Letters

Duty calls but it might cost
Drug policy questioned
Heartfelt thanks
Lone Pine request
Posties’ reunion
 Medal precedent

Duty calls but it might cost

THERE has been a change in the interpretation of policy in regards to members attending live-in courses.

Members who are attending a live-in course at what is now deemed to be their normal place of duty will no longer be entitled to receive incidentals.

After 21 days those members who live-out will receive the review rate, but if you live-in you will still receive nothing.

Saying that after 21 days, live-out members will receive the review rate seems strange: how can they be entitled to the review rate without being entitled to the initial rate?

In line with this new interpretation, if you are a MWOD who lives out at your normal place of duty but attends a live-in course that is deemed to be at your normal place of duty, you will no longer be eligible to be reimbursed the reasonable costs of keeping your accommodation (based on current Pacman policy).

What is your normal place of duty? Apparently it is now considered anywhere within 30km of your posted unit.

This means, for example, that if you are posted to 1 Armd Regt in Robertson Barracks and attended a live-in course at LWC-NT, which is also located in Robertson Barracks, you are now considered to still be at your normal place of duty and therefore have no entitlement to incidentals.

Based on the 30km radius though, you could also include Larrakeyah Barracks or anywhere in Darwin as being your normal place of duty.

I have a different interpretation as to what is your normal place of duty: I consider it to be your posted unit.

Members should be compensated for the extra costs incurred that are associated with attendance on a live-in course whether it is interstate or local and MWOD who cannot occupy their normal place of residence (live-in or live-out) should be eligible to be reimbursed the reasonable costs of keeping their accommodation.

For the 18 years I have been in I can always remember being paid incidentals to attend a live-in course, on both local and interstate courses. Why has the policy interpretation now changed?
WO2 Nick Gould
LWC-NT
Robertson Barracks

Colleen Goth, Director Service Conditions, responds:
