole mileage to be paid out.

 

[ballz]

This entire thread has been giving me anxiety for days and watching it turn into a bun fight reminds me why I need to stop coming on this site while I am still decompressing from the years of stupidity I had to endure in the CAF. I'm not sure I've seen more incorrect statements said in one go all based on how clerks are doing things ... which means jack shit as our clerks are given very poor training by some very incompetent and intellectually lazy people and so even those who are very smart are doing many things incorrectly.

Bottom line, up front.... the member is entitled to mileage for the entire distance, not the entire distance minus the distance the would normally drive to get to the base.



A medical appointment is a duty and doing so off-base constitutes being on TD. If there are any questions about it, the ADM(HR) instruction makes it clear that a member attending a medical appointment is on duty on TD, which is also well document in grievance case summaries.... plus, even if it didn't explicitly state that anywhere it meets the definition of TD, although obviously some people can't read or it wouldn't be in a grievance case summary!

It also makes clear that medical travel outside the geographic area (place of duty) is the responsibility of member's CDU, while inside the local geographic area is under the Base Commander's authority. To be clear, authority in this context means his financial authorities. The Base Commander is the approving authority for the TD IAW his/her delegation of authority... don't confuse this with having "discretion" over whether or not they have to reimburse travel for someone who has a duty to travel. Yes, I wish they would use simple words because intellectually lazy finance officers can't be bothering to read and understand the policies, but c'est la vie.

The ADM(HR) policy is correct in saying it's under the Base Commander's authority as providing transportation to local medical appointments is a Base Service and the the Base Commander funded to do so as part of the purpose of bases are these types of things for everyone on the base (which is why it doesn't matter if it's Army, Air Force, Navy, etc.). Units are funded for operations and training, the bases are funded for these types of base support services. This is why the ADM(HR) instruction says "local medical travel is under the authority of the Base Commander." This is why, back when the CAF could properly administer itself, the Base would have things like a medical run to the local hospital, to cut down on TD claims and costs... some still do, but for the most part the reason why has been forgotten and in some bases like Edmonton the Base does nothing and it falls on local units picking up the slack which is not right especially since the Base is receiving the money to do this, but they're busy spending it on more treadmills in March.

I'm surprised to hear the local CDU is administering the claims for local appointments, but perhaps the Base Commander has provided a SAF to the CDU's CO (or, more likely, it's being done incorrectly).

In any case, now that we've established this is TD in the local area (regardless of whose signing it), let's get into the TD entitlements for travel...

"5.40 PMV - driver

1. (Member Is Requested To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 5.20(2) (Selection), a member - who is requested by an approving authority to use a PMV on duty travel and who uses that PMV as requested - is entitled to be reimbursed:
   1. the kilometric rate for the direct road distance;
   2. the actual and reasonable parking expenses during the TD or attached posting; and
   3. if the member is required to purchase additional insurance to carry passengers for business purposes, the actual and reasonable expenses of that additional insurance.
2. (Member Requests To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 5.20(2) (Selection), a member who requests to use a PMV - rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority - and who uses that PMV on duty travel is entitled to be reimbursed the lesser of:
   1. the kilometric rate for the direct road distance, and
   2. as determined by a method established under the authority of the CDS, the cost of the more economical and practical mode of transportation."

Direct road distance - means the shortest, practical road distance between two points, that is determined — by the approving authority — in accordance with generally accepted road distance measurement practices.

Notice it does not say "minus the distance a member would normally travel from their dwelling to their permanent workplace" or anything of that sort.

This wording is the exact same in every chapter, do they take off the KM of your normal daily commute from your TD trips when you're going to the airport or driving 200km from Edmonton to Wainwright?


Now, some have incorrectly pointed to the fact that at the front of Chapter 5, it stays "(No Entitlement) There is no entitlement for a member to be reimbursed any expenses for travel to and from their permanent workplace on a daily basis;"

This is also stated at the front of Chapter 6, 7, and 8. So why do you think it gets subtracted from the "direct road distance" for Chapter 5 travel, and not for Chapter 6, 7, or 8?

