The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread

[DavidAkin]

Dinning just released the three three letters he sent to the military  — on Aug. 25, 2006, on Dec. 1, 2006, and again on April 25, 2007  — and supporting invoices.

The last letter, addressed to Prime Minister Harper, is written almost a year to the day after his son was killed. In it, he notes that while the next of kin of married soldiers are paid a death benefit, the next of kin of single soldiers, like his son, are paid nothing. This, Dinning says, would have helped with the $25,000 in expenses incurred to receive and bury his son.  DND had, by this point, only reimbursed $6,400.

I have posted a PDF of the letters Dinning wrote -- they're worth a read -- back at my blog:
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/5/30/2985375.html

 

[aesop081]

, he notes that while the next of kin of married soldiers are paid a death benefit, the next of kin of single soldiers, like his son, are paid nothing.

Wether a CF member is married or not is irelevant. SDB ( suplementary death benefit) is paid to the member's NOK regardless of marital status.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Wether a CF member is married or not is irelevant. SDB ( suplementary death benefit) is paid to the member's NOK regardless of marital status.

The father's letter states they have received zero, and it is dated April 07, 2007.  Read the letter to the Prime Minister from Mr. Dinning.

dileas

tess

 

[aesop081]

The father's letter states they have received zero, and it is dated April 07, 2007.  Read the letter to the Prime Minister from Mr. Dinning.

dileas

tess

I'm not disputing the fact that he received zero.  I'm disputing the assertion that no money was shelled out because he was single.

 

[niner domestic]

IIRC, the universal SDB was only paid out to all members (regardless of marital status) as of April 2006.  Fallen members who were single and their NOK prior to that date were not eligible.  

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/06/19/nsbenefits20060619.html

 

[Spring_bok]

Do not confuse the supplementary death benefit with a survivors death benefit.  SDB is an insurance policy that all members contribute to and all members designate a beneficiary regardless of marital status or dependants.  Two very different benefits. 

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Not to be hard-hearted about this, but I've had a look at the invoices.  The funeral was very large - something within the family's control - and I see bills for grief counselling, attendance at a Police Memorial ceremony and the like - things that surely go beyond "funeral" costs.  Moreover, should not the media's vitriol not be directed at Veteran's Affairs, rather than "the military"?  The two Captains to whom the original reimbursement requests were made are hardly in a position to influence VAC policy in this regard.

SDB Regulations:

Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations - Part II
CANADIAN FORCES SUPPLEMENTARY DEATH BENEFITS
Designation of Beneficiaries
54. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a participant may, for the purposes of Part II of the Act, name a beneficiary under Part II of the Act or substitute a new named beneficiary or cancel the naming of any beneficiary.

(2) The naming of a beneficiary or the substitution or cancellation of a named beneficiary by a participant referred to in subsection (1) shall be evidenced in writing in a form prescribed by the Minister, dated, witnessed and forwarded to the Minister.

(3) The naming of a beneficiary or the substitution or cancellation of a named beneficiary by a participant referred to in subsection (1) shall be effective on the date the participant executes the form referred to in subsection (2) if the completed form is received by the Minister prior to the death of the participant.

(4) For the purposes of Part II of the Act, a beneficiary may be

(a) the participant’s estate;

(b) any person over the age of 18 years on the date of the naming;

(c) any charitable organization or institution;

(d) any benevolent organization or institution; or

(e) any eleemosynary religious or educational organization or institution.

Finally, once again I find myself aghast at our Minister's simpering, vacillating performance throughout this discussion.

 

[aesop081]

Do not confuse the supplementary death benefit with a survivors death benefit.  SDB is an insurance policy that all members contribute to and all members designate a beneficiary regardless of marital status or dependants.  Two very different benefits. 

This is true...however, since all members get SDB, the marital status of the member is irrelevant.  I have been filling out SDB forms since i joined and i was single then, they should have received SDB.....at an equivalent of 2 year's pay (IIRC), it hardly constitutes as "nothing"

 

[Spring_bok]

My point exactly.  Canada pension is no different, there is no survivors benefit paid if there is no surviving dependants.  Thats why they call it survivors benefits. 

 

[aesop081]

My point exactly.  Canada pension is no different, there is no survivors benefit paid if there is no surviving dependants.  Thats why they call it survivors benefits. 

Agreed.

The family was hardly left with bills they couldnt pay, As they are entitled to Sup death Benefit.  As well, i dont think its too far of a stretch to think that the member had SISIP insurance either prior to, or as part of his pre-deployement admin.

In my case, for example :

SISP = $300 000
Sup death benefit : $120 000

Total : $420 000

No amount of money can replace a loved one or ease the pain of that loss.  My point is simply that the system is there so that they were not burdenned by funeral costs. They were not left with bills they could not pay......at least thats the way it should have been.

