PMV and Travel Limits While on TD

[Fishbone Jones]

What it means is that it's going to be harder to get Reservists to take the tasking(s).

If I was to be asked to take a tasking, anywhere, for anything over a couple of weeks, my car would be going, or I wouldn't.

It's a Quality of Life issue and you can't expect a person to be cooped up somewhere like Meaford, Wainwright or Gagetown for two months without personal transportation.

Policy or not, it's bullshit.

My  :2c:

 

[Journeyman]

Policy or not, it's bullshit.

Absolutely. RegF or Res.

I take a vehicle regardless, accepting the risk and cost, because it is a quality of life issue.


Having said that, I'm expecting the Navy's Martha Stewart to show up, clucking about policies being gospel...... 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

First of all you need to determine what the "authorized" mode of travel is going to be.  If they don't have leave to burn inorder to use POMV, then POMV can't be an authorized MOT.  If you try and use a cost comparison under the scenario you mention above, you are by default placing them "on duty" for the entire period of travel time and not just the first and last day.

DCBA has a great Power Point training presentation that they use when they visits Bases and all the information on this subject is covered in it.  I totally understand the frustration on this but the ramifications go way beyond a few bucks in someone's pocket.  If you don't have and want a copy of the trg presentation, PM me and I can send it to you on DWAN.

I'd like to see the REFs not some DCBA powerpoint.  CBI, CFAO, something that is authortive.  MS Powerpoint doesn't exactly cover it, and DCBA isn't exactly an error-free organization.

So, lets remove the car from the equation.  I go to Ont before my tasking starts.  I am within 500km of the base, and Friend #1 drives me to the base.  Thats fine??  I wouldn't be reimbursed from Friends mileage, meals, etc?

I see you're completely sold on the "liability" thing, but I don't think any, or many, others are. 

 

[DAA]

It's a Quality of Life issue and you can't expect a person to be cooped up somewhere like Meaford, Wainwright or Gagetown for two months without personal transportation.

Policy or not, it's bullshit.

I agree that it is a "quality of life issue" to a certain extent.  But it all boils down to "liability" and nothing more!!!  This has nothing and I mean absolutely nothing to do with money and reimbursing expenses nor entitlements.  If you reimburse a Reserve Force member for travel, then the member by default is considered to be "on duty", which means the Route Letter MUST cover the entire period, including the travelling time or estimated travelling time in the case where you use a Cost Comparison.  If the members Route Letter is not in effect and they are injured during travel they have no recourse against the Crown and if it is your signature on any of those forms, good luck to you because if it was me that was injured, I would be suing who ever told me I was covered......

 

[Eye In The Sky]

reference for this "liability" stuff please.

 

[DAA]

I'd like to see the REFs not some DCBA powerpoint.  CBI, CFAO, something that is authortive.  MS Powerpoint doesn't exactly cover it, and DCBA isn't exactly an error-free organization.

So, lets remove the car from the equation.  I go to Ont before my tasking starts.  I am within 500km of the base, and Friend #1 drives me to the base.  Thats fine??  I wouldn't be reimbursed from Friends mileage, meals, etc?

I see you're completely sold on the "liability" thing, but I don't think any, or many, others are.

Sure, here you go......

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/index.php?sid=90&hl=1&lang=eng#tc-tm_2_6  - Travel status (déplacement) - occurs when an employee or traveller is on authorized government travel.

Hence, by reimbursing someone you place them in "Travel Status" which by DND standards now means they are "on duty" which now means they are FULLY covered...

Personally, I really don't care what anyone does but for myself, you won't find my signature on any claim that falls into this category.  If higher powers want to sign it, then that is there perogative...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

OK, but...the 1st day of their contract, they ARE on duty.  SO...on duty, to travel, for 1 day.  So, if they are on duty and travelling on a Sunday, which they would be if they are flying, they should be reimbursed for travel on that day.

If not on Cl A or B the day before that, its not duty.  Its own dime and time.

I am not seeing where they can't be reimbursed the travel they do, if less the 500Km, their report date, in POMV.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am looking for an actual DND/CF reference.  I don't even see DND/CF listed in this "group of unknown authority", National Joint Council ", but I don't see where they have anything to do with the CF/miltary, or any authority in the CF Mil Admin Law & Policy.

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?sid=31&lang=eng  No DND/CF listed in their "membership".