And thus we see the mistake being made here.... trying to take a line from 40 paragraphs prior and insert it into somewhere it doesn't belong. This is the same mistake DCBA made with cost-comparisons and why the CAF had to pull every cost-comparison done between 2015 and 2020 and re-do them all when someone finally grieved it.

You want to challenge the policy, go ahead. You can write to CMP and get them to adjucate but you don’t have much of a leg to stand on (don’t go the grievance route - you’re challenging the policy itself, not the interpretation of a policy). The policy, as written, doesn’t allow for your whole mileage to be paid out.

The grievance is the proper route, and yes, the policy as written explicitly states that the mileage, in full, is the entitlement.

However, that is the normal way that MTECs are processed so the clerks are not wrong.

You owe me a case of beer for all the years that statement just took off my life, and from you of all people.

 

[ballz]

So, the CAF don’t pay your mileage to come into work. I don’t know many employers that would pay your mileage to go to a hospital for care. Be grateful of the gas you save from working from home on a daily basis and see it as just going to regular work. Your claim should have the mileage from base to appointment only.

So if he lives on the south side of town, 5km from the appointment, and the base is 30km north, he should be reimbursed for 60km? Base-to-appointment and back? Even though he only drives 10km?

I don't know many employers that do a lot of the stupid shit the CAF does, I probably wouldn't use that argument much cause when one weighs it all out the CAF will lose every time, such as the retention rates are showing.

 

[kev994]

This entire thread has been giving me anxiety for days and watching it turn into a bun fight reminds me why I need to stop coming on this site while I am still decompressing from the years of stupidity I had to endure in the CAF. I'm not sure I've seen more incorrect statements said in one go all based on how clerks are doing things ... which means jack shit as our clerks are given very poor training by some very incompetent and intellectually lazy people and so even those who are very smart are doing many things incorrectly.

Bottom line, up front.... the member is entitled to mileage for the entire distance, not the entire distance minus the distance the would normally drive to get to the base.



A medical appointment is a duty and doing so off-base constitutes being on TD. If there are any questions about it, the ADM(HR) instruction makes it clear that a member attending a medical appointment is on duty on TD, which is also well document in grievance case summaries.... plus, even if it didn't explicitly state that anywhere it meets the definition of TD, although obviously some people can't read or it wouldn't be in a grievance case summary!

It also makes clear that medical travel outside the geographic area (place of duty) is the responsibility of member's CDU, while inside the local geographic area is under the Base Commander's authority. To be clear, authority in this context means his financial authorities. The Base Commander is the approving authority for the TD IAW his/her delegation of authority... don't confuse this with having "discretion" over whether or not they have to reimburse travel for someone who has a duty to travel. Yes, I wish they would use simple words because intellectually lazy finance officers can't be bothering to read and understand the policies, but c'est la vie.

The ADM(HR) policy is correct in saying it's under the Base Commander's authority as providing transportation to local medical appointments is a Base Service and the the Base Commander funded to do so as part of the purpose of bases are these types of things for everyone on the base (which is why it doesn't matter if it's Army, Air Force, Navy, etc.). Units are funded for operations and training, the bases are funded for these types of base support services. This is why the ADM(HR) instruction says "local medical travel is under the authority of the Base Commander." This is why, back when the CAF could properly administer itself, the Base would have things like a medical run to the local hospital, to cut down on TD claims and costs... some still do, but for the most part the reason why has been forgotten and in some bases like Edmonton the Base does nothing and it falls on local units picking up the slack which is not right especially since the Base is receiving the money to do this, but they're busy spending it on more treadmills in March.

I'm surprised to hear the local CDU is administering the claims for local appointments, but perhaps the Base Commander has provided a SAF to the CDU's CO (or, more likely, it's being done incorrectly).

In any case, now that we've established this is TD in the local area (regardless of whose signing it), let's get into the TD entitlements for travel...

"5.40 PMV - driver

1. (Member Is Requested To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 5.20(2) (Selection), a member - who is requested by an approving authority to use a PMV on duty travel and who uses that PMV as requested - is entitled to be reimbursed:
   1. the kilometric rate for the direct road distance;
   2. the actual and reasonable parking expenses during the TD or attached posting; and
   3. if the member is required to purchase additional insurance to carry passengers for business purposes, the actual and reasonable expenses of that additional insurance.
2. (Member Requests To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 5.20(2) (Selection), a member who requests to use a PMV - rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority - and who uses that PMV on duty travel is entitled to be reimbursed the lesser of:
   1. the kilometric rate for the direct road distance, and
   2. as determined by a method established under the authority of the CDS, the cost of the more economical and practical mode of transportation."