 

[GAP]

IIRC, the universal SDB was only paid out to all members (regardless of marital status) as of April 2006.  Fallen members who were single and their NOK prior to that date were not eligible.  

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/06/19/nsbenefits20060619.html

Was there not an announcement to the effect that they (government) would backdate those payments or was that for injuries only?

Who was listed as his NOK?

I wasn't there, don't know everything involved, but have gone through 2 funerals within the last 8 years, and they did not come anywhere near $25,000. Was there, other than a large crowd, any other special consideration that caused it to cost so much?

These are the first questions that came to mind. Before everyone starts stomping all over me for asking them, I do NOT presume to pass judgement on anyone, I am simply asking because I don't know.

In any respect, DND should pay it and be done with it. It is a pittance for a life well served.

The bad PR for DND has probably cost them 4 times this cost, so which was the more cost effective strategy?

 

[the 48th regulator]

Not to be hard-hearted about this, but I've had a look at the invoices.  The funeral was very large - something within the family's control - and I see bills for grief counselling, attendance at a Police Memorial ceremony and the like - things that surely go beyond "funeral" costs.  Moreover, should not the media's vitriol not be directed at Veteran's Affairs, rather than "the military"?  The two Captains to whom the original reimbursement requests were made are hardly in a position to influence VAC policy in this regard.

SDB Regulations:

Finally, once again I find myself aghast at our Minister's simpering, vacillating performance throughout this discussion.

Should the chain of command not have a liaison officer to ensure the family members are cared for?  Much in the same way that an injured member has.

I Believe he was right in asking for help from the Military members, and they can guide him in the right direction.  It behooves the member's Unit to do so in my opinion.

Leaving the parents to seek all of this on their own, which I am sure none were ever prepared for, is just plain callous.  They have been cast aside, along with the soil that covers their loved one.

dileas

tess

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

48th - re-read my last.  My comments were directed at the media, not the family.  The role of an Assisting Officer is to do just that - assist.  However, I would suggest that few officers are adequately placed to pass judgement on whether or not grief counselling should be compensated for.  There has to be a cut-off point.

It's hardly callous.  I can cite several instances where the CF has gone well beyond what even the most critical observer would demand.  They've hardly been "cast aside". :

 

[George Wallace]

Let's get realistic for a moment.  The Government, no matter whether it is for a soldier or a Civil Servant, is going pay out an "Average Sum" in all cases.  If, as mentioned by Teddy in his post on the first page, the family is going to go about this and use the most extravagant and expensive means to carry out the funeral, the question should be asked if we the Tax Payers should pay?  Or should there be a set fee for all.....even across the board.  Should other factors, other than the funeral be included in this fee?

Actually, this enrages me.  I don't know all the facts, but if someone wants to claim twice or three times the fees that others are paying for a funeral, I am beginning to smell a rat.  Cold?  Perhaps.  I am sure the Press will not clean up, nor clear up, this story by providing all the facts.  It is sensationalism and designed to discredit the Government and DND, even if it is not within their realm of responsibility, but that of DVA and SISIP or other organizations who are charging to support the Troops.

Until all the facts are presented "publicly", we will never know.  We can't trust the National Enquirer Press to provide us with the real facts.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I should probably stay out of this but...ah well here goes.
I agree with Teddy Ruxpin.....there are limits...they need to be re-visited and updated maybe... expectations should be managed from the get go by the AO, the Padre and the Unit involved. Making statements like "whatever it takes" can come back to haunt you in the end...as the Treasury Board does not recognise that parameter in their regulations.

I have been involved with these procedures for over 20 years...in the military and the civiilian sector. I was very surprised at the time of the Dinning funeral that the family had chosen such a huge venue and I thought to myself that this was going to cost someone a lot of money.

My advice to families when I am the advising and/or officiating clergy is to keep things simple. Obits in the paper are very expensive and the more papers you publish in the more expense....caskets ($1500 in this case) are extremely expensive and the Funeral directors always try to upsell.....saying things like..."wouldn't you want your loved one to have the best?" at the time of my father's funeral they were very upset with me when I totld them I wanted a pine box as we were draping the casket with a funeral pall and burning the box after the funeral anyway. they missed an opportunity to upsell. Churches are the best value for money when it comes to venue for the service...the most any church would take as a donation would be 10 per cent of what that arena cost.

again manage expectations.....if there is a limit to seating then you need to make arrangements for overflow or let folks know that seating will be limited and then make sure reserved seating is available for those you really want to be there....the Unit can do that for you...as with most things.

