OR not entertaining TD rates

[Pusser]

Not really. The reason I got was that the det CO wanted to try something new. that said, the local mess was actually very good. but they gave us the option to eat there or in a commercial establishment. Being ordered to eat on base would have been better, as people are (theoretically, according to our or) out of money since they lost receipts.

The picture is starting to become more clear.  The issue can be broken down into two possible scenarios:

1) Is there an arrangement in place whereby the foreign base provides meals and accommodations to CAF personnel under these circumstances?  It doesn't matter whether the foreign military provides these for free or the CAF pays a single bill.  In this scenario, R&Q are considered to be provided to the member and there is no entitlement to claim for any meals unless, there is a compelling reason that the member is unable to make it to the mess (I explained how this works above and yes, receipts would be required).  Interestingly, individuals cannot "opt out" of this if they feel like it, so if the CO is giving folks the option to eat out and claim, he actually has no authority to do this and folks could be in for a lot of grief if this gets picked up in an audit (and claims like this draw special attention during audits...).  If this is the case, then the OR is asking for receipts in order to do something they're not allowed to do - and creating a paper trail...

2)  The other scenario is one where the CAF members are required to pay themselves for meals in the mess (i.e. rations are technically not provided).  In this case, the member may claim the appropriate full meal rate for each meal they were at that location, regardless of what they actually paid and no receipts would be required.

 

[Uboa]

2)  The other scenario is one where the CAF members are required to pay themselves for meals in the mess (i.e. rations are technically not provided).  In this case, the member may claim the appropriate full meal rate for each meal they were at that location, regardless of what they actually paid and no receipts would be required.

Hey, sorry for dragging this out again, but our OR is referencing a few CFTDTIs, mainly 5.19 on meals. It states rations should be used when available, however, can it really be justified that they weren't provided if we had to pay for them ourselves? Is it considered a "subsidized government facility"? They are basically saying that, whether they were paid for in advance, or the member pays for it themselves, it doesn't matter and amounts to the same thing. This would be a serious blow to most of us who elected to eat off base.

 

[Blackadder1916]

This Redress of Grievance decision is probably applicable to your situation, though you may not like what it says.

https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2015-003.html

# 2015-003 - Meal Expenses, Meal Purchased While on TD at a Foreign Military Base, Temporary Duty Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–04–14

The grievor attended a training course in the United States and was directed to purchase and consume his meals at a military dining facility. He was reimbursed actual expenses for these meals, however he argued that he was entitled to the full per diem meal rates as established by Treasury Board (TB).

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that while the grievor did pay for his meals up front, the situation should be compared to that of a member who dines at a Canadian Forces Base with a meal card and, in that sense, the meals are ultimately provided at no expense to the member since they are fully reimbursed. The IA cited a “Frequently Asked Questions” Web page authored by the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) as the authority for this position.

The Committee found that the TB approved policy, the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions (CFTDTI), paragraph 7.18(1), was clear and unambiguous in directing that a member is entitled to full per diem meal rates unless they are provided a meal at no expense. As the grievor was required to pay out of pocket for his meals, they were not provided “at no expense”. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the grievor be reimbursed his meals at the full per diem rate.

The Committee noted that the “Frequently Asked Questions” Web page is not supported by any approved policy or regulations, yet appears to be the prevailing position of DCBA. Given that this interpretation was found to be flawed, the Committee made a Systemic Recommendation that the Canadian Armed Forces should review and reassess the claims of all members affected by this erroneous policy interpretation.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–12–02

The FA did not agree with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievor be reimbursed his meals at the full per diem rate. The FA did not agree with the Committee's finding that reimbursing only the actual expense for meals purchased at a mess is in contravention of CFTDTI 7.18.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Hey, sorry for dragging this out again, but our OR is referencing a few CFTDTIs, mainly 5.19 on meals. It states rations should be used when available, however, can it really be justified that they weren't provided if we had to pay for them ourselves? Is it considered a "subsidized government facility"? They are basically saying that, whether they were paid for in advance, or the member pays for it themselves, it doesn't matter and amounts to the same thing. This would be a serious blow to most of us who elected to eat off base.

Was there any info provided on this pre-deployment...Joining Instructions, etc?  It's usually part of our pre-trip admin to determine what meals, etc are or are not covered and our HRAs are very proactive at pointing out if we are in a hotel that has breakfast included, if/when receipts are required, etc.  There is also a CJOC Admin Instruction if it was of those type of away trips... :2c:.

 

[Uboa]

Was there any info provided on this pre-deployment...Joining Instructions, etc?  It's usually part of our pre-trip admin to determine what meals, etc are or are not covered and our HRAs are very proactive at pointing out if we are in a hotel that has breakfast included, if/when receipts are required, etc.  There is also a CJOC Admin Instruction if it was of those type of away trips... :2c:.