Direct road distance - means the shortest, practical road distance between two points, that is determined — by the approving authority — in accordance with generally accepted road distance measurement practices.

Notice it does not say "minus the distance a member would normally travel from their dwelling to their permanent workplace" or anything of that sort.

This wording is the exact same in every chapter, do they take off the KM of your normal daily commute from your TD trips when you're going to the airport or driving 200km from Edmonton to Wainwright?


Now, some have incorrectly pointed to the fact that at the front of Chapter 5, it stays "(No Entitlement) There is no entitlement for a member to be reimbursed any expenses for travel to and from their permanent workplace on a daily basis;"

This is also stated at the front of Chapter 6, 7, and 8. So why do you think it gets subtracted from the "direct road distance" for Chapter 5 travel, and not for Chapter 6, 7, or 8?

And thus we see the mistake being made here.... trying to take a line from 40 paragraphs prior and insert it into somewhere it doesn't belong. This is the same mistake DCBA made with cost-comparisons and why the CAF had to pull every cost-comparison done between 2015 and 2020 and re-do them all when someone finally grieved it.



The grievance is the proper route, and yes, the policy as written explicitly states that the mileage, in full, is the entitlement.



You owe me a case of beer for all the years that statement just took off my life, and from you of all people.

You’re missing a bulletin (I don’t remember who the authority is) that says there’s no entitlement to medical travel in the geographic area and outside the geographic area the entitlement is at the discretion of the formation commander. I can probably dig it up, I’ve dealt with this exact thing recently.

 

[SupersonicMax]

(Member Requests To Use PMV) Subject to paragraph 5.20(2) (Selection), a member who requests to use a PMV - rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation selected by the approving authority - and who uses that PMV on duty travel is entitled to be reimbursed the lesser of:

1. 1. the kilometric rate for the direct road distance, and
   2. as determined by a method established under the authority of the CDS, the cost of the more economical and practical mode of transportation."

Direct road distance - means the shortest, practical road distance between two points, that is determined — by the approving authority — in accordance with generally accepted road distance measurement practices.

Notice it does not say "minus the distance a member would normally travel from their dwelling to their permanent workplace" or anything of that sort.

Couple things here.

1- If the member requests to use PMV, that’s kilometric rate up to what it would have cost using the moat economical and practical means. Essentially 0$ if provided with a military vehicle.
2- In the definition of direct road distance, there is no definition of what the two points are.

If the OP wants to play that game, I would order them to come to work to pick up their claim and start the local TD from work and come back into work to finalize their claim. They are getting financial relief that many (outside Ottawa) aren’t getting, by not having to drive into work.

 

[MJP]

You owe me a case of beer for all the years that statement just took off my life, and from you of all people.

Meh, that is how MTECs for medical travel are processed on a few bases. I didn't pull it out of my @ss, I went and looked at base standing orders and other things for many of the policies. They are essentially following CFTDIs Chap 5 para 5.20 in their application. Didn't say I agreed or disagreed with that application just told OP that clerks don't make policy (although they can advise) and if he wanted it changed then work with his CoC.

I have my own personal opinion of the request and even the application of the policy but I felt no need to share it. Just wanted to give someone a method they could potentially solve their issue

 

[Jarnhamar]

Couple things here.

1- If the member requests to use PMV, that’s kilometric rate up to what it would have cost using the moat economical and practical means. Essentially 0$ if provided with a military vehicle.

Exactly. Using ones own car isn't a right. In this case the medical side could just request a vehicle and driver from the base transport and have a mbr meet the driver on base to drive them to and from their appointment. No obligation for reimbursement for a mbr driving from home to unit.

 

[Quirky]

A medical appointment is a duty

This is the craziest thing, CF pays you to attend medical appointments and people still feel entitled and have the audacity to feel "fucked by the CF". Incredible.

