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

CFIRP 09/CANFORGEN Debate/Debacle

DonaldMcL

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Being in a pretty pickle, I'm seeking some clarification and possibly some guidance.

Long story short, being told I was not entitled to an IRP move after the fact, thus, being told I'm required to repay everything.

"CFIRP 2009 - Clarification Bulletin 4 - 1 APR 09
The limitation contained in article 1.1.03 was changed in APS 2009 in order to provide CFIRP relocation benefits to those who had graduated from basic military training or basic officer training. The intent of the change was to reduce the number of BTL cost moves by posting these CF members to their first place of duty allowing these CF members to get settled in their first place of duty and create some family stability, if applicable. These CF members would then be sent on TD/attach posting to their trades, occupation or equivalent training thereby reducing the number of actual relocations and again providing family stability. Due to difficulties encountered with the business processes the limitation contained in article 1.1.03 of the CF IRP must be suspended until further notice. Eligibility for a CFIRP move will revert to the wording in CFIRP 2008 article 1.1.03.

(Limitation) CF members who enrol or re-enrol, or transfer from the Reserve Force to the Regular Force, and have not successfully completed the basic military occupation or trade training or its equivalent for the occupation or trade for which they enrol, re-enrol or transfer are not entitled to relocation benefits under the CFIRP, unless they are:"

The biggest concern out of that mess is that it removes the eligibility from members who have not completed trade training, but have completed basic, ie: my situation.

Now:

CANFORGEN 066/09 CMP 029/09 - 16 APR 09 1423Z

"UNCLASSIFIED

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO INFORM ALL CF MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY THE VERY SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THEM WHO WILL BE RELOCATED BY ACTIVE POSTING SEASON 09 (APS 09), AND THEREBY PARTICIPATE IN THE CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP),

...

3. A. ELIGIBILITY TO RELOCATION UNDER THE CFIRP HAS BEEN AMENDED TO INCLUDE ALL CF MEMBERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO MOVE THEIR (D)HG AND E AND WHO HAVE COMPLETED BASIC MILITARY TRAINING IN THE CASE OF NON COMMISSIONED MEMBERS, OR BASIC OFFICER TRAINING IN THE CASE OF OFFICERS"

Essentially, no amendment has been made to the CANFORGEN, and although it appears to be a summary of the proposed changes to CFIRP09, would this have any bearing on the actual entitlement to move? The biggest confusion (and the fact I believe I was given "bad" advice at the time, was due to this CANFORGEN).

Any help or suggestion would be appreciated, but I am currently on my way to setup my repayment "plan".
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Who's telling you that you have to repay everything?  Did you receive a letter from Brookfield?  A few things to consider:

1)  If you were moved two years ago in accordance with the policies that existed at that time, then it doesn't matter if the policy is reversed.  The CF doesn't normally cancel policies retroactively and recover monies already paid.

2)  Unless you receive a letter from Brookfield GRS telling you have to repay the money, don't worry about it.  If they paid it to you, it's their responsibility to recover it.  The CF only gets involved if you repeatedly ingnore Brookfield's attempts.

3)  The CANFORGENs you have cited really only deal with who administers the move, not entitlement to reimbursement/coverage of the expenses themselves.  Thus, even if Brookfield does recover the money from you, you would still be able to turn around and claim most of the benefits back through the Orderly Room.

To make it clear (I hope), there has been much confusion and debate over "IRP" moves and "OR" moves.  For the most part established members of the CF (i.e. fully occupation qualified) are moved by Brookfield GRS under the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) and folks still in the early stages of the training system are moved by their respective orderly rooms.  There has been some debat as to whether this should be the case (i.e. two agencies doing essentially the same thing), which has not yet been resolved (there has been some back and forth on it just to make it more confusing.  However, notwithstanding who administers a move, the basic entitlements of the member being moved are pretty much the same (there are a few quirks that they are still trying to sort out).  The bottom line is that regardless of who administers a move, the member should not be out of pocket for it.  One way or another, you should be covered for your expenses.

If you've received a letter from Brookfield, I suggest you take it to your Base IRP Coordinator (usually a senior NCO or WO in your BOR) and talk to them about it.  There should be no need for a grandiose re-payment plan.
 