Not really, it was pretty vague, as they didn't really have any idea what we were going into. They actually pre-emptively advanced us 120% of what a full per-diem TD would give us, including hotel costs. so best case scenario, we owe back 1100CAD, and worst case scenario, we owe back 4000CAD, since most of us will lose all our meals.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Hey guys,
    I had to make a new topic, because, although there are quite a few on claims already, none that I've found can really explain this to me. If any of you people could help me understand, it would be greatly appreciated. This is my current scenario:

I just went on an out-of-country TD, and the OR has given out 5000CAD advances (I know all the issues regarding advances, and didn't touch the money, paying everything out of pocket) and RIGHT before going on the plane, we get our itineraries describing our lodging and meals.

Lodging: military barracks for a time, and hotels for the rest

Meals: no meals provided (mess, ration cards, etc), no cooking facilities provided, and we are to live of of restaurants or buy food ourselves at a mess. (While at hotel there is a continental breakfast)

This seems like a normal TD, however, they included a paper which said we will keep all meal receipts, we will only be reimbursed what we provide and the statutory declarations would not be entertained.

Is this normal? Can an OR just decide not to give out rates? Should we not be entitle to normal rates, regardless of staying in a hotel or military barracks, given that no meals are provided and we were living off the economy? (minus those breakfasts)

If anyone has any insight on this, it would be appreciated, as right now, our chain of command isn't being to helpful. Thanks!

But there was direction given from the same OR wasn't there...the stuff in yellow above?  Now they are saying *oops we f$$ked that one up and you don't get the money we told you we would reimburse*...or am I missing something.  I know the CFTDI says what it says but...

 

[SupersonicMax]

Hey, sorry for dragging this out again, but our OR is referencing a few CFTDTIs, mainly 5.19 on meals. It states rations should be used when available, however, can it really be justified that they weren't provided if we had to pay for them ourselves? Is it considered a "subsidized government facility"? They are basically saying that, whether they were paid for in advance, or the member pays for it themselves, it doesn't matter and amounts to the same thing. This would be a serious blow to most of us who elected to eat off base.

You may want to remind them that Chapter 5 has to do with travel within the place of duty.  They should be referencing to Chapter 7, specifically 7.18

(Entitlement - Full Day of Duty Travel) Subject to paragraph (4), a member who, for a full day, is on duty travel is entitled - except in respect of any meal that is provided at no expense to the member - to a breakfast, lunch, and dinner allowance.

 

[SupersonicMax]

This Redress of Grievance decision is probably applicable to your situation, though you may not like what it says.

https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2015-003.html

Not sure this decision would stand in court. FJAG probably has more insight though.

The legal definition of "incuring cost" is:

incur costs(verb) acknowledge the costs, answer for, assume liability for, be answerable for, be liable for, be responsible for, bear the expense, disburse, expend, lay out for, outlay, pay the costs.

As soon as you pay for something, you become liable for the expense.

Furthermore, the decision could be ground for asking everyone to provide receipts (in any circumstance) vs being entitled to the meal rates. I am pretty sure this isn't the intent of the policy.

 

[Lumber]

Not sure this decision would stand in court. FJAG probably has more insight though.

The legal definition of "incuring cost" is:

incur costs(verb) acknowledge the costs, answer for, assume liability for, be answerable for, be liable for, be responsible for, bear the expense, disburse, expend, lay out for, outlay, pay the costs.

As soon as you pay for something, you become liable for the expense.

Furthermore, the decision could be ground for asking everyone to provide receipts (in any circumstance) vs being entitled to the meal rates. I am pretty sure this isn't the intent of the policy.

I'm amazed that the CDS didn't agree with the committee. These organizations go through a long thought out process to come to these decision. The CO isn't a grievance expert; he's not even a benefits expert. How does he just tell the committee, "nah, you're wrong; f*kk this guy".

 

[Uboa]

But there was direction given from the same OR wasn't there...the stuff in yellow above?  Now they are saying *oops we f$$ked that one up and you don't get the money we told you we would reimburse*...or am I missing something.  I know the CFTDI says what it says but...

There was the included "cookie-cutter" sheet that says rations will be used, however, right before boarding, we had a Q&A with our Maj, and when asked where we could eat, he said anywhere, just keep your receipts. It's all very hodgepodge so far, and finding actual proper directive is pretty challenging so far. We aren't setting out to take advantage of the system, but we don't want to get screwed over either.

You may want to remind them that Chapter 5 has to do with travel within the place of duty.  They should be referencing to Chapter 7, specifically 7.18

Yeah, that's what we figured, but their reference is a FAQ that asks a question related to foreign duty, and the answer refers to 5.19 for "place of duty". I'll have to find that again, because it was literally just a photocopied monochrome sheet with missing headers. Hardly something I'd call official. Like you said, I'm pretty sure chapter * is what we need.

 

[Uboa]

The picture is starting to become more clear.  The issue can be broken down into two possible scenarios:

1) Is there an arrangement in place whereby the foreign base provides meals and accommodations to CAF personnel under these circumstances?  It doesn't matter whether the foreign military provides these for free or the CAF pays a single bill.  In this scenario, R&Q are considered to be provided to the member and there is no entitlement to claim for any meals unless, there is a compelling reason that the member is unable to make it to the mess (I explained how this works above and yes, receipts would be required).  Interestingly, individuals cannot "opt out" of this if they feel like it, so if the CO is giving folks the option to eat out and claim, he actually has no authority to do this and folks could be in for a lot of grief if this gets picked up in an audit (and claims like this draw special attention during audits...).  If this is the case, then the OR is asking for receipts in order to do something they're not allowed to do - and creating a paper trail...