My heart goes out to anyone who is grieving and I've certainly had to provide lots of these services in the past...grief can sometimes produce unrealistic expectations of others...is this the case here?

 

[DavidAkin]

Until all the facts are presented "publicly", we will never know.  We can't trust the National Enquirer Press to provide us with the real facts.

C'mon, George -- gimme a break. There's lot of stories about military and foreign affairs where reporters expect to get dished for spinning but on this one?  We carried Dinning's press conference live and uninterrupted and we've published the letters he wrote in their entirety with the invoices he submitted.

I'll go find him and report 'em if you tell me what "real facts" we're missing here ...

 

[westernarmymember]

It's not often I wade into a discussion but this one has really captured my interest. One point to remember in all this is that the funeral allowance is not set by DND, it is set by Treasury Board. Should costs associated with the death of a hero be unlimited? I'm on the fence.

 

[armyvern]

My point exactly.  Canada pension is no different, there is no survivors benefit paid if there is no surviving dependants.  Thats why they call it survivors benefits. 

Excellent post Spring_bok,

Sadly, this is a very frustrating situation, due to the situation.

Survivors Benefits are indeed a VAC responsibilty vice a CF responsibility, and are payable to the spouse and/or common law spouse and/or children of the member. I have attached the link below. One will also note from their site, that grief counselling for familes is also a part of the VAC mandate vice the CF mandate. Sadly, in the end, I think it will be borne out that the CF is prohibited by the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board from paying invoices for items that do not fall within our Departments jurisdiction. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor is quite right when he states the DND/CF has paid for every bill it has received for funerals. I'd assume that the bills that were not DND jurisdiction to re-imburse for, were forwarded to the appropriate Department of VAC for payment.

Click on VAC "Death Benefit**" under 'Other Benefits'

The Death Benefit, according to DVA: "For 2007, the maximum Death Benefit is $255,729.25. It is adjusted annually based on the cost-of-living index."

Post edited to change hyper-link name:

**"Death Benefit" more commonly referred to as the "Survivors Death Benefit" which is what causes the confusion. The Death Benefit is commonly called the Survivors Benefit because it is paid only to the surviving spouse/child(ren) of the deceased member. The fact that this is not payable to parents is again making the news as well.

Death (aka Survivor) Benefit is paid by Veterans Affairs and is NOT

1)  the SDB (this is the Supplementary Death Benefit) equalling 2 years of the members pay and is paid to whomever the member desigantes as his NOK. The family in this case, would have recieved this benefit; and

2)  SISIP Benefits...paid to the designated beneficiary if the member had this coverage.

SISIP Site

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

C'mon, George -- gimme a break. There's lot of stories about military and foreign affairs where reporters expect to get dished for spinning but on this one?  We carried Dinning's press conference live and uninterrupted and we've published the letters he wrote in their entirety with the invoices he submitted.

I'll go find him and report 'em if you tell me what "real facts" we're missing here ...

David i agree with you that was unnecessary media bashing and uncalled for in my opinion. I thank you for providing the letters and the links at your blog, I read them with great interest. I think the point might be taken that the family seems intent on embarrassing the Government. I understand that they felt that their integrity was being questioned and so perhaps it is understandable that they have gone public.
I still wonder if expectations were managed properly at the time and whether advice was given by AOs that was disregarded by the family? I can only make recommendations when providing service and then politely acquiesce to their wishes....unless it's clearly against the theology or practice of my church in which case we have to come up with another solution...

 

[George Wallace]

C'mon, George -- gimme a break. There's lot of stories about military and foreign affairs where reporters expect to get dished for spinning but on this one?  We carried Dinning's press conference live and uninterrupted and we've published the letters he wrote in their entirety with the invoices he submitted.

I'll go find him and report 'em if you tell me what "real facts" we're missing here ...

I'm not going to get into a "Bun Fight" with you David, but as you can see, the blame has been place firmly on DND and the Minister, while other Agencies are being overlooked.  There is the member's SDB, Insurance policy and SISIP administered for DND by an outside agency, an Insurance Company.  There are benefits that should be claimed through DVA, and not DND, that should be clarified.   There are regulations and restrictions on claims as laid out be Treasury Board.  Many factors that are being ignored in slamming DND and the Minister. 

I am not defending DND, nor the Minister, but all the fault/blame does not rest on them.  Will the Press sort it all out in the next few days, or will it be relegated to a two paragraph blurb on the inside corner of page 26 in some obscure paper in the Northwest Territories?  We can hope that things will be clarified and benefit the rest of us, but will it really happen?

Just catching the News right now, and the "S*%@" is rolling downhill, and the CDS was first to be hit by it.

And I must point out and apologize for the fact that I have not yet had the time to visit David's blog and update myself on what he has presented there.