Found out someone defrauding the ir system

[McG]

Since you are ready to look at the regs, try this one: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/ch-208-relocation-benefits.page#sec-208-997

From the decision to separate, he had 90 days (not 11 months) to sort his shit and get off IR. All the speculating you did on his behalf was irrelevant rabbit hole.

A crime is happening (fraud) and you counselled someone to mind their business. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Since you are ready to look at the regs, try this one: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/ch-208-relocation-benefits.page#sec-208-997

From the decision to separate, he had 90 days (not 11 months) to sort his shit and get off IR. All the speculating you did on his behalf was irrelevant rabbit hole.

A crime is happening (fraud) and you counselled someone to mind their business. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

The duty to report is the posters husbands;  he is duty bound, not the civilian in question.

I stand by what I said, but could have explained it better i.e. "your husband has a situation to deal with, so support him in that".

Assuming he has not already reported - he may have and it hasn't caught up yet.  We don't make decisions, or good ones, in the military based on assumptions, do we?  I think I read something about that in the Mil Admin Law Manual once.

 

[Stoker]

Perhaps the husband should be posting here instead of the wife?

 

[McG]

And yet you go back to assumption so much to build your arguments. Maybe the policy allows flexibility for other circumstances that maybe exist? Well, no it does not. Maybe he already told his CoC?  OP indicates he was an officer and understood himself to not be entitled to money he was still collecting 11 months later - he is clearly not trying very hard to do right. Maybe he husband reported? Fine, but that does not measure up her being told to mind her business.  His military duty to report does not mean that a civilian cannot have an ethical responsibility to do the same.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Hello,

So I just found out that my husband's captain

Let your husband decide or decide not to deal with it.

 

[ballz]

While I'm sure the spouse would love the chance to stick it to a cheating husband, unfortunately I don't know anyone who actually knows who this woman is.  Thanks for the info, I will pass it along to him.

I would recommend against the advice of getting the former spouse involved to do the dirty work on your behalf. Not only is it trying to pass off the dilemma to someone else, it's probably going to cause a lot more drama. Who the hell calls up someone's ex-spouse and feeds them ammo to "get back at their husband," in order to avoid doing the hard thing themselves. It will likely cause far more grief than the current dilemma. If your husband doesn't have it in him for whatever reason, for the love of God neither of you should be calling up ex-spouses and getting involved in the drama.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And yet you go back to assumption so much to build your arguments. Maybe the policy allows flexibility for other circumstances that maybe exist? Well, no it does not. Maybe he already told his CoC?  OP indicates he was an officer and understood himself to not be entitled to money he was still collecting 11 months later - he is clearly not trying very hard to do right. Maybe he husband reported? Fine, but that does not measure up her being told to mind her business.  His military duty to report does not mean that a civilian cannot have an ethical responsibility to do the same.

- The OP is a civilian who was at a dinner a few nights ago where everyone was consuming alcohol.  You, nor I, know what was said and with no offense to Markopolo, are you suggesting that everything people post on here in a 'what if' scenario, is taken at face value as accurate?  You don't see a need to exercise caution when giving advice to the spouse of a service member who is of a lower rank than the Captain who may be taking funds he isn't entitled to?

- Markopolo's first post was her first post on the sight.  ever.  We've no idea who she is, really - perhaps there is more to the story and we just don't know it.  We don't know, do we?

- If you're suggesting that, if a Captain was accused of doing something by a subordinates wife, officially, and that nothing was actually going on illegally on behalf of the Capt, based on a dinner talk that involved alcohol, and that nothing possibly could reflect negatively on that subordinate - boy do you ever live in a dream world.  I can think of 1 incident where a MCpl thought a Capt had done something quite clearly against regulations, reported it in good faith and then was hung out to dry by the same CofC he reported it to, all based on what he knew, or thought he knew and some reasonable 'assumptions' on his part.  If people want to pretend that 'oh report, the wagons will never be circled' because of Op "pick a name" and all that, by all means, suggest that.  Those of us down in steerage have that have seen the circling of the wagons in the Officer Corps before aren't going to take a bite of a log of shit painted yellow and agree that, yes, it is a banana.

I suggest you are the one actually making assumptions here.  NCMs making allegations such as this against superiors, especially Commissioned Officers, based on assumed facts that stem from a dinner party involving alcohol - I suggest to step cautiously;  I've witnessed (not personally) what can happen when they do so in good faith and the CofC then turns on them - even when there was no malicious intent.  THAT is why I suggested to Markopolo that her husband has a few avenues (if he doesn't already know that) he can use when she provided some more context.

NCMs making allegations against Officers based on comments made at dinner when people were drinking - I say tread lightly.  Spouses thinking "I can do or say what I want, it can't negatively affect my husband/wife at work in the military"...my experience says think again.  Let the service member engage their CofC and get advice from them - they've done their duty to report, essentially, at that point.

Unless, of course, you want every single military spouse, who has heard something they think is against a policy, to be calling the MPs and COs.  I can't see anything going off the rails there...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Markopolo,

Honestly, the best thing I think you can do, if you haven't, is talk this over with your husband.  We've no idea who he is, what his experience is, etc.  He could be a new Cpl and have no idea what to do, he could be a MWO who hasn't said anything to you because he knew, during the dinner, he would have to talk to his Capt and hasn't said anything to you because he knows what to do and what has to happen.

If he is that new Cpl or somewhere in between that and the experienced MWO, or he is a new Lt...and not sure what to do, he has a WO, or a Adjutant or someone is his unit that he can talk to for advice. 

As I said, true story I've witnessed a MCpl who did his duty to report based on things he thought were happening - he did what he thought was right and the chain of command turned on him for it.  There is a way to do this if what you've said is correct and factual - I just would advise him to exercise caution; there are ways to do this professionally and the best people to advise him on that are the ones he works for at his current unit.  the know the lay of the land, demographics, unit politics, call it what you want of where he is posted now.

 

[McG]

Defrauding SE for 11 months is at least a few thousand if not several thousand dollars of stolen tax payers' money.  EITS, for all the backpedaling and re-writing of your position that you have done, your initial reply to the OP was ethically bankrupt.  But I will entertain you for one last reply ...

I suggest you are the one actually making assumptions here. 

Let's see:
You assumed that somehow there was leeway in the regulations for the described behavior, I knew there was not.
You have pontificated about if the capt "hasn't already let his CofC/immediate superior officer know what the 'status' is" but I know that is irrelevant if he has not caused those the payments be stopped despite 11 months.
You have assumed that because the information has come from a civilian spouse, it is clearly can't be trusted and she should just mind her business, but I know a serious criminal allegation like that needs to be investigated by the proper authorities.
hmm....

Is it an 'issue' when a civilian spouse gets involved without knowing policy and facts?  :

You are right.  Clearly it is better for a service member who knows neither the policy nor the facts to get involved. (Note: You are the service member who demonstrably does not know the policy.  Everyone else seems to recognize that there are enough details here that a proper investigation is required.)

Because in this case, the 'ethical dilemma' isn't for the poster, it may be for her husband. 

A crime has happened.  They both know about it.  They both have an ethical responsibility to do something. He has an additional service obligation to report.

Should he be discussing personal information about superior officers over drinks with his wife?  No ethical dilemma there?

Right.  No ethical dilemma.  The "he" who discussed the personal information about the captain was the "superior officer" himself.  It is his personal information to share as he wants.

... are you suggesting that everything people post on here in a 'what if' scenario, is taken at face value as accurate? 

No, but this is not a "what if" scenario.  This is a specific allegation of a criminal offense.  Again, it is not to be taken at face value but it aught be treated with seriousness.  It must be reported.

You don't see a need to exercise caution when giving advice to the spouse of a service member who is of a lower rank than the Captain who may be taking funds he isn't entitled to?

I do, and hopefully in the future you will too.  Exercising caution when giving advice is not telling somebody that a potential criminal act is "a CAF issue and unless [they]'re in the CAF and know more facts, etc it isn't [their] responsibility" nor is counseling them to "mind their own business".  It is certainly not exercising caution when you then lay into the individual, accusing them of being the second worst feature of "the system."

- Markopolo's first post was her first post on the sight.  ever.  We've no idea who she is, really - perhaps there is more to the story and we just don't know it.  We don't know, do we?

And yet, it is still possible that you could have given appropriate advice right from the get go.  Oh well for lost opportunities.

- If you're suggesting that, if a Captain was accused of doing something by a subordinates wife, officially, and that nothing was actually going on illegally on behalf of the Capt, based on a dinner talk that involved alcohol, and that nothing possibly could reflect negatively on that subordinate - boy do you ever live in a dream world.  I can think of 1 incident where a MCpl thought a Capt had done something quite clearly against regulations, reported it in good faith and then was hung out to dry by the same CofC he reported it to, all based on what he knew, or thought he knew and some reasonable 'assumptions' on his part.  If people want to pretend that 'oh report, the wagons will never be circled' because of Op "pick a name" and all that, by all means, suggest that.  Those of us down in steerage have that have seen the circling of the wagons in the Officer Corps before aren't going to take a bite of a log of shit painted yellow and agree that, yes, it is a banana.

