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

PMV and Travel Limits While on TD

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
77
Points
530
CountDC said:
As I am sure everyone knows DCBA has pushed that a Class A Reserve can not be authorized PMV higher than the 500km limit unless they will earn enough leave while on TD and the hiring unit authorizes it. Reading this section of the CFTDTI I disagree.  Seems straight forward enough to me, put on Class A day one and then no more pay until the start of the task/TD.  For example mbrs TD is 1500kms and course starts 4 May ends 15 Jul.  Class A 1 May (day one of travel) nothing 2 and 3 May, Class B pay starts 4 May.  Course ends 15 Jul along with Class B pay, Class A 16 Jul and all done.  When the mbr actually travels don't care as long as he is there to start 4 May.

I agree with you. Unfortunately there's a few people that have grown roots in DCBA that are utterly incompetent, and if you show them in black and white that the sky is blue, they will someone conclude that's actually yellow, and only a grievance can solve it.

CountDC said:
Perhaps someone here can help with this one.  I recall before where a factor in granting a member transportation expenses home for a break while on TD was allowed if it was determined that it was cost effective.  Believe it had to do with showing that the transportation back and forth was comparable to expenses paid if mbr stayed at the TD location.  This holiday block leave is a perfect example - pay mbrs tpt home vice meals and incidentals at TD location.  Maybe just me having a bad day but can't find it anywhere.

I believe you are talking about CBI 209.31 - Reimbursement for Weekend Travel While on Temporary Duty. A slightly tangled benefit as well, and a rarely used one, that's worth a discussion.
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
480
I thought the same CBI but doesn't have that in there and even worse is not applicable to members attending a course.  We give them 3 weeks off, expect them to stay in place, close the mess and then pay them per diem or make them pay their own costs to go home and save us the money. 

Maybe it was a local policy that I am recalling that is no longer applicable.  Makes sense to send them home for a few hundred dollars and reimburse rather than pay 3 weeks of per diem (rats and incids) at over $1500. 
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Would this require removing them form TD for the period that they are on leave and at home? If that is the case, there is likely an argument that the administration required to do that (creating split taskings, multiple claims, etc) is more costly (in time and money) than one is saving by paying the travel costs.

That said, maybe it is time to look at improving the benefits members receive in instances like this, especially for brand new recruits ab initio training.
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
480
that was the beauty of the policy I am looking for.  Didn't need to split the task and the CO at the school authorizes the trip home based on cost savings. The claim itself in our case only takes a couple minutes as it is transport and maybe a meal each way for a couple people.  Seen it so many times and now that I need it of course can't find lol.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
77
Points
530
CountDC said:
We give them 3 weeks off, expect them to stay in place, close the mess and then pay them per diem or make them pay their own costs to go home and save us the money.

Are these PRes or Reg Force? When you say we "give" them 3 weeks off, I assume you mean their Christmas block leave?
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
480
both pres and reg f although the pres mbrs are the biggest issue as all the policies seem to exclude them from everything I could come up with.  3 weeks is the block leave period during which we have closed the mess, rations not available so if they stayed we would have to cover meals per diem on a claim. 

we is used in context of the establishment.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
77
Points
530
I don't see why a benefit needs to exist to facilitate this, the CO has all the authority he needs to make this call. He has travel EIA, whichever column of the DOA matrix that is, which allows him to authorize the travel on the public's dime for legitimate purposes.

These guys can simply do ITAs, justification "cost savings," and the CO signs it. Their leave passes can cover the period in between the travel days, and since they are in the same location as their F&E, they are no longer entitled to meals/incidentals while they are there taking their leave. So their task hasn't ended meaning the CFTPO doesn't need to get split (not that that is a big deal either).

I would certainly not be telling people, "we'll provide you zero support to travel home so you can utilize your Christmas block leave with your family... but if you choose to travel home on your own dime, saving the Crown money at your own expense.... thanks."
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
1
Points
230
While within his authorities, is it within the CO's budget? Training establishments tend to have very limited budgets, that are tied to specific courses. A course of 25-50 students all claiming travel to go home would be a significant hit to a budget. Most training establishments would probably insist that this be a centrally funded line item.

