The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread

[FSTO]

FTSO,

The Dinnings would indeed have received the SDB (2 years of members pay), if their son designated one of them as the beneficiary. I would suspect that he did, and that they, in fact, have already received that payment benefit. The Dinnings have never once stated that they did not receive the SDB (Supplementary Death Benefit).

They have stated however that they did not receive the VAC Death Benefit, of 250K, which they are referring to as the "Survivors Benefit." They did not receive this benefit as they are not entitled to it as per current VAC regulations which limit it's payment to deceased members with spouse and/or children.

The two benefits are NOT the same thing, and I say again, not once have the Dinnings said that they did not receive the SDB to which they were entitled (if named as beneficiary).

See here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/62719/post-572745.html#msg572745

ArmyVern, the CFAO I quoted was for Supplementary Death Benefits.

But somewhere in the SYSTEM, somebody screwed up. The Minister and CDS can both say that they ordered that ALL costs will be paid. But we all know that there was a civilian or military clerk/supervisor/officer take your pick that decided that they would quote TB rules and regs chapter and verse and approve funds that are not to exceed 6,000.00. I assume, after the look I saw on the CDS's face yesterday, that I wouldn't want to be in that persons shoes today.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

When my husband was killed, my AO told me what expenses were covered and which were not. It was my choice to add and/or upgrade certain things. I was clearly informed that I would be responsible for those expenses incurred outside the military's budget. I chose to give my husband a military funeral and burial at Beechwood. 99% of the expenses were covered except the casket upgrade.
I understand that a civilian funeral and burial are more expensive, however, should one soldier be entitled to more than the other? Maybe the budget should be increased but there has to be a limit on what we can expect them to pay. Should you chose to upgrade, you chose the expense also.
As for the Sudden Death Benefit, yes that goes to the soldier's dependents. Most single soldiers are not supporting their parents. There is no financial loss to the parents when they die. However, in my case, my husband was the sole provider for our family. And I have 2 little girls that I have to raise for a long time on my own. The parents would have recieved 2 years salary plus his SISIP. The sudden death benefit was not in place when Matt died.

God bless you, this can't have been easy to write about. As said by others and now by you...when the AO and the Padre and the support team from the Unit are used wisely one can avoid a lot of problems. When one decides to have a funeral pyre or an arena with a multi media show one is advised by the team that the expense of such things will not be covered in the budget. As you point out upgrades to the standard expenses such as caskets can be done but one is advised of the limits set.
Because we've had experience doing these things we can tell the family the TB guidelines and what kinds of things the unit can pick up......in the case of the Stannix funeral here in Halifax we were able to use the Chapel on Base and overflow rooms....no cost at all to the family...we had the Field Ambulance provide the ushers (his fiance is a Medic) The family was housed in Juno Towers and Russell House. between the Unit(s) and the Base a lot of things were covered in house. the reeception was at the Mess...etc etc.

48th  Regulator...of course the Dinnings were advised, they had a Notification Team as did Teddy bear and everyone else....my question is were they listening or taking the advice? When people choose to ignore the advice given then they are the ones responsible for their choices.

 

[armyvern]

ArmyVern, the CFAO I quoted was for Supplementary Death Benefits.

Exactly. And the family GOT those SDB benefits, they have never once said that they didn't and neither has David Akin. Read his blog, read the linked story. Perhaps a small oversight on their parts has neglected mention of it's receipt to the general Canadian public??

They say they didn't get any Survivor Benefits (Actually "Death Benefits" ) - which are paid by VAC to those who qualify; the Dinning's don't as their son was single.

But somewhere in the SYSTEM, somebody screwed up. The Minister and CDS can both say that they ordered that ALL costs will be paid. But we all know that there was a civilian or military clerk/supervisor/officer take your pick that decided that they would quote TB rules and regs chapter and verse and approve funds that are not to exceed 6,000.00. I assume, after the look I saw on the CDS's face yesterday, that I wouldn't want to be in that persons shoes today.

I agree, someone screwed up. But it wasn't the military. The family is aware that VAC (as are the media and the opposition) is responsible for the grief counselling, etc...the family has said so in their letter; so someone in the CF did indeed refer them properly to the correct Department for payments of those. Check out the bills...then figure out the actual costs for the funeral that are included...take away the costs for items that are NOT funeral costs...