2)  The other scenario is one where the CAF members are required to pay themselves for meals in the mess (i.e. rations are technically not provided).  In this case, the member may claim the appropriate full meal rate for each meal they were at that location, regardless of what they actually paid and no receipts would be required.

Hey again,
      Can you provide a reference (I know this is probably annoying, as it's obvious in Chapter 8 of the CFDTDI) for these? Or tell me where I could find them? Our major originally told us we could visit neighbouring cities during weekends and claim meals (with receipts, but this doesn't make sense either), but now our SOR is only entertaining receipts from the mess (even though, like said previously, there was no established contract and we had to pay for ourselves). Our CoC isn't too keen on helping us out.

Thanks again.

 

[captloadie]

It sounds like the OR is between a rock and a hard place. They actually are trying to help the members by exploiting the grey area in the rules, but aren't being helped by all the "direction" that was given. Here is how I see it:
1) The major who gave the directions obviously had no idea what the policies are. Not necessarily his fault, but he should have said "I'll check, and get back to you", rather than eat wherever you want and keep your receipts.
2) Members were told to keep their receipts. It seems one of the issues is that members want to provide a stat dec because they lost their receipts. Is this really the ORs fault? That being said, I would probably reimburse members the mess rate for those meals they don't have proof for, unless it turns out the members lost all the Sunday morning breakfast receipts or other obvious attempts to defraud the CAF.

We have gotten away from staying on bases (Canadian and foreign) and from being forced to eat at the gov't provided facilities. As for the whole "being provided a meal vs. paying it yourself" argument, members are never going to win it when they eat at a gov't provided facility, nor should they. Why should we pay someone $45 for a meal we know only cost $12, and especially if they are told to eat at the facility. I know this isn't the case here, and I believe that the members should be reimbursed for all meals they can prove they have receipts for, and the mess rates for everything else.

 

[Pusser]

Hey again,
      Can you provide a reference (I know this is probably annoying, as it's obvious in Chapter 8 of the CFDTDI) for these? Or tell me where I could find them? Our major originally told us we could visit neighbouring cities during weekends and claim meals (with receipts, but this doesn't make sense either), but now our SOR is only entertaining receipts from the mess (even though, like said previously, there was no established contract and we had to pay for ourselves). Our CoC isn't too keen on helping us out.

Thanks again.

CFAO 36-14 (Entitlement to Meals and Public Rations)
CFTDI

The big question is whether rations were provided.  If rations were provided, then you must provide proof of a compelling reason as to why you couldn't eat them before you can be reimbursed "actual and reasonable" costs.  It could be argued that rations were provided even if you had to pay out of pocket at the time in order to be reimbursed later.  If that's the case though, I would be inclined to simply pay everyone the cost of three meals a day at the dining facility, times the number of days - I would likely clear this through DCBA and attach a letter from the CO on a bulk claim.  Receipts seem kind of pointless in this case.  Keep in mind that, "because I felt like a change and ate downtown that night," is not a compelling reason for reimbursement.

If rations were definitely not provided, then the CFTDI come into play and the TB approved rates for reimbursement apply.  Receipts should not be required unless the NJC website says so.

 

[Uboa]

CFAO 36-14 (Entitlement to Meals and Public Rations)
CFTDI

The big question is whether rations were provided.  If rations were provided, then you must provide proof of a compelling reason as to why you couldn't eat them before you can be reimbursed "actual and reasonable" costs.  It could be argued that rations were provided even if you had to pay out of pocket at the time in order to be reimbursed later.  If that's the case though, I would be inclined to simply pay everyone the cost of three meals a day at the dining facility, times the number of days - I would likely clear this through DCBA and attach a letter from the CO on a bulk claim.  Receipts seem kind of pointless in this case.  Keep in mind that, "because I felt like a change and ate downtown that night," is not a compelling reason for reimbursement.

If rations were definitely not provided, then the CFTDI come into play and the TB approved rates for reimbursement apply.  Receipts should not be required unless the NJC website says so.

Thanks,
    At that point though, how can you prove the meals were provided or not? Meals WERE available and a dining establishment, we went there sometimes, but since we were told by our DETCO at the start that any location was good, there would be no issues (given this, and the fact that they advanced us 100% full per diem, not even the standard 80%, but actually even more then would be necessary for all lodging, car rental, AND full perr diem meals for every single day, we assumed they'd actually be entertaining the CFDTDI). Like you said, I think the big issue right now is meals provided. It seems like they can pretty much ALWAYS says meals were provided, even without contracts with foreign lodger units? I don't really ming one way or another, or at least I wouldn't, had this been established at the start, and false information hadn't been given to us by a position of authority.
Thanks for your prompt ersponse though  [

 

[ModlrMike]

Available =/= provided.

Provided in the context of CFTDI means that the Crown directly absorbed the cost of the meals with no encumbrance on the member, other than perhaps some local administration (ration control etc).