Reference paying for meal entitlements because the mess is closed, if the member is on leave (likely forced on leave due to block leave policy), is the CAF mandated to feed these individuals at crown expense?
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
480
Right, no training establishment is going to cover it out of their budget considering it is not their budget that is impacted, R&Q is a recoverable charged to someone else.

if the mbr is here on TD while on school shut down periods they still have a meal entitlement whether it is a weekend, holiday or leave.  If they go somewhere else then there is an impact.  It would be so easy to write the directive that mbrs travel home and back would be covered simply by stating 2 periods of TD - Start training to XMas Block start,  End XMas Block to End of training.  It was done in the past but now for some reason doesn't happen.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
77
Points
530
CountDC said:
Right, no training establishment is going to cover it out of their budget considering it is not their budget that is impacted, R&Q is a recoverable charged to someone else.

I guess we use a different funding model out here, because 3 CDTC for example pays for the travel and also the R&Q charges for the candidates they train. So for them, the math would be easy.... Incidentals + R&Q for 21 days is approximately $1200 per person. Easy decision and involves no one else to save $1200 on incidentals/R&Q charges and pay for a round-trip home so people can spend their xmas leave with their family.

If you're saying that the Base has some influence on this, because they want to collect R&Q, your CO should show some leadership and tell the Base to go pound sand, because that Base Comd should be f**king ashamed of themselves. But I'm not sure that's what you are saying.

CountDC said:
It would be so easy to write the directive that mbrs travel home and back would be covered simply by stating 2 periods of TD - Start training to XMas Block start,  End XMas Block to End of training.  It was done in the past but now for some reason doesn't happen.

Sounds like something that can be controlled internally. I suspect the school ops creates it's own CFTPO brick and writes the CFTPO messages?


Maybe it's because of a different funding model, I am just not understanding what the constraint is.
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
480
Although you have misunderstood you have given me a piece that I was missing that I will blame on the holiday wrap ups.  I can contact who ever is funding their costs here and get their approval for a round trip during the holidays vice charging them for R&Q.

3 CDTC does have a different funding model as you are provided the budget for the students, we are not.

No base, the school which does not have funds to pay for such a thing.  It's not a matter of the base or school wanting to collect R&Q, quarters are collected regardless as the rooms remain for the members with all their kit still in it.  Rations are not collected even if the member stays as the kitchen is closed, the member would have to purchase meals and be reimbursed per diem rates.  It is a matter that naturally the member will opt to return home and I would like to be able to cover their travel expenses for them in the easiest method possible.  In order to accomplish this I have to be able to provide the travel approving authority with regulations showing it to be valid as everyone is all over proper approvals and policy compliances.  LTA is an option for most mbrs but there are a few that falls outside and slips through the cracks for it. 
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
240
Points
680
Quick question for a sanity check; finally going on the extended TD trip that was looking at last summer for 4 weeks.  It's in support of a PGT experiment and funded by the sponsor, so generally happy about it, but deliberately left off a bunch of stuff on the claim to get it down to a pretty minimum cost (ie on 'annual leave' on the weekends while visiting family, taking PMV instead of a rental, staying in AirBNB etc).

Got the section 32 and the cost comparison they used was for the trip to and from only (in this case, as train to and from) against the mileage. That's about $300 vs the $500 on the round trip mileage, but ignores the cost of a rental for four weeks plus gas, taxi etc.

On one hand, really happy to get this funding, as I was prepared to pay it out of pocket (which I agreed I would do if the TD funding fell through before starting; long story but was always a possibility), but also kind of annoyed at being nickle and dimed.

Going to ask a simple question for a reference on this one, but not going to put a lot of effort into fighting it, as I'll come out ahead overall, but kind of wanted to vent and see if I'm being unreasonable.

Should know better by now then to try and save GoC any money by doing something different, but also glad I'll have a vehicle with snow tires. Was unable to get a rental in December with any, and it was pretty hairy driving around in a snowstorm.

In general, probably spent more than $10k+ of salary time on getting less then $1k worth of materials for the experiments sorted out (via donations from companies R&D division to the university), and will probably waste more after. Really inefficient, but still quicker then trying to jump through official hoops.

Lesson learned; instead of taking a DL option for PG that requires some minimal lab work, do two full cost moves, and don't try and do an experiment that's actually useful and relevant to the CAF. Could be almost done by now if I had just jumped on the ongoing experimental work and be finishing my thesis up, instead of just starting the experiment.
 

QM

Jr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
130
Navy_Pete, small point here, but I don't think we are allowed to use AirBnB's. A guy in my unit had to eat the cost of an Air BNB he used on TD because there is supposedly a CANFORGEN denying us that option. Sorry that I don't have better details or a reference, but if you plan to use and claim them, it may be worth looking into, to ensure you haven't been given bad advice. Happy travels!
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
167
Points
680
Log Offr said:
Navy_Pete, small point here, but I don't think we are allowed to use AirBnB's. A guy in my unit had to eat the cost of an Air BNB he used on TD because there is supposedly a CANFORGEN denying us that option. Sorry that I don't have better details or a reference, but if you plan to use and claim them, it may be worth looking into, to ensure you haven't been given bad advice. Happy travels!

Unless there is something more recent

https://www.cfla-alfc.org/canforgens/canforgen-047-19/
CANFORGEN 047/19 – USE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS

REFS: A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT INSTRUCTIONS, CHAPTER 208
B. CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM
C. CANADIAN FORCES TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL INSTRUCTIONS
D. DCBA 3 001/19 281950Z FEB 19
E. DCBA 3 002/19 281944Z FEB 19

1.  AS PART OF ONGOING EFFORTS TO MODERNIZE AND STREAMLINE THE ADMINISTRATION OF CAF TRAVEL AND RELOCATION POLICIES AND PROCESSES, I AM PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE NEW GUIDELINES WITH REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS SUCH AS UBER AND AIRBNB. CAF MBRS WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS, IN LOCATIONS WHERE THEY ARE NOW LEGAL/REGULATED, IAW REFS WHILE ON TD,OR DURING RELOCATION

2.  WITH REGARD TO TD, USE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES MAY BE REIMBURSED AS A MODE OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION. ADDITIONALLY, ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS MAY BE SELECTED BY THE APPROVING AUTHORITY IF NONE OF THE ACCOMMODATIONS LISTED IN THE ACCOMMODATION AND CAR RENTAL DIRECTORY (ACRD) ARE AVAILABLE.

3.  WITH REGARD TO RELOCATIONS, RIDE SHARING SERVICES ARE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE EXPENSES WHEN USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPTIONS. ADDITIONALLY CAF MBRS MAY BE REIMBURSED ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION BOOKING EXPENSES UP TO THE RATES ESTABLISHED IN THE ACRD BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOTEL/MOTEL ROOMS THEIR FAMILY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO

4.  THESE NEW GUIDELINES TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, AND MODERN PRACTICES WITHIN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY. THEY AIM TO ENSURE THAT CLAIMS ARE ADMINISTERED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF REFS A, B, AND C, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY RECOGNIZING CHANGING PRACTICES WITHIN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY. DETAILED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES (REFS D AND E) CAN BE FOUND AT THE FOL LINK: HTTP://CMP-CPM.MIL.CA/EN/BENEFITS/BENEFITS-GENERIC.PAGE
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
240
Points
680
The AirBNB is an option at the National Joint Council travel directive of what acceptable accomodation is defined as is pretty broad; excerpt and the link below.  Have used it a few times in the past for TD and the cost is just capped at whatever the local rate is. NJC actually specifically encourages non-hotel accomodations over 30 day stays, so things like AirBNB is probably the easiest way to do that (having previously had the joy of being on IR for 18 months).