The 3K for the arena is debateable...but was a choice the family made while fully aware of the ceiling limits for payment of those costs.

 

[George Wallace]

..........of course the Dinnings were advised, they had a Notification Team as did Teddy bear and everyone else....my question is were they listening or taking the advice? When people choose to ignore the advice given then they are the ones responsible for their choices.

I think this line from IN HOC SIGNO can basically sum up the whole discussion. 

 

[Wookilar]

So, does all this qualify as "the facts" that Mr Aiken was wondering existed? We've had enough information from people that went through it ( Teddybear), subject matter experts (IN HOC SIGNO and others) and the rest of us....... Departments responsible, TB regulations, etc.

So where is the clarification from the msm, the opposition parties or even from the MND/DND/CF?

Ticks me off to see the CDS (and all of us) take it on the chin (again) for the sake of a few political points in the polls.

 

[pbi]

This whole issue is not about our soldiers, it's about the Liberals trying to make political points on the backs of soldiers families who have suffered the ultimate price. Both the Liberals and the media should be ashamed of themselves. 

Sadly, I think that this probably hits the nail on the head. I have been involved on the periphery of a service death in which the grieving family fell into the hands of a journalist and a local MP, and set out to embarass the CF and the Govt, even to the point of misrepresenting the date that the Provincial Medical Examiner's autosy report was made available to them. Grief makes people do strange things.

While I can accept that maybe a few individual cogs in the system might be too tight-assed, or just ignorant (although I don't see anybody advancing any proof of that in this case) as an Army we have come a very long way in the last decade in how we look after our dead and wounded and their families: all units, brigades and bases do their utmost. After all, these are their own soldiers and families. A CO, his RSM and officers/NCOs  and the team assisting the family are not "faceless bureacrats". I have personally been involved in a case in which we went ahead and did stuff for the family that was beyond Treasury Board limits: our attitude was "**** them: he's our soldier".

So, hard-hearted as it might seem, I have to say that in the absence of all the facts, the family's position seems questionable.

Cheers

 

[armyvern]

Ticks me off to see the CDS (and all of us) take it on the chin (again) for the sake of a few political points in the polls.

Something to remember when we all decide where to cast our votes next election.

 

[George Wallace]

I have just read the letters on David Aken's blog ( http://davidakin.blogware.com/DINNING.pdf ) and I don't agree with all the demands that the Dinning family are making.  They are making claims for things outside of the funeral.  They seem to think that the parents of an adult child who has left home and joined the military are entitled to the same benefits a young soldier's widow and children should have.  They, who have lived full productive lives, still want the same compensation that a widowed mother with little or no income and/or assets would get.  I think their priorities are in the wrong place, or just greedy, in thinking that they are in the same position as a young widow(er) with young children. 

This whole affair stinks.  An OPP officer, with a long career, and a stable bank account demanding the same benefits as a young widow and her children.  I say that this is what is scandalous.  It is a money grab.  Then to claim for a hotel when at the National Police Remembrance Ceremony, just adds to my fury.  I ask the Press, David Aken if he so chooses, to respond to this scandalous behaviour on the part of this family.  Do they want to be treated as if they are on Welfare?  Are they looking for free ride? 

I really don't think that these 'older' parents realize that they have had their adult son leave home - leave the nest - to start his own life, of his own accord; and that this does not equate at all to a 'married' soldier who leaves a young family with no means of support behind.  They have lived long and productive lives and seen their children grow up and leave home.  The widow(er) is just starting their life and does not have the security to fall back on that they (Dinnings) do.  It is even worse if there are children involved, who are now minus a parent.  There is a big difference here, and they don't realize it.  That or they are in it for the money - greed.  They are not the 'Dependants' of their single son.  A married soldier, however, does have 'Dependants' who will need support.

And NO!, I do not think the Press, or even David Aken, will clarify these points to the Canadian Public. 

To me the scandal here is with the family's demands for more free money, and the Press and some politicians for making it into a national smear campaign in the papers.

[Edit:  I must add that David Aken has done much in the way of showing support for the Troops and this is not meant as an assault on his person, but as an honest belief that this story will fade into the woodwork and not be clearly presented to the Public to show all the facts, nor rectify any false statements or judgements that were made.  The Members of the Press are also subject to the 'Editor's Knife', so we can not always judge honestly what is their real thoughts at times.  We are very lucky to have David participate on these forums and I honestly hope that we do nothing to dissuade him from carrying on as an active participant.]