 

[DAA]

I am looking for an actual DND/CF reference.  I don't even see DND/CF listed in this "group of unknown authority", National Joint Council ", but I don't see where they have anything to do with the CF/miltary, or any authority in the CF Mil Admin Law & Policy.

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?sid=31&lang=eng  No DND/CF listed in their "membership".

CFTDI's which govern our (ie; CF) travel benefits are derived from the TBS Travel Directive (Treasury Board) which is a mirror of the National Joint Council (NJC) Directives regarding Government of Canada travel. And seeing as DND is a part of the Canadian Government, we are all subject to the conditions listed in this publication.  If you compare CFTDI's to this document, you will see that they are identical.  The wording may be slightly different but the entitlements are the same.  The most recent rash of changes to our benefits are a direct result of the CFTDI's not conforming to NJC policy and everything is based on this publication.

As far as the liaibility issue is concerned, when I use that term, it falls into two contexts, you yourself personally for issuing an order and or giving "authorization" for something and secondly when in the case of this thread regarding POMV travel the potential for a "Claim Against the Crown"

Claims against the Crown fall under the "Crown Liability and Proceedings Act" ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-50/page-1.html ) , Treasury Board Policy on Claims and Ex-Gratia Payments ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=17068&section=text ) and DAOD 7004-1 ( http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/7000/7004-1-eng.asp ).

So in the performance of your "military duty" should you authorize someone a mode of travel which is contrary to directed and or accepted policy, you are acting outside of your area of authority and in the end....are on your own.

If your bored or want to see just what is going on south of the border, have a read at this one, it may be a better reference (I believe that "tort" law within the context of this article may not apply within Canada...  http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=gsulr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dmilitary%2520liability%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26ved%3D0CD0QFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalarchive.gsu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1320%2526context%253Dgsulr%26ei%3Dp2eTT6i_DKWM6QG3uaC8BA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHNfsk1FP31QoOkKEvR1LqljQUPaA#search=%22military%20liability%22

 

[DAA]

And one last stab at the cat regarding "Liability"..........

You sign a "POMV Waiver" for a reason! (ie; emphasise on WAIVER)  DND does not and will not order you to utilize POMV for Government Authorized Travel, they will, however, "authorize" you to utilize POMV but ONLY if you sign the waiver.  That "waiver" absolves DND of any responsibility and subsequent claims should anything happen.  If you want an eye opener, call your auto insurance company and ask them if you have coverage should you be involved in an accident while you are travelling on "Government Business" from your home to your tasking location?  You may very well be surprised with the answer.......

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I can understand all of that, except the part where "I am travelling on my own dime and time, except for the last day, where I am within 500km of my tasking location". 

But recognizing this is just  :deadhorse: I'll end with saying it appears to me as if this is done without any thoughts to QOL for the service member.  The TDIs could allow for reimbursed travel the day the Cl B starts, but they just don't.  :2c:

 

[CountDC]

The references are there, it is a DCBA presentation and email clarifying what the references already state and what he has passed on is correct.  The changes detailed are to bring things into allignment TB and the ones for TD are effective Feb 2011.  It does appear the concern is liability as on duty the crown is liable for any injuries which it may not be while on leave.  Disability pension comes into play.

I agree that it is a QOL issue.  I too agree with EIS that it would be good if they allowed the one day, 500 km, travel on the departure date.  Unfortunately DAA is correct the current policies do not allow for it.  Something else for the reserves to work on.

Did notice that it appears looking at the waiver that if the travel was less than 650 kms then the member could be auth PMV as the second day could be considered a work day vice travel.

Haven't looked yet but how does leave play into this?  If the member is going for 90+ days he will earn 6 days leave.  Is the current policy that you have to wait for the 30 days in order to start to use the leave?  I know last year we were allowing the leave to be used prior but things do change.  It just seems to me that if the member can use the leave and the gaining unit would approve it then he may be able to utilize leave time to travel there same as any reg f or long term Cl B mbr.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Haven't looked yet but how does leave play into this?  If the member is going for 90+ days he will earn 6 days leave.  Is the current policy that you have to wait for the 30 days in order to start to use the leave?  I know last year we were allowing the leave to be used prior but things do change.  It just seems to me that if the member can use the leave and the gaining unit would approve it then he may be able to utilize leave time to travel there same as any reg f or long term Cl B mbr.

