Quicklinks
to Letters
Volume 11, No. 44, June 01, 2006
Court case choices
Shaken faith in movers
Laundry is a tax matter
Lobbying pays off
Infants’ travel mode under consideration
Funds for new memorial
Fitness incentives needed
HOW
TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED
Court case choices
WHY is it that Army and Navy personnel have to pay for medal mounting, however RAAF members don’t?
Air Force Standard of Dress AAP 5135.003, Chap 4, Para 18 stipulates that members are entitled to free medal mounting.
This seems like double standards to me.
I don’t mind paying the $44, but it should be across the board.
Capt Mark Tamblyn
1CSSB
Roberston Barracks
WO1 Jeff Hansen, RSM Ceremonial - Army, responds:
THE RAAF dress manual stipulates that medals are to be court mounted. CAF sees this as an expense brought upon the individual by the force and has authorised court mounting at public expense.
ABR 81 Uniform Instructions for the RAN states: “Personnel awarded medals (and therefore ribbons) may wear these items, on appropriate dress, at their own discretion”, and “The RAN does not provide mounting of medals. Personnel may elect to have medals mounted”. Put plainly, if Navy personnel decide to wear medals they do so at their own cost.
ASOD Vol 2, Pt 5, Ch 3, states in part that “medals are suspended from a medal bar” and “medals may be court mounted at the option and the expense of the individual”.
Therefore Army personnel have two options on how to mount their medals and it is an individual’s decision on how much to spend of his or her $503.96 per annum UMA.
I don’t see double standards here, but options that can be taken by Navy and Army personnel.
TOP
Shaken faith in movers
- I WRITE to highlight my opinion on the incompetence of DHA, which has not given me a stress-free move since it took over Defence relocations.
I have moved three times in three years, one of those within the same State, and in that time I have lost more hair off my already thinning hairline because of DHA.
In the first of these moves I was charged for cleaning carpet that DHA replaced then hit me to replace the carpet as well. Once in my new location, DHA didn’t have enough married quarters for us to stay in, so we had to go RA, but the rental ceiling is way below what it should be for Tasmania.
My next move happened 12 months later and, again, no married quarters were available. The rental ceiling still hadn’t changed and the approving authority didn’t raise it this time because he had seen houses within the ceiling on realestate.com. These houses were in locations of high crime and very bad schooling. I accepted his decision under protest and found a house that had the laundry downstairs in the garage so we had to go outside to do the washing.
Getting hold of anyone in DHA takes almost a day and there is never a guarantee that they will call you back.
When we finally secured a house, DHA could only move us on Christmas Eve. My car turned up three weeks later.
Before my most recent posting, I received four different relocation packs for two different posting localities. As a result, my furniture was being moved to Townsville even though I was going to Puckapunyal.
I lodged the paperwork, only to receive a reminder letter about putting the paperwork in, two months later. I called and was told to disregard the letter. Two weeks later I received another one and an email as well. I called back, was told to disregard again and then got a phone call from a relocations manager because my paperwork was incomplete – all this, four weeks before moving.
On confirming that we had been booked on the boat to the mainland, we were told that my wife and I were on one deck and my children, all under age 10, were three decks down.
I hope that someone can take the stress out of moving, like DHA claims it is trying to do.
Sgt C Woodhall
53 Bty
Puckapunyal
Caroline Bradly, DHA Customer Relations Manager, responds:
IN RESPONSE to Sgt Woodhall’s account of his relocation experiences over the past few years I would like to offer my apologies for any additional stress caused by DHA.
The peak posting cycle is the busiest time of year for our staff but we must look after all our members and their families to the best of our abilities – while adhering to the rules set out in Pacman.
Relocation packs are sent to members following advice from Defence regarding specific posting orders. DHA implemented a new process last year to assist in improving Home Find visibility, which involved sending a letter before issuing the relocation pack. There were some issues in the initial stages that may have caused additional packs or reminders to be sent out, but these have since been rectified.
DHA has followed up with Qantas regarding the booking on the Spirit of Tasmania, and they have apologised for the inconvenience. Adjoining rooms would normally be used.
On the issue of granting ceiling increases, DHA must act in accordance with the Defence policies outlined in Pacman, which state that increases can be granted where no other suitable properties are available in the market within the rental ceiling. While DHA staff will always try their best to find suitable service residences or alternatives in a member’s preferred location, it can be difficult in smaller areas, such as Launceston. Due diligence was applied by DHA in considering Sgt Woodhall’s request for a ceiling increase, but it was outside policy guidelines.
Finally, our records show that we did not charge for both cleaning and replacing of the same carpet. That would be unfair. DHA will charge for replacement of carpet where unfair wear and tear is evident, as outlined in all tenancy agreements, and this was the case with Sgt Woodhall.
DHA is continually working to improve systems and streamline processes to make relocation easier for Defence families. Feedback on our services is always appreciated.
TOP
Laundry is a tax matter
THIS letter is in regards to the uniform maintenance allowance that each soldier is entitled to so that he or she can display the high standard expected of a professional service member.
The cost of maintaining DCPUs in the working environment, from washing with detergent, personal maintenance and operating an iron is warranted under the current allowance paid to members.
But AACC cooks have two daily uniforms to maintain and it is not uncommon for them to change from DCPU to ‘whites’ and vice versa in a single day.
It is compulsory for a cook’s uniform to be fresh daily for obvious hygienic reasons.
The uniform needs to be bleached to remove tough food stains and deliver a clean white presentation of the jacket, and it is essential to starch each jacket and check pants, for trade professionalism.
Cooks incur the cost of detergent for the machine wash and the ongoing cost of an iron and iron cleaner as the smallest mark is extremely noticeable on white clothing.
Cooks are also required daily to have polished black boots with a shine, which requires additional equipment and polishing products that most corps do not have.
The upkeep of service dress to a high uniform presentation is a requirement of the ADF and these expenses have a bearing on expenditure and is, most of all, an imposition on MWD.
Pte Brock Veitch
3RAR
Holsworthy Barracks
Maj Pat Hay, SO2 Personnel Policy, DGPers-A, responds:
PACMAN clearly states that uniform allowance is not designed to cover laundry costs and all personnel are advised to review annex 3.A of the Pay and Conditions Manual Administration and Technical Explanation (PACMATE) that provides tax alerts on ADF pay and conditions of service.
Uniform Maintenance Allowance is a component of taxable income and, as such, the member may be eligible to claim tax deductions for expenses incurred in maintaining and laundering his uniform. All personnel are encouraged to seek professional tax advice in relation to uniform maintenance costs.
PACMATE Tax Alerts annex can be found at http://intranet.defence.gov.au/pac/201/10639_1.html
TOP
Lobbying pays off
IN REPLY to the article “Rwanda service warlike” (Army, March 9) I wish to point out that the review by Defence and the subsequent decision by the Government to reclassify Rwanda as warlike service came about from significant and sustained lobbying by Paul Copeland, the president of the Australian Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Veterans Association (APPVA), and his hard-working committee.
I was fortunate enough to be present at the APPVA Melbourne national conference in February to witness the announcement by the Veterans’ Affairs Minister and the Shadow Minister in support of the reclassification.
APPVA represents all serving and ex-serving personnel of the ADF. They do an outstanding job and are highly credited in the eyes of government, especially Veterans’ Affairs. Check out the APPVA web site at www.peacekeepers.asn.au for more information and membership.
Congratulations to all Rwanda vets and well done to APPVA.
Capt Wayne McInnes
LWDC
Puckapunyal
TOP
Infants’ travel mode under consideration
AS A member on a remote posting I was pleased with the revised RLLT entitlements.
I was, however, somewhat disappointed with a decision made recently regarding my daughter’s entitlement, or rather, lack of entitlement.
I recently submitted an application to use an RLLT flight, requesting that my family and I visit my parents in Canberra.
I was somewhat surprised when I was told, through my chain of command, that my daughter’s fare would not be paid.
My daughter is four months old. Although Qantas permits infants to travel on a parent’s lap, Qantas has stated that “the safest way for an infant to travel on an aircraft is in a child restraint device (car seat)”, and further that, “carriage of a lap-held infant is allowed, however research has demonstrated it does not provide the protection of a child seat”. This information was supplied with my RLLT application.