...  NCMs making allegations such as this against superiors, especially Commissioned Officers, based on assumed facts that stem from a dinner party involving alcohol - I suggest to step cautiously;  I've witnessed (not personally) what can happen when they do so in good faith and the CofC then turns on them - even when there was no malicious intent.  THAT is why I suggested to Markopolo that her husband has a few avenues (if he doesn't already know that) he can use when she provided some more context.

NCMs making allegations against Officers based on comments made at dinner when people were drinking - I say tread lightly.  Spouses thinking "I can do or say what I want, it can't negatively affect my husband/wife at work in the military"...my experience says think again.  Let the service member engage their CofC and get advice from them - they've done their duty to report, essentially, at that point.

Unless, of course, you want every single military spouse, who has heard something they think is against a policy, to be calling the MPs and COs.  I can't see anything going off the rails there...

So, if you are concerned about a backlash for a power differential, why did you not mention it in your first post?  Why did you not offer any advice or guidance on how or to whom to make complaints known so as the protect the service spouse?  Why is it only seeing the light of day after several posters commented on the morally reprehensible position that you first posted?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Defrauding SE for 11 months is at least a few thousand if not several thousand dollars of stolen tax payers' money.  EITS, for all the backpedaling and re-writing of your position that you have done, your initial reply to the OP was ethically bankrupt.  But I will entertain you for one last reply ...

Backpedalling.  Please, show me where.  I added a reply AFTER the 2nd post.  :

Let's see:
You assumed that somehow there was leeway in the regulations for the described behavior, I knew there was not.
You have pontificated about if the capt "hasn't already let his CofC/immediate superior officer know what the 'status' is" but I know that is irrelevant if he has not caused those the payments be stopped despite 11 months.
You have assumed that because the information has come from a civilian spouse, it is clearly can't be trusted and she should just mind her business, but I know a serious criminal allegation like that needs to be investigated by the proper authorities.
hmm....

What you suggest you KNOW is from an unverified source, a spouse who is repeating her version of a conversation at a dinner where everyone was drinking. 

You are right.  Clearly it is better for a service member who knows neither the policy nor the facts to get involved. (Note: You are the service member who demonstrably does not know the policy.  Everyone else seems to recognize that there are enough details here that a proper investigation is required.)

Try going back and reading other people's post.  I wasn't the only one who didn't run to round up the lynch mob.

A crime has happened.

And here is where we go down different sides of the track.  You've already decided a crime has and is happening, and ASSUMING the source and info are both credible, and accurate.  I think that is irresponsible and dangerous.  (again no offense Markopolo, I have no idea who you are, if what you're saying is accurate).

Here's a question - why is the service member himself not on here asking what he should do?  Doesn't that strike you as odd?  It does me. 

  They both know about it.  They both have an ethical responsibility to do something. He has an additional service obligation to report.
Right.  No ethical dilemma.  The "he" who discussed the personal information about the captain was the "superior officer" himself.  It is his personal information to share as he wants.
No, but this is not a "what if" scenario.  This is a specific allegation of a criminal offense.  Again, it is not to be taken at face value but it aught be treated with seriousness.  It must be reported.
I do, and hopefully in the future you will too.

Please, take a step off the soap box.  Seriously. 

  Exercising caution when giving advice is not telling somebody that a potential criminal act is "a CAF issue and unless [they]'re in the CAF and know more facts, etc it isn't [their] responsibility" nor is counseling them to "mind their own business".  It is certainly not exercising caution when you then lay into the individual, accusing them of being the second worst feature of "the system."

And yet, it is still possible that you could have given appropriate advice right from the get go.  Oh well for lost opportunities.

Advice and opinion given on partial information;  not so unusual around here is it?

I'd of said more, but, if you go back and read before mine, Ballz and a few others had already covered a lot of the bases.  Should I just have repeated their words?

So, if you are concerned about a backlash for a power differential, why did you not mention it in your first post?  Why did you not offer any advice or guidance on how or to whom to make complaints known so as the protect the service spouse?  Why is it only seeing the light of day after several posters commented on the morally reprehensible position that you first posted?

Your posts are far from anything close to the light in my day on this thread, trust me pal.

Why would I make a post, to a spouse, about what her husband should do?  Because he should already know what to do.  And, he wasn't the one on here making accusations - a reminder that they are just that - accusations.  Why add the part about 'be careful when it is a superior officer, more so if a commissioned officer'?

For all I know, her husband is newly promoted Cpl Bloggins.  He is likely reading stuff, right?  If not, his wife is on here making statements that may, or may not, be true.  If he's reading on the side, it gave him some advice, considerations and flip side of the coin to think about.  If he is not reading it, it gave her the other side of the coin to thing about as well.