Letting the Res mbr use leave "before it is earned" in days of svc is not likely something employing units like to do Z(not even sure its *legal*) being as they end up paying for those travel days.  Not sure what it is now, but the last year I was on a Cl B tasking, we had to use a min of 50% of our Ann Lve during the tasking.  I'd suspect with shrinking budgets and more fiscal restraint at all lvls, units would be directing all Ann Lve accumulated shall be burned before the end date of the Cl B.  Its an easy way to save $$.

 

[CountDC]

yes the leave would be used during the class b period as the travel days form part of the class period.  No extensions.

mbr normal travel date is Sun, report to work Mon.  The unit gave Mon as leave so now the mbr could use Sun and Mon as travel days and drive.  Coming back mbr travel date would be Sat, unit gives Fri as leave so now mbr is able to travel both days.  No additional expenses as they are still paying the mbr the same number of days, getting the same number of work days and travel was reimbursed the lesser of actual travel or normal MOT.

Early RTU was not an option as the mbr had to stay long enough to earn the leave for travel.

Somethings use to be so easy until people started screwing it for all.  I imagine units stopped approving the leave prior to avoid the hassle of an early rtu.  I can understand that for courses but on a call out they can simply refuse to RTU until they have earned the leave.

 

[PMedMoe]

I can understand that for courses but on a call out they can simply refuse to RTU until they have earned the leave.

Really?  So what happens if a person gets into a serious accident resulting in physical injury?  Or gets a serious illness?  Then what?  Refuse RTU to make sure they earn their leave?

Seriously just can't believe I posted in a thread that has gone on two pages longer than it should have..........

 

[CountDC]

In the case of injury due to military activities they can be RTU'd if needed but their class b contract still completed so they will have earned the leave as is already done (or have they changed that one in the last year?).  For example - we had a case where a reserve member was down south and they had a sactioned activity day that included water skiing.  The member went, was injured, rtu'd and paid to the end of his "contracted" service period.  He also filed and was awarded compensation for the period he was unable to work Cl A at the unit or return to his civilian job.  We had another case where a member on course was injured, rtu'd to the unit and we employed her in the OR to the end of her employment period. 

Also if they are that injured/sick do you really think they will need the leave to drive back?  If they can do that then they don't need an rtu.

Injury and illness are a whole other kettle of fish that have a system in place to deal with them that includes compensation often determined by BOI/SI's and Request for Compensation.  In this case they could seek compensation for having their vehicle returned or have it done at their own expense.

If it is determined the injury is not covered by the military and they were really set on it then they could always do a recovery from pay same as when a reg f member uses up all their leave and then decides to retire.

Personally if it is a matter of one day I wouldn't worry about it but that is just me being mean and picking on the severely injured/sick.  ;D

 

[Deleted member 89807]

Hi,

I requested to drive to Gagetown for my trades course (being accepted as a recruit bypass) and was wondering if I would be reimbursed for travel in a personal vehicle? I thought it would be good to have a vehicle since ill be spending some time on PAT Platoon first?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You might (should?) get the 'cost comparison' amount;  if your RC determines they could get you there in a rusty wheelbarrow for $100, that's how much you might (should?) get if you are approved POMV.

 

[mariomike]

I requested to drive to Gagetown for my trades course (being accepted as a recruit bypass) and was wondering if I would be reimbursed for travel in a personal vehicle?

You may find this discussion of interest,

Looking to find out if I can take a POMV on a tasking and what the rules are
http://army.ca/forums/threads/105437.75.html
4 pages.

As always,  Recruiting is your most trusted source of information.

 

[trooper142]

Good morning,

I checked the forums for an answer, but couldn't find one, as my question refers to a new directive.

I was informed by my unit OR that travel via PMV while on TD was capped at 500$, but when asked for a reference, was unable to provide one. I informed them I saw nothing in the CF TDTI that indicated a change in policy, and was told it may have come from the TB.

Anyone able to provide some clarity on this? I find it a bit weird that the CF TDTI provide for the option for the member to use their PMV, providing certain conditions are met (enough leave to cover the travel time at 500 km a day, a cost comparison with commercial travel to the TD place etc) but they are effectively limiting the access to that option, as 500$ may not be enough to cover the actual costs associated with the travel, depending on where the TD is.

Any clarity would be great!