 

[George Wallace]

This whole topic is like a RCIED.  An IED couldn't spread the blame or faults with this story out any better.  What we should be doing is looking for the "Triggerman".

 

[Wookilar]

I'm not disagreeing with you George, but Mr Aiken pointedly called us out to produce some "facts."

We have done so, on a number of fronts. All done concisely and in a professional manner. Craig Oliver's piece on the CTV National News and Mr Aiken himself on CTV newsnet both point to a certain editorial slant (I'd link both pieces, but I am afraid I'm not that savvy, both on http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/news/SEAfghanistan.html).

I do not believe it is too much to ask that Mr Aiken at least acknowledge that there is more to this than he himself originally reported. He's a "soldier in the trenches of Parliament Hill" so to speak and we all understand that he gets his direction from higher, but do not openly challenge us to back up something and then remain silent.

I agree he has done some good work before, however, this incident may damage his credibility here. The ball is firmly in his court, we can do nothing more.

Wook

 

[pbi]

I doubt that we will see any MSM outlet challenge this family, or any other family that tries to stretch things. (And I have recently heard some interesting although unsubstantiated anecdotes about one or two families making outlandish demands...). It would go against one of the fondest popular cultural stereotypes: that any "little people" who challenge "the System" must automatically be right and good, and that any responses provided by "the System's" minions are mere lies and delaying tactics. If the minions try to challenge the little people, then of course they are wickedly trying to crush the rights of tax paying citizens, etc. etc. As with most stereotypes, there is more than a grain of truth in this. And, of course, the MND is not helping very much.

The difference here is that we are "The System". It is folks just like any of us who deal with these situations, from the first phone call to the last needs the grieving family has. In fact, some of the folks on line here have been, and are, directly involved. Nobody I know is out to screw the troops or their families. It is too easy to paint a picture of a heartless, nasty machine called "the Military", a mindless tool of that other monster "the Government", and target it. Out of respect for the 99.9% of suffering families who are completely decent and honorable and seek only a just compensation, the CF will not "fight back", nor (probably) will the Govt. The facts, whatever they may be, will only be presented to the extent that the family in question wants to expose them, for whatever their reasons may be.

The greater danger here is not, IMHO, that the CF or the Govt will be embarrassed, but that the faith of our soldiers and their families, and by extension that of the Canadian people, will be shaken when it doesn't need to be.

Cheers

 

[geo]

And for this, we can thank the Canadian Press.  Publishing stories that have not necessarily been properly researched and are not well balanced... showing pros & cons.

Hey - it sells

 

[the 48th regulator]

And for this, we can thank the Canadian Press.  Publishing stories that have not necessarily been properly researched and are not well balanced... showing pros & cons.

Hey - it sells

Unfortunately,

The track record in the past has not helped DND, VAC or the Government in general.  This has left a bad taste in many people mouths (Both serving, and their families).

That has caused many a people, inlcuding myself, to jump on the Dinnings plight.

Maybe this will shead some facts, in the positive, for DND.  They should stand up to the accusations, and provide proof to the contrary to what the Dinnings are disputing was not done.

dileas

tess

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good exchange of ideas/info here...

I did notice locally, a media outlet (CKPR-AM Radio, and Thunder Bay Television) approached the family of a fallen soldier here and asked if they were satisfied with how they were treated, compensated and reimbursed.  The father said he was very satisfied with how the feds dealt with them, and only had a gripe at some provincial tax people delaying some sort of (I'm guessing terminal tax return) paperwork.  And that story ran RIGHT after the Dinning story.  So even though we grouse about media, in some cases, the REST of the story is getting out (albeit slowly).

At this point, though, I'll be interested to see if ANY MSM reporter or columnist deals with these policy questions:

Should the NOK of all service members who are killed in the line of duty be compensated in the same way, in light of varying survivor circumstances?

Should reimbursement cover "approved funeral expenses" (to use a bit of a bureaucratic phrase), or "whatever is needed to help the NOK/family deal with the death"?

We shall see...

 

[HItorMiss]

Having personally talked to TeddyBear I can say this with confidence.

Why does one soldier get a stadium for a remembrance and one does not. Is that soldier more of a soldier then the other? The simple answer is NO HE IS NOT and as such is not entitled to it. You get what the CF will pay for and if you want more are advised that it will cost out of your pocket.

The whole thing reeks of greedy in my book.

 

[Poppa]

Let's wind our necks in here folks before something is said/written that makes us look like tools.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Let's wind our necks in here folks before something is said/written that makes us look like tools.

Poppa,
I appreciate the sentiment but, trust me, our eyes are all over this one.

I realize that not one person on here would change places with the Dinning family, and as, for the most part, having connections with the military, we acknowledge the great sacrifice that the family has made, however, IMO this does not give them [or whomever is "using" them] to make political points for the wrong reasons. To do see so lessens the things Cpl. Dinning offered his life for.................

They have more than earned the right to make political statements [ whatever they may be] for the 'right' reasons,  however I don't believe this is one of them.  This is about bias politics.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

David,
I believe some 'real facts', including testimony from 'TeddyBear', has been presented.....

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

 

[garb811]

Update at the Globe and Mail, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act:  Soldier's family to be compensated

Soldier's family to be compensated
GLORIA GALLOWAY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
June 1, 2007 at 5:05 AM EDT
OTTAWA — It is difficult to talk about private grief in the glare of television cameras, and it was a long eight-hour drive home from Ottawa for Lincoln and Laurie Dinning. But good news was waiting for them on the other end.
The Department of National Defence has agreed to reimburse the Dinnings for the expenses related to the death of their son, a military policeman who was killed by a roadside bomb while serving last year in Afghanistan.
"It's a long way to drive to make a point, but it obviously worked because here we are being reimbursed," Mr. Dinnings said in a telephone interview from his home in the Ontario community of Wingham yesterday. "And, if it's true, then hopefully no other family will have to stand up there and do that again."
Although the couple spent more than $25,000 to bury Matthew and deal with the psychological fallout of his loss, the government gave them just $6,400 - the amount allowed under decade-old guidelines.

They did not ask to be recompensed for every dollar. But they went to Parliament this week to argue that some of the additional expenses should reasonably be covered. And they wanted to put a face to anonymous reports - denied by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor - that families of dead soldiers were bearing the costs of the funerals.
The Dinnings' story created an uproar in the House of Commons, and the couple, who say they are intensely private people, found themselves at the centre of a news media storm. There were 20 messages waiting for them when they arrived home yesterday, most from reporters.

But one was from the Defence Department.

"At 3 p.m. today, I spoke to Rear Admiral Tyrone Pile," Mr. Dinning said. "He is the chief of military personnel in Ottawa and he was phoning to confirm my address because they were sending me a cheque for what we had asked for."

The family will get about $4,700. That includes $525 for a hotel room in Ottawa where they stayed when their son's name was added to the honour roll, $1,200 for grief counselling for Mrs. Dinning up to Dec. 1 of last year, and $2,963 in arena charges.

Some news reports yesterday, including The Globe and Mail, mistakenly reported that the Dinnings had to rent the arena. The facility was actually offered, rent free, by the local community to accommodate the 2,500 people who wanted to attend Matthew's memorial. But setting up the venue, including chairs, drapes and overtime wages, cost nearly $3,000.

Rear Adm. Pile also offered to pay for the additional grief counselling that Mrs. Dinning has had since December - and for the counselling she will need in the future, Mr. Dinning said.

The family has yet to hear an explanation from Prime Minister Stephen Harper as to why their unmarried son did not qualify for the $250,000 death benefit that is given to married soldiers who die in action.
In a letter Mr. Dinning wrote last August to his family liaison officer he said, "P.S. Brendan is leaving tomorrow to begin his career in the Canadian Forces and my wish is that he loves doing his job as much as Matthew loved doing his."

Brendan Dinning is Matthew's younger brother. He is also going to be a military police officer and is serving at an Ontario base.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from article,

"The family has yet to hear an explanation from Prime Minister Stephen Harper as to why their unmarried son did not qualify for the $250,000 death benefit that is given to married soldiers who die in action. "

Notice how Ms. Galloway conveniently did not put quotes on this, therefore one must assume what she means is that SHE doesn't know if the Dinning family have heard the reason but, hey, whats it to you as long as you make the family look greedy and get the free shot at Mr. Harper.........................phffftt.