- Reaction score
- 5,865
- Points
- 1,360
GI JANE said:
As a disinterested third party if I was reading this and had to make a judgement call I would agree with the others just because of that wording.
But since this isn't my day to be God........
Repaying Allowances
- Thread starter krzy8kim
- Start date
As a disinterested third party if I was reading this and had to make a judgement call I would agree with the others just because of that wording.
But since this isn't my day to be God........
Because I first came here to seek the truth...I thought I should post the truth. And I do know...I have been released and transferred PRes and I know what rules I need to abide by. I mustn't go NES or go on ED&T during the remainder of my 8 months needing to be served. Just do the time on Class A.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
How someone has made a call saying that one night a week on Class A equates to one week (7 days) of Regular Force time escapes my logic.
I would prepare myself for a rude surprise when some "bean counter" does an audit sometime in the future and you are nailed to serving a lot longer term.
I would prepare myself for a rude surprise when some "bean counter" does an audit sometime in the future and you are nailed to serving a lot longer term.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Hold on a sec, the CBI changed effective 1 Jun 09. It appears that GI Jane may have found a loophole, and DND just plugged it up with the amended CBI. It now reads:
(d) agrees to serve a period of cumulative
paid days of service calculated as follows;
(i) for Regular Force members, a period
equivalent to the period during which the
member received maternity allowance,
parental allowance or both, as applicable;
(ii) for Reserve Force members, a period
of cumulative paid days for service
calculated in accordance with the
following formula:Number of days of maternity, parental allowances paid to member under paragraphs (4),(5), (7) and (11) as applicable (multiplied by) Number of paid days served in the
364 day period immediately preceding the commencement of maternity leave, parental leave or any authorized leave without pay (divided by) 364
immediately after completing the maternity leave, parental leave or any other authorized leave without pay and allowances as applicable.
(TB,effective 1 Jun 09)
Compare that to the extract from CBIs that Vern posted in Reply #1 in the thread.
(d) agrees to serve a period of cumulative
paid days of service calculated as follows;
(i) for Regular Force members, a period
equivalent to the period during which the
member received maternity allowance,
parental allowance or both, as applicable;
(ii) for Reserve Force members, a period
of cumulative paid days for service
calculated in accordance with the
following formula:Number of days of maternity, parental allowances paid to member under paragraphs (4),(5), (7) and (11) as applicable (multiplied by) Number of paid days served in the
364 day period immediately preceding the commencement of maternity leave, parental leave or any authorized leave without pay (divided by) 364
immediately after completing the maternity leave, parental leave or any other authorized leave without pay and allowances as applicable.
(TB,effective 1 Jun 09)
Compare that to the extract from CBIs that Vern posted in Reply #1 in the thread.
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
I still don't think she found a loophole ... even with the old reg, what she found was someone willing to misinterpret "EQUIVELANT" to make Equivelant unequal to SAME.
One day, I have no doubt, the auditor will get their money back; an error of misinterpreting "EQUIVELANT" [all those other regs clearly lay out that Class A Service = 1/4 Service and is NOT EQUIVELANT to Reg or Class B/C Service] by some RMS clerk somewhere ... does not an "entitlement" for the member make.
Nice to see them plug the hole in such a manner so that no further pers trying to dodge their obligations are allowed even an inkling to think that such is acceptable.
Signed: A Canadian Taxpayer
One day, I have no doubt, the auditor will get their money back; an error of misinterpreting "EQUIVELANT" [all those other regs clearly lay out that Class A Service = 1/4 Service and is NOT EQUIVELANT to Reg or Class B/C Service] by some RMS clerk somewhere ... does not an "entitlement" for the member make.
Nice to see them plug the hole in such a manner so that no further pers trying to dodge their obligations are allowed even an inkling to think that such is acceptable.
Signed: A Canadian Taxpayer
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
GI JANE said:
You skived the system. Chin up. Be proud.
It's fixed now isn't it - just for people like you.
Mods: I will certainly take the C&P for this one. I'm disgusted someone is so proud of such garbage.
Signed: A Canadian Taxpayer.
Although - with CANFORGEN 073/06 para C now affecting me - I'm not so sure why the fuck I care about the system anymore.
- Reaction score
- 5,865
- Points
- 1,360
ArmyVern said:
Which is very true Vern , and when they make decisions that screw people why shouldn't people turn the screw the other way with those 'same' rules?
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Because some of us have ethics. Just because it's screwing me ... does not make it all right, proper, or acceptable for me to screw it and the taxpayer in return.
That's my outlook on life. I earn what I get; and, when it comes with obligations - I have no qualms about fulfilling them. I base my reputation on that.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
PMedMoe said:
As do I, especially when it came to buying back time served in the Reserves, towards my Pension so many years ago. I bought back Class A days as 1/4 time. Does this now mean that I could have bought back Full Time? NO. How many of us have been boned by the system by these same rules (Ref. Reserve Service) which are being "bent" to serve potential conniving, unethical pers?
- Reaction score
- 5,865
- Points
- 1,360
ArmyVern said:
George Wallace said:
She applied by the rules, someone gave it to her and then 'they' plugged the hole.....................like I said, I would read it the same way you did, but considering that the member 'played by the rules' as they were written, this thread is starting to sound like sour grapes and not "ethics".
- Reaction score
- 630
- Points
- 1,140
The member may feel fortunate she passed through the old policy. I would not have interpreted the regulation the manner it work for her either.
I am glad the discussion now shows the change in the rules and it is clear for everyone to understand.
I am glad the discussion now shows the change in the rules and it is clear for everyone to understand.
There we go - the policy has been now changed. Yes, I am grateful that I passed through the old policy. FYI: I did however, forfeit the servernce benefit and retirement move. It had its benefits and it had its cons. When I went through with my release - it was never an issue and there was never any question by the pay and records section - they were quite sure on how to interpret the policy. And yes I feel that I have been "screwed by the system" before and no I don't feel like I'm a "conniving and unethical person" as George Wallace suggested I may be. And I too, bought back my reserve time for pension at the same 1/4 for class A.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
GI JANE said:
Sorry. I was not aiming that comment at you personally, but in a general way, as there are many who have done such things in the past (not necessarily with MATA/PATA, but other 'loopholes' in administration.). I am in the middle of teaching a course and was in a hurry to post, but couldn't think up a "nice" way to make a generalization, even though I still tried not to aim directly at you.
Your post, however, does state that you know how the "1/4 Time" works, and still you apply it differently to this situation.
A loophole has been taken advantage of, and honest questions have been asked about it.
As this matter has now been dealt with by amendments to the policy, I would say everything we have to say now is nothing more than moot points.
Yes, I know how the 1/4 time works and it is applied for the buy back of pension for reserve time...that is why I when the CBI referencing MATA/PATA was brought to my attention and the way for which it was interpreted (to my advantage) I didn't at first didn't quite believe but upon further investigation (one being this site) and then the clarification when I went through with my release it proved accurate.
- Reaction score
- 1,579
- Points
- 1,140
GW: How many loopholes did the CF use against its members over the years? Quite a few. It works both ways, sometimes in your advantage, sometime in the member's advantage. She did not do anything wrong, she just went by the rules, just like every CF member is expected.
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
SupersonicMax said:
Actually, it's a matter of interpretation. I've seen a girl going B Class have to pay hers back because B Class was deemed not to be "EQUIVELANT" during her processing.
One day, the auditor may decide in this case too that "EQUIVELANT" was not interppreted to be "SAME". Every other regulation clearly indicates that A Class is NOT equivelant to RegF time ... that it is 1/4 time.
There is certainly no room for ambiguity with yesterdays ammendment, but that doesn't mean that the bean counters won't eventually find that rules were applied wrongly here ... and they love to say "someone else's misinterpretation does not an entitlment make."
I firmly believe in karma. Have also pointed this thread out to the girl I mentionned earlier who had to pay hers back when she went ResF on a B Class. I'm pretty sure that this is not a dead issue and will getting looked at from above when any applicable redresses are filed.
Someone, somewhere is going to have to decide if equivelant means equivelant OR if 1/4 = 1 whole (as someone has obviously interpreted for this member).
- Reaction score
- 1,579
- Points
- 1,140
Vern,
I think the ambiguity comes from "period of service" and not "equivalent". It doesn't say that it needs to be paid days of service. Correct me if I'm wrong, but period of service means time you serve, regardless of wether it was paid days or not, just like the way they calculate the period of service for a CD (And the CBI definition of Period of Service is rather vague, see below). The new CBI addresses that by saying "number of paid days" vice "period of service".
Looking at the requirement for a CD :
We can assume that "twelve years of military service" is a period of service. Class A reservists, get it after 12 years of service, not 12 years of paid days.
Just by that, I think it's reasonable to say that the rule was poorly written and could have easily been interpreted (and rightly I think) that "period of service" didn't mean paid days. Was it in the "spirit" of the rule? Probably not, since it's been changed. However, was the member at fault? Absolutely not.
I don't think it's fair to give her a pile of shit because the rule was poorly written.
I think the ambiguity comes from "period of service" and not "equivalent". It doesn't say that it needs to be paid days of service. Correct me if I'm wrong, but period of service means time you serve, regardless of wether it was paid days or not, just like the way they calculate the period of service for a CD (And the CBI definition of Period of Service is rather vague, see below). The new CBI addresses that by saying "number of paid days" vice "period of service".
Looking at the requirement for a CD :
We can assume that "twelve years of military service" is a period of service. Class A reservists, get it after 12 years of service, not 12 years of paid days.
Just by that, I think it's reasonable to say that the rule was poorly written and could have easily been interpreted (and rightly I think) that "period of service" didn't mean paid days. Was it in the "spirit" of the rule? Probably not, since it's been changed. However, was the member at fault? Absolutely not.
I don't think it's fair to give her a pile of shit because the rule was poorly written.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Max
Let's not start confusing "paid" service with "service towards a CD" which has no connection to pay.
Let's not start confusing "paid" service with "service towards a CD" which has no connection to pay.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
I think the shortcoming in the previous version of the CBI was the "period of service equivalent" part.
Something can be equivalent in period (which a measurement of time), equivalent in type of service (Reg F/Cl A/Cl B), or equivalent in using both terms.
The original version wasn't particularly clear which quality was supposed to be "equivalent". The new version of the CBI pretty much nails it.
Something can be equivalent in period (which a measurement of time), equivalent in type of service (Reg F/Cl A/Cl B), or equivalent in using both terms.
The original version wasn't particularly clear which quality was supposed to be "equivalent". The new version of the CBI pretty much nails it.
Similar threads