 

[childs56]

So if he lives on the south side of town, 5km from the appointment, and the base is 30km north, he should be reimbursed for 60km? Base-to-appointment and back? Even though he only drives 10km?

I don't know many employers that do a lot of the stupid shit the CAF does, I probably wouldn't use that argument much cause when one weighs it all out the CAF will lose every time, such as the retention rates are showing.

When I used my truck for work purposes I received a minimum of 100km day at .55cents km. Plus fuel card. So yes there is a standard in some industries to cover the cost of vehicle usage. It isn't just the km used its the maintenance required and the risk for use that is paid for.

 

[ballz]

Couple things here.

1- If the member requests to use PMV, that’s kilometric rate up to what it would have cost using the moat economical and practical means. Essentially 0$ if provided with a military vehicle.

Not accurate at all.

If the member requests to use their PMV, then the "method established under the authority of the CDS, the cost of the more economical and practical mode of transportation" is used... that method is the cost-comparison and it doesn't have military transport / crown vehicles as one of the comparison factors. IIRC it compares the cost of flights, bus/taxi, or rental. In a short trip the PMV KM-rate is almost always the cheapest since even a taxi ends up being more than the km-rate. And only the CDS and CMP have authority to amend the cost comparison, not your clerks, or a CO/Base Commander.

2- In the definition of direct road distance, there is no definition of what the two points are.

Dude stop, this is pathetic. It can't say what the two points are because a policy can't know where a member's duty travel is going to begin or end. For example, the member could be at work on base for half the day and need to conduct duty travel to a meeting and back to the base. In that case. In the case it would base-to-meeting-to-base.

In the case of someone travelling to a medical appointment from their home, it's obviously home-to-appointment location-to-home. As soon as they leave their home, they're on duty travel (if they get in a car accident, for example, it's a duty-related injury).

If the OP wants to play that game, I would order them to come to work to pick up their claim and start the local TD from work and come back into work to finalize their claim. They are getting financial relief that many (outside Ottawa) aren’t getting, by not having to drive into work.

Yes, unfortunately it's difficult to protect the CAF's members from leaders that lack integrity and character, hence all the scandals in the news and public and membership's loss of confidence in the CAF's leadership. You should be ashamed to say something like that publicly but as with so many in the CAF, you can't shame the shameless.

Perhaps you could just fulfill your duties as they are written in a professional manner (sans petty ego-tripping), and select the most appropriate mode of transportation considering the factors outlined it the policy:

"1. the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;
2. the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation - in the duty travel area;
3. forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel;
4. the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services;
5. the CF’s operational needs;
6. an intermediate sedan is the standard rental vehicle across government;
7. the member’s safety and convenience;
8. the amount of baggage or supplies that the member is required to transport; and
9. any other factor that is immediately relevant to the duty travel requirement."


Anyone considering the circumstances objectively and without bias would not come to the conclusion you're coming to.

And then just pay the member what they're entitled to (the direct road distance for the duty travel which is from their house to the medical appointment), instead of doing mental gymnastics to try and avoid paying a member an extra $20 to do the most efficient and practical thing because for some reason that extra $20 offends you.

Exactly. Using ones own car isn't a right. In this case the medical side could just request a vehicle and driver from the base transport and have a mbr meet the driver on base to drive them to and from their appointment. No obligation for reimbursement for a mbr driving from home to unit.

Great use of resources there. Losing a fully functional Private or Corporal and a Crown vehicle for a half-day or more (all constrained resources), maybe have to pay out additional meals anyway, creating extra administration, prolonging the amount of the time the member in question is tied up in this duty so they can't work on other things, etc. all to avoid paying an extra $20 (which is hardly a constrained resource as the CAF is swimming in money).

I'm sure the Private selected for this task will be happy to know that their time is worth so little to CAF.

The approving authority is provided the opportunity to avoid all this nonsense by the CFTDTIs and maximize the use of his available resources, should he choose to use good problem solving skills.

Bravo folks, you have both provided a perfect example of why the CAF can't get out of its own way.

You’re missing a bulletin (I don’t remember who the authority is) that says there’s no entitlement to medical travel in the geographic area and outside the geographic area the entitlement is at the discretion of the formation commander. I can probably dig it up, I’ve dealt with this exact thing recently.