Considering Defence’s approach to safety, this decision to take the cheaper option is a little disturbing. I am yet to find in PACMAN where it states that infants are precluded from RLLT entitlements and I see this decision as not only unethical and unsafe but it also smells of bureaucratic penny pinching.
Lt D Morris
51FNQR
Mount Isa
Bob Jones, Acting Assistant Director Domestic Conditions Policy, responds:
DEFENCE policy is currently guided by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority standards.
At the moment, children under two are not required to fly in a separate seat or child restraint.
Defence does not provide air fares for children under two on domestic flights, unless the child is required to occupy an individual seat. The reference is Pacman Chapter 9 Part 1 Clause 9.1.5.2.
This applies to all Defence travel, not just RLLT.
However, we would like to thank Lt Morris for raising this important issue, which we are now looking into in association with the three service offices.
TOP
Funds for new memorial
FOLLOWING the completion of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) in 2003 an association was formed for members who served on that mission.
It started with a lot of enthusiasm and support but with a number of members retiring and separating from the ADF, the association lost relevance and has basically ceased to function. However, the association has an account, in which it has some funds deposited, but this is dormant and, if it is not used or closed soon, the funds will be transferred to the Government.
In February 2005 an Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Committee was formed with Maj-Gen Tim Ford as interim chair, and is looking at the feasibility of constructing a peacekeeping memorial in Canberra. Significant funds will be required and it is recommended that the funds in the dormant UNTAC Association account be donated to the Peacekeeping Memorial Committee.
I do not have a list of members who made up the association and therefore am seeking approval from members, through your pages, for this proposal. Members can contact me on john.eddington1@defence.gov.au
Lt-Col John Eddington
Armadale, WA
TOP
Show me the money
IN AUGUST 2005 I sold my home in WA to undertake medical discharge in Brisbane. When I arrived in my new unit, CSI-Sth Qld, I applied for my HPSEA entitlement from the sale of my home.
When I submitted the paperwork to the Relocation Section, Directorate of Entitlements, I was told that I was not entitled to the funds due to the fact that my posting order was 30 days short of one year. SCMA refused to extend the posting. I then was informed that on completion of 12 months in new locality or discharge I would receive the money ($11,000).
I have since had a change in my medical status and will continue to serve within the ADF.
In January I inquired about the situation change with my service and the impact it would have on my application. I was informed that the only way that my money would be released was on discharge, not on completion of 12 month in the unit as previously advised. This was decided by the Director of Entitlements.
I asked the Relocations Section to provide advice on my situation change, that being continued service. The official answer I received was that it was a hypothetical question and that an answer would only be forthcoming when the situation arrived.
I find this unacceptable and I am in a dilemma as to where to get advice on my situation if I continue serving.
WO2 Philip Coughlan
CSI-Sth Qld
Gallipoli Barracks
Ray Bromwich, Director Entitlements, responds:
A MEMBER who sells their own home because they are moving to a new location on discharge is entitled to receive reimbursement of sale costs in accordance with Home Purchase or Sale Expenses Allowance (HPSEA) provisions. However, while the sale can occur up to 12 months before discharge, reimbursement cannot be made until after the actual date of discharge.
WO2 Coughlan sold his home in WA in August ‘05 when he was posted from Perth to Brisbane for the purposes of medical discharge on July 10, ‘06. As his posting period was for less than 12 months, his entitlement to HPSEA could not be assessed under the normal posting rules. While I am sympathetic to the delay in WO2 Coughlan receiving reimbursement for his sale expenses, the fact is that his eligibility currently arises under the HPSEA discharge rules and he cannot lawfully be reimbursed those expenses until after his discharge takes effect.
Since being posted for discharge, however, WO2 Coughlan has sought to have his medical status upgraded and to remain serving. WO2 Coughlan believes that he will be successful in this endeavour and wishes to be reimbursed his sale expenses in anticipation of a successful outcome.
While there are indications that WO2 Coughlan may well be successful, at time of writing, there has been no official variation to his original posting order. When WO2 Coughlan is formally advised that he will be retained in the Army beyond August 15, ‘06, his application for HPSEA will be reassessed under the normal posting rules for immediate payment.
TOP
|