Our biggest difference;  you're already deciding a crime has been committed and found the mbr guilty, and I've not gone past the 'information has indications of being credible' stage.  So to me, ya - it's still a what if scenario.  If Markopolo had a history of posting in here and the credibility that goes along with it...I might be leaning more towards you and the 'crime may have been committed'.

I've seen people, myself included, fucked over with the 'guilty until proven innocent' stuff before, and one time for me personally that was because a few people took on statements someone made as FACT and ran with it.  You're coming across like one of those 'march the guilty bastard in!' types I've seen before in time in the mob.

I'm not the only one who didn't run for the pitchfork and torch.

I would suggest he goes out for another beer and has a face-to-face talk with him about it, and gives the guy the opportunity to sort himself out. It's a pretty ugly situation, especially since her husband appears to be the Captain's subordinate. But, if they are good enough friends to go out for dinner and drink beers together, they can be good enough friends to have the hard talks, too.

There easily could be a lot more to it and there is nothing underhanded going on, and sometimes people in rough spots are just having a momentary lapse in judgement. Jumping right to reporting him without this opportunity is probably going to make the situation worse for all involved.

As for eventually getting caught on an audit... I have my doubts to be honest.

I would certainly need more facts before reporting anything:

Then the 'further info' post.

So a bit more info from the conversation...

She broke up with him almost a year ago when she found out about his girlfriend at his current posting.  He attempted to go back once but she would not let him in.  She apparently packed all his things and sent them to him.  He's still with the girlfriend and the wife just served him with the divorce papers because the year separated is almost here.

It pissed me off that he still isn't planning on changing his ir situation and was almost boastful about getting the benefit while not having to contribute to another house.

While it might not be my place to say anything my husband may have a duty to report.  I'm just trying to gather info to help him with a decision.

Wow, someone added more info and, based on that, I posted an additional comment.  Stop.  The. Press!

 

[Infanteer]

:boring:

Ok.  Take the jousting to the PMs.

 

[Underway]

The leadership answer here is obvious.  You don't need references, or examination of the QR&O's or the financial policies to know what the right answer is. The fraudster (alleged) gets reported.  Does anyone on this board want a leader like that running around the CAF?  A dishonest Captain abusing/defrauding the system for his own advantage? 

Will it maybe come back to bite your husband in the ass?  Perhaps.  No one said leadership is easy.  That's why leadership is so valued.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

:boring:

Ok.  Take the jousting to the PMs.

done

 

[ModlrMike]

The junior member should make a report outside the chain of command. While he might be called to testify at any subsequent CM, his identity would be protected while the investigation was being conducted.

It doesn't matter how you parse this, there is a responsibility to report. After all, if it's found out later that someone knew and didn't say, then that person becomes liable for that omission.

This page provides further guidance:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/contact-us/whistleblowing-submit-a-disclosure.page

 

[SupersonicMax]

Yes, reporting wrongdoings is the right thing to do.  Having said this, you better have you facts straight and be confident in your allegations: they will have career effects on the alleged offender.

I find, in situations like this, talking to the person (sober) and getting their full (sober) side of the story and provide advise goes a long way.  Or talk to the member's supervisor directly. 

 

[OldSolduer]

I think maybe we need the input of a lawyer. Just a thought,
I don’t know the regulations for IR, but if I would research this extensively first.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes, reporting wrongdoings is the right thing to do.  Having said this, you better have you facts straight and be confident in your allegations: they will have career effects on the alleged offender.

I find, in situations like this, talking to the person (sober) and getting their full (sober) side of the story and provide advise goes a long way.  Or talk to the member's supervisor directly.

:goodpost:

That's sage advice.

 

[Underway]

Yes, reporting wrongdoings is the right thing to do.  Having said this, you better have you facts straight and be confident in your allegations: they will have career effects on the alleged offender.

I find, in situations like this, talking to the person (sober) and getting their full (sober) side of the story and provide advise goes a long way.  Or talk to the member's supervisor directly.

Difference here is that you are an officer with all the "power" in such relationships.  Either as a peer or a superior.  The power dynamics in this specific situation don't sound optimal for that kind of conversation (might be wrong, the info is intentionally vague).  Hence why the whistleblower website exists.

 

[Strike]

So, here's a situation that might just make all of this somewhat moot.

Does the Capt have kids?  If so, and custody has yet to be determined via a separation agreement or the courts, then the Capt, as the father, is still considered as having custody of the children, even if he and his wife are separated. (As is she, mind you, but that's not being disputed.)  So, his IR would still be valid, would it not? Especially if the reason for IR was for the kids' sake.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Plot Twist: Markopolo is the the ex wife