Aside from being cheaper, where I'm at able to get a much better location and usually can find a suite/kitchenette, so it's a win for everyone.

There is actually a CANFORGEN that specifically allows it as well; not sure why there is a caveat when there isn't one on the NJC directive, but my particular TD went through several layer of travel approvals and the section 32 already, so not too worried about it. Not really sure what kind of hypothetical would result in someone having to pay it back, but anyway, included that ref and excerpt as well FYSA. If you read the NJC, the requirement to use the gov directory of hotels includes the caveat that it's normally done on a GoC travel card, but that requires the employee's consent(see 1.61). I don't have one, and don't want one, so bit of a bit of circular BS to force people to use the NJC on their own credit card, so would call that an easy grievance to bounce up if that was their logic.

In any case, my actual TD claim is a few thousand less then it could be after some intentional cost cuttings on my end when I submitted it, so bit annoyed to get dinged for $200 for a 4 week trip because someone doesn't consider on site travel requirements in the cost comparison.



Refs:
https://www.cfla-alfc.org/canforgens/canforgen-047-19/

CANFORGEN 047/19 – USE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS

REFS: A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT INSTRUCTIONS, CHAPTER 208
B. CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM
C. CANADIAN FORCES TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL INSTRUCTIONS
D. DCBA 3 001/19 281950Z FEB 19
E. DCBA 3 002/19 281944Z FEB 19

    AS PART OF ONGOING EFFORTS TO MODERNIZE AND STREAMLINE THE ADMINISTRATION OF CAF TRAVEL AND RELOCATION POLICIES AND PROCESSES, I AM PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE NEW GUIDELINES WITH REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS SUCH AS UBER AND AIRBNB. CAF MBRS WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS, IN LOCATIONS WHERE THEY ARE NOW LEGAL/REGULATED, IAW REFS WHILE ON TD,OR DURING RELOCATION
    WITH REGARD TO TD, USE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES MAY BE REIMBURSED AS A MODE OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION. ADDITIONALLY, ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION BOOKING PROGRAMS MAY BE SELECTED BY THE APPROVING AUTHORITY IF NONE OF THE ACCOMMODATIONS LISTED IN THE ACCOMMODATION AND CAR RENTAL DIRECTORY (ACRD) ARE AVAILABLE.
    WITH REGARD TO RELOCATIONS, RIDE SHARING SERVICES ARE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE EXPENSES WHEN USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPTIONS. ADDITIONALLY CAF MBRS MAY BE REIMBURSED ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION BOOKING EXPENSES UP TO THE RATES ESTABLISHED IN THE ACRD BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOTEL/MOTEL ROOMS THEIR FAMILY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO
    THESE NEW GUIDELINES TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, AND MODERN PRACTICES WITHIN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY. THEY AIM TO ENSURE THAT CLAIMS ARE ADMINISTERED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF REFS A, B, AND C, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY RECOGNIZING CHANGING PRACTICES WITHIN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY. DETAILED ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES (REFS D AND E) CAN BE FOUND AT THE FOL LINK: HTTP://CMP-CPM.MIL.CA/EN/BENEFITS/BENEFITS-GENERIC.PAGE

****************
NJC directive Part III

https://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/d10/v238/s644/en#s644-tc-tm_3_1

3.3.1 Accommodation

The standard for accommodation is a single room, in a safe environment, conveniently located and comfortably equipped.

A variety of options for accommodation are available for travel. Generally these include hotels, motels, corporate residences, apartments, private non-commercial accommodation, and government and institutional accommodation.

In accordance with 1.6.1, government hotel directories shall be used for the selection of accommodation where properties are listed therein for the travel location. Where properties for a particular location are not listed, or are listed but not available for the travel period, the directories shall be used to help determine the cost of accommodation by comparing costs in similar nearby locations.
 