I assure you whichever "bulletin" that is, is not approved anyone with the actual authority to make such a policy... Likely some random Base policy crafted by someone who should be employed with maximum supervision.

 

[ballz]

When I used my truck for work purposes I received a minimum of 100km day at .55cents km. Plus fuel card. So yes there is a standard in some industries to cover the cost of vehicle usage. It isn't just the km used its the maintenance required and the risk for use that is paid for.

My private sector employer also doesn't spend countless hours trying to figure out how to nickel and dime me, going to great lengths and wasting numerous other resources to try and figure out how they can avoid reimbursing me an extra $20.

 

[kev994]

I assure you whichever "bulletin" that is, is not approved anyone with the actual authority to make such a policy... Likely some random Base policy crafted by someone who should be employed with maximum supervision.

ADM (HR-Mil) Instruction 08/05. Now you made me open my work computer on a weekend.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Great use of resources there. Losing a fully functional Private or Corporal and a Crown vehicle for a half-day or more (all constrained resources), maybe have to pay out additional meals anyway, creating extra administration, prolonging the amount of the time the member in question is tied up in this duty so they can't work on other things, etc. all to avoid paying an extra $20 (which is hardly a constrained resource as the CAF is swimming in money).

I'll counter this brother. There are soldiers whose duty is to be a driver. Some of them may even be injured themselves (I think employing injured soldiers as drivers is a better alternative than the canteen). Drivers may be bored sitting around waiting for driving tasks and may jump at the opportunity to:
-get out and do something;
-get a $20 breakfast, $20 lunch, $50 supper claim; and
-avoid shit jobs that may come down the pipe.

Transport often has vehicles just sitting around collecting dust. Those vehicles should be used and not just sit around to ensure parts don't become ceased up (meaning you lose that asset for months and require using another one in it's place). $$

I'm not sure if the CAF pays a premium for fuel or gets it at a discount. What's now rate per km, .25cents for claims?

So it could cost the CAF more to pay someone to use their PMV fuel wise, or the CAF could save money using their own base fuel. I'm not sure.

I'm sure the Private selected for this task will be happy to know that their time is worth so little to CAF.

Considering what we pay privates in the CAF I don't think they're in a place to bitch and complain about driving an injured soldier to a medical appointment.

The approving authority is provided the opportunity to avoid all this nonsense by the CFTDTIs and maximize the use of his available resources, should he choose to use good problem solving skills.

Taking your PMV still is not a right. If it's a shitty system and it's legitimately unfair to members then someone should change it.

Bravo folks, you have both provided a perfect example of why the CAF can't get out of its own way.

If walking everywhere was good enough for dinosaurs it's good enough for the troops

 

[PuckChaser]

Man, I thought I'd only see this level of saltiness on CAF Reddit.

Ultimately there's really only 1 solution here:

OP doesn't like the reimbursement policy the Base is using. Fine, ask for a duty driver or a staff car. When they say no, you fall under full high rate mileage.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If the member requests to use their PMV, then the "method established under the authority of the CDS, the cost of the more economical and practical mode of transportation" is used... that method is the cost-comparison and it doesn't have military transport / crown vehicles as one of the comparison factors. IIRC it compares the cost of flights, bus/taxi, or rental. In a short trip the PMV KM-rate is almost always the cheapest since even a taxi ends up being more than the km-rate. And only the CDS and CMP have authority to amend the cost comparison, not your clerks, or a CO/Base Commander.

Fair. No staff car. Cost compare with a bus pass.

Yes, unfortunately it's difficult to protect the CAF's members from leaders that lack integrity and character, hence all the scandals in the news and public and membership's loss of confidence in the CAF's leadership. You should be ashamed to say something like that publicly but as with so many in the CAF, you can't shame the shameless.
It is not lacking integrity, it is being a steward of CAF ressources. Not sure if you’ve been following but the CAF has been in hot water for financial stewardship before.

"1. the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;
2. the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation - in the duty travel area;
3. forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel;
4. the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services;
5. the CF’s operational needs;
6. an intermediate sedan is the standard rental vehicle across government;
7. the member’s safety and convenience;
8. the amount of baggage or supplies that the member is required to transport; and
9. any other factor that is immediately relevant to the duty travel requirement."