DonaldMcL

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
The letter is not from Brookfield, it's from DRBM after a "random review" of my file.

The issue is due to the fact of the flip-flopping and confusion of my actual entitlements for the move. Most of the monies owed are due to various things not covered by the OR-type move (according to DRBM, pets, rental cars, posting allowance, etc, as well as the real estate incentive).

Being in the CF for all of 5 months at the time, I had no idea what was really going on, and put my trust into the system. I remember clearly at the time running between the IRP office and Base Orderly Room to determine who was to cover the move. Various emails were fired around between my (at the time) supervisor, CO, and members of the orderly room and finally being told it was going to be an IRP move (5 days before I was to report).

In the mess I originally pointed out, CFIRP09 says as long as you've completed BMQ/BMOQ you've entitled to an IRP move, the amendment says no, the CANFORGEN says yes.

Fun times I tell ya!

 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
BobSlob said:
The letter is not from Brookfield, it's from DRBM after a "random review" of my file.

The issue is due to the fact of the flip-flopping and confusion of my actual entitlements for the move. Most of the monies owed are due to various things not covered by the OR-type move (according to DRBM, pets, rental cars, posting allowance, etc, as well as the real estate incentive).

Being in the CF for all of 5 months at the time, I had no idea what was really going on, and put my trust into the system. I remember clearly at the time running between the IRP office and Base Orderly Room to determine who was to cover the move. Various emails were fired around between my (at the time) supervisor, CO, and members of the orderly room and finally being told it was going to be an IRP move (5 days before I was to report).

In the mess I originally pointed out, CFIRP09 says as long as you've completed BMQ/BMOQ you've entitled to an IRP move, the amendment says no, the CANFORGEN says yes.

Fun times I tell ya!

A letter from DRBM would be legitimate (they actually manage the contract with Brookfield).  There is no way you would have been entitled to a Posting Allowance, regardless of who administered the move (i.e. Brookfield should never have given you that period).  Posting allowance is only payable to members with "Career Status," which you would not have had at that point, no matter what your circumstances.  I can't comment on the real estate incentive.  Pets should be covered.  What would you need a rental car for?  We usually only deal with rental cars on overseas postings and house-hunting trips (HHT).  I doubt yours was an overseas posting and if you had an HHT, entitlement to a rental car is pretty straight forward.

Unfortunately, without all the details, it's difficult to say what has actually transpired.  However, I stand by my original assertion that if you acted in good faith, you should be OK, except for those benefits granted in error and to which you were clearly not entitled (e.g. posting allowance, which would be the bulk of the recovery anyway).
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Pusser said:
  What would you need a rental car for?  We usually only deal with rental cars on overseas postings and house-hunting trips (HHT).

Pusser....i have had rental cars on 2 of my postings where i flew to destination. Rental car at origin when my car was shipped and rental car at destination until my car arrived. Neither postings were OUTCAN.
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
CDN Aviator said:
Pusser....i have had rental cars on 2 of my postings where i flew to destination. Rental car at origin when my car was shipped and rental car at destination until my car arrived. Neither postings were OUTCAN.

Fair enough.  I spoke too soon  and didn't think it through.  I realize it's allowed, but I would argue that few take advantage of it. 
 

DonaldMcL

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
After spending most of the night going through the various rules and regs regarding this, I have come to the conclusion that it's better to accept that I was not entitled to a IRP and try and reclaim everything through a CBI209 move.

Pusser, you seem rather up to snuff on this stuff, I read a clause stating (paraphased of course) "anything regarding the move may be claimed provided it was deemed reasonable". Things like, cleaning, shipment of pets, appraisal fees, and car rentals should be deemed reasonable yes?

Also, re: real estate incentive... if I took the 5% payout for keeping the house, and then forced to pay that back, I would/should then be entitled to sell said house and have all associated fees covered under CBI209, correct?
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
You should be able to claim most of the expenses you've mentioned under a CBI move.  Keep also in mind that any expenses that are not reimbursed may be tax deductable, so you might be able to get some money back through CRA.

Unfortunately, I can't answer your question on the real estate incentive, but it seems a reasonable way ahead.  I would ask your OR this question and if they don't know, they should raise it with DCBA.
 
Top