Nkachur

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Just to let everyone know, I recently submitted and was granted redress on the class "a" interpretation of the policy of POMV at member request of the CFTDTI. The director general has agreed that "class a" members are not required to have leave and are allowed to travel over 500 km. We are waiting for DCBA to acknowledge but if members would like to submit grievance, i might be able to help.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
118
Points
680
Rather than generate more documents that might bog down the system, wouldn't it be better to wait until a policy change is announced?
 

Nkachur

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Unfortunately that might increase the time that DCBA takes to make an announcement. With only one redress on the topic it is only my word that this issue is systemic. I have been told that additional redress will bring the issue to the top of the pile.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
77
Points
530
ModlrMike said:
Rather than generate more documents that might bog down the system, wouldn't it be better to wait until a policy change is announced?

What makes you think one will be announced?

Decisions by the DGCB (the IA for this) are not published and it's Protected B info so technically shouldn't be distributed. We had one happen last year for which I was provided a copy of with consent of the member. We sent an "inquiry" (ie. a prompt) to DCBA 3 as to when they would be updating the AIG that had caused the grievance. DCBA 3 wouldn't amend the AIG to actually reflect what DGCB had said. I had to tell them them we'd be submitting a second person's grievance over the same manner as the RDAO was still denying the benefit based on the unchanged DCBA direction. "I've tried to resolve this informally. If DCBA will not change it's position, then we'll send another grievance for the same thing to DGCB." To which he responded that before a member submits a grievance they'd have to go to DCBA for clarification first. To which we responded, "get f'd, the member can submit a grievance as soon as he is denied a benefit. You had your chance."

About 3-4 weeks later, they updated the AIG... but they still have the old AIG and the old information in their FAQ posted on their website a year later.

DCBA 3 is really just one civilian, a former RMS clerk, some might say dinosaur, whose literacy is questionable and he is literally making decisions that affect every soldier, sometimes in quite substantial ways, and has a rotating chair of Majors who always seem absent that are supposed to be supervising.

The same person who's got his name tied to a lot of these grievance decisions and yet somehow hasn't been fired. "Waiting for a policy change to be announced" won't help the guy who wants to travel with their POMV tomorrow, next week, or likely within the next year.... it might never occur with those jokers.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
113
Points
680
ballz said:
What makes you think one will be announced?

Decisions by the DGCB (the IA for this) are not published and it's Protected B info so technically shouldn't be distributed. We had one happen last year for which I was provided a copy of with consent of the member. We sent an "inquiry" (ie. a prompt) to DCBA 3 as to when they would be updating the AIG that had caused the grievance. DCBA 3 wouldn't amend the AIG to actually reflect what DGCB had said. I had to tell them them we'd be submitting a second person's grievance over the same manner as the RDAO was still denying the benefit based on the unchanged DCBA direction. "I've tried to resolve this informally. If DCBA will not change it's position, then we'll send another grievance for the same thing to DGCB." To which he responded that before a member submits a grievance they'd have to go to DCBA for clarification first. To which we responded, "get f'd, the member can submit a grievance as soon as he is denied a benefit. You had your chance."

About 3-4 weeks later, they updated the AIG... but they still have the old AIG and the old information in their FAQ posted on their website a year later.

DCBA 3 is really just one civilian, a former RMS clerk, some might say dinosaur, whose literacy is questionable and he is literally making decisions that affect every soldier, sometimes in quite substantial ways, and has a rotating chair of Majors who always seem absent that are supposed to be supervising.

The same person who's got his name tied to a lot of these grievance decisions and yet somehow hasn't been fired. "Waiting for a policy change to be announced" won't help the guy who wants to travel with their POMV tomorrow, next week, or likely within the next year.... it might never occur with those jokers.

True, had a a very unique LTA "test the system" case where the member's IA was granted by DGCB but LTA policy never changed. Mbr was successful in claiming that they didn't have to be on leave for the entire time period in a reverse LTA situation.

I haven't looked to see if it was updated later but it certainly wasn't the case 1+ year after the original decision.
 
Top