You forgot to read 3 lines down. PMV is not a preferred method of transport for local trips.

I have been ordered, before, to take a staff car when I requested a PMV. I didn’t come here to complain my CO lacked integrity and character. It’s part of life and my travel costs were still covered. I didn’t make money out of it but that’s not the purpose of the CFTDTIs.

 

[ballz]

ADM (HR-Mil) Instruction 08/05. Now you made me open my work computer on a weekend.

That's literally the policy that's been quoted in here numerous times, with links, and it does not, in any way, say what you are saying it says.

It says medical travel outside of the geographical area is under the CDU and that medical travel inside the geographical area falls under the Base Commander's authority. I've already provided a lengthy explanation to what that means and it doesn't mean it's their "discretion."

The Edmonton CDU referenced the ADM(HR) instruction and published a letter to show members stating that there was no entitlement to local medical travel but if the member could substantiate that it would cause financial hardship the Base Commander could "decide" to reimburse it. Thankfully the CO didn't have an ego problem so when we (1 CMBG) properly explained the policies to him he changed the letter without drama.

I'll counter this brother. There are soldiers whose duty is to be a driver. Some of them may even be injured themselves (I think employing injured soldiers as drivers is a better alternative than the canteen). Drivers may be bored sitting around waiting for driving tasks and may jump at the opportunity to:
-get out and do something;
-get a $20 breakfast, $20 lunch, $50 supper claim; and
-avoid shit jobs that may come down the pipe.

Transport often has vehicles just sitting around collecting dust. Those vehicles should be used and not just sit around to ensure parts don't become ceased up (meaning you lose that asset for months and require using another one in it's place). $$

I'm not sure if the CAF pays a premium for fuel or gets it at a discount. What's now rate per km, .25cents for claims?

So it could cost the CAF more to pay someone to use their PMV fuel wise, or the CAF could save money using their own base fuel. I'm not sure.

"Cost" is the not the same thing as "cost and efficiency."

I'm not going to argue that what you're saying are all legitimate things to consider, because they are, but that's entirely different than what was being thrown around in this thread:

1) That TD in the local area is supposed to have the mileage to and from base subtracted from the mileage;
2) That they should/could order someone to drive to the base to do their claims and subvert the requirement to pay mileage for TD;
3) That it's responsible/ethical to do so even if it makes no practical sense.

All of the things you mention might be plausible, might not, depending on the base and other circumstances, hence why the approving authority is actually supposed to weigh the factors and decide the best route.

Considering what we pay privates in the CAF I don't think they're in a place to bitch and complain about driving an injured soldier to a medical appointment.

I'm not sure if you're saying we pay them too much, or too little, or what their pay has to do with people becoming disgruntled when their time is not used appropriately and effectively by leadership. I think one of the biggest gripes most people in the CAF have, and it's legit, is all of their time getting wasted inefficiently and how it contributes to people being burned out, etc. There's some serious cognitive dissonance going on here with how the CAF employs people and simultaneously complains about self-inflicted problems like this.

Taking your PMV still is not a right. If it's a shitty system and it's legitimately unfair to members then someone should change it.

Never argued it was, just that if you look most duty travel in the local area, it's almost always the best decision to request the member to use their PMV and should be utilized far more often than it is... but hey, I have high expectations for leadership, you know.. be professionally competent and act ethically.

The "system" or reference is fairly good, it's the leadership trying to apply the policy (incorrectly, usually) that's causing problems. There's not a whole lot you could change about the CFTDTIs to improve them, however there is much room for improvement in the people charged with applying it.

Fair. No staff car. Cost compare with a bus pass.

Maybe you should actually look at a cost-comparison instead of just trying to be right. I can't remember exactly what's listed on there but public transportation definitely isn't. When I said "bus/train," I meant a commercial transportation i.e. greyhound. And I can't actually recall which methods of commercial transport are listed, but I know public transportation isn't.

It is not lacking integrity, it is being a steward of CAF ressources. Not sure if you’ve been following but the CAF has been in hot water for financial stewardship before.

You're ignoring every other resource except for what actually gets directly reimbursed by the member. You're providing a perfect demonstration of piss poor stewardship of resources. Hey, I got an idea, let's get the troops to do garbage sweeps in the community while we're at it, it's all free labour right?

You forgot to read 3 lines down. PMV is not a preferred method of transport for local trips.

I didn't forget to read anything, you're trying to argue about things you don't know about and are too intellectually lazy to go read it yourself and need it spoon-fed to you.

"(Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode - or combination of modes - of transportation on duty travel after consideration of all of the following:

The Approving Authority has to consider and weigh all the factors in every assessment, not cherry pick various ones to suit their own biases.

Yes, some guidance is added for short local trips - that doesn't mean or imply that every trip within the geographic area is a short, local trip, nor does it limit weighing all the other factors into the thought-process. Local geographic areas can be quite large, 100k+. Once again, it provides the decision-maker space to make good decisions... something some people clearly aren't capable of.

The reference gives the approving authority the leeway to weigh all relevant factors and make a decision that actually makes sense. I.e. if it's a 50km trip, request the member to use their PMV at a cost of $60 instead of a taxi both ways at a cost of $200 - or request them to use their vehicle at a cost of $60 instead of a taking 3 public busses there and 3 publish busses back, turning a 2 hour day into an 8 hour day and incurring costs for lunch and dinner anyway. Cause that would be stupid and unfortunately the TB personnel drafting the policy couldn't possibly predict the depths of stupid some people are willing to go.

I have been ordered, before, to take a staff car when I requested a PMV. I didn’t come here to complain my CO lacked integrity and character. It’s part of life and my travel costs were still covered. I didn’t make money out of it but that’s not the purpose of the CFTDTIs.

And what does that have to do with this? Did your CO dreaming up an inefficient scheme that takes up far more resources than the extra mileage that would be reimbursed, all because of his personal feelings about you being reimbursed for mileage? I wouldn't expect you to complain about his lack of integrity and character if he made a well-thought out decision that considered relevant factors. If, however, you were taking your vehicle, were told you weren't going to be reimburse for half the trip, and showed/demonstrated the proper application of the CFTDTIs and so the CO, rather just admit being incorrect and moving on about his day, decided to start doing backflips and mental gymnastics to ensure you didn't "get your way" even though that's what made the most sense..... well that would be a totally different scenario worthy of criticism, wouldn't it?

If you don't like the government rates for mileage, write your MP about it and stop suggesting stupid things like screwing numerous people around for no reason just cause it gets your rocks off. Toxic leadership 101.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I fail to see how ordering the member to use a government vehicle a bad use of resources. We have vehicles literally for those types of things. Not using them would be a bad use of resources. If talking about the OP’s time, that’s up to local CoC to decide whether the OP’s work time is better spent doing the admin surrounding getting a staff car or doing work tasks.

On the day of their local trip, it seems like they were expected to show up to base (permanent workplace) and then start their local travel from that location. As there is no entitlement to drive up to base, that part is not covered.

Paying for the portion of going onto base would be an unfair application as everyone else that drives to base on a daily basis that have similar appointments wouldn’t have that part covered. That aspect of both fairness and appearance of fairness in the application of the policies is important for the morale of others. There could be an OP’s neighbour that conduct the same type of work getting compensated differently for the same appointment.

If the OP is worried about not having enough to pay for gas (which seems to be the issue), requesting a fleet car would solve that.

There is grey in the policy exactly for those reasons: to give option space for commanders and take those kind of things in consideration.

As far as buses, I used buses vs rental cars several times on TD (outside the local area) when I didn’t have much to carry. It is surprisingly efficient in most cities.

Not sure whether you have ever been an approving authority or a CO (when you have a bigger picture of all the factors), but you sure sling a lot of mud.

 

[ballz]

I fail to see how ordering the member to use a government vehicle a bad use of resources.

That all depends on all the other factors involved. Having a member drive 50km North to Base to get a vehicle, and then 50km south to go to their appointment, and then 50km north again to return the vehicle, and then 50km south to get back home, would be galactically stupid. Also, not every base has a surplus of vehicles available and sometimes you're forced to rent. It's also more staff time involved to TSR and issue a vehicle which for the sake of a small trip. There' a myriad of factors, but you're trying to get away from the point. Let's replay this shall we...

1) The correct application of the policy was pointed out to you
2) You didn't like it, started getting petty (I quote... "If the OP wants to play that game")
3) Decided you should order someone to do something that makes no sense because you don't wanna lose this "game" where people get reimbursed IAW correct application of policy.

On the day of their local trip, it seems like they were expected to show up to base (permanent workplace) and then start their local travel from that location. As there is no entitlement to drive up to base, that part is not covered.

It doesn't say that at all. When given the correct info, you decided it was appropriate to try to make it that way in order to subvert paying the extra chump change.

Paying for the portion of going onto base would be an unfair application as everyone else that drives to base on a daily basis that have similar appointments wouldn’t have that part covered.

That's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. In the case where the appointment is closer to base, the person working from home might get reimbursed more. In the case where the appointment is closer to home, the person working on base may very well get reimbursed more. If you're getting reimbursed for actual mileage of the TD journey then that's about as fair as you can make it.

That aspect of both fairness and appearance of fairness in the application of the policies is important for the morale of others. There could be an OP’s neighbour that conduct the same type of work getting compensated differently for the same appointment.

Are they travelling the same route as part of their TD? If not, then apples are being compared to oranges. Like I said, if the appoint is right next to OP's residence, then his neighbour might be getting reimbursed more.

If the OP is worried about not having enough to pay for gas (which seems to be the issue), requesting a fleet car would solve that.

That wasn't in your petty COA at all. Backtracking much?

There is grey in the policy exactly for those reasons: to give option space for commanders and take those kind of things in consideration.

Yeah, which has nothing to do with incorrectly subtracting mileage from claims.

As far as buses, I used buses vs rental cars several times on TD (outside the local area) when I didn’t have much to carry. It is surprisingly efficient in most cities.

Okay?

Not sure whether you have ever been an approving authority or a CO (when you have a bigger picture of all the factors),

Lol, because I need to be a CO to see "the bigger picture" of use of resources. Yep, so many of them are geniuses at that which is why the CAF doesn't waste resources at all.... of course you need to be a LCol to be capable of such a complex task as figuring out the most practical method for a trip to a local appointment.

That must be why people in Wainwright are being told to take the shuttle to the Edmonton Airport, then take a $100 cab to the Base, and then $100 cab back to the airport + associated meals, in order to attend something on Base Edmonton, instead of just reimbursing them $200 to take their car and drive straight to base, cutting the length of their day in half.... because all of those genius COs who seeing the bigger picture so much better... couldn't possibly be because... oh nvm, you get where I'm going with this.

but you sure sling a lot of mud.

Well you could have just been rational and objective instead of trying to win "that game" of approving authority who's wrong vs soldier who just wants their travel to be done IAW the CFTDTIs. Toxic leadership begets toxic followers.

Like I said, this thread gives me anxiety.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The policy allows for substracting mileage, depending on how it is applied. In fact, that’s almost exclusively how I have seen it applied. “Playing the game” was meant as removing the convenience of starting the trip from home and start it from base, and get the same reimbursement. Allowing the OP to start directly from home while getting the mikeage from base to appointment is just a way to use common sense while applying some fiscal responsibility. If the OP wants more financial compensation because they are allowed to start traveling from home, then ordering them to work for their admin before proceeding on their local trip is entirely within the scope of what can be done to avoid this issue. Because the policy allows, amongst other options, a thing, doesn’t mean we need to use that option. Not sure how a fair application of policy makes “a place of work, usually an office environment, that is marked by significant personal conflicts between those who work there.” If you consider this a significant conflict, I have news for you…

Most people are expected to be working from the office (again, outside Ottawa). The only fair way to apply the policy is to reimburse mileage from the “permanent workplace” to the appointment.

FWIW, when I was working from home, in the letter allowing me to work from home, it was specific that I was not to be reimbursed anything above and beyond what I would normally be allowed to claim if I was working from the office, including any extra TD costs.

The reality is that the CFTDTIs haven’t been update to reflect the reality of working from home.

If you can’t see that the OP is already afforded a significant financial advantage over their colleagues, by not having to drive to work every day probably, $100 a week, and you think that only paying mileage from base to appointment the odd time is unfair, not sure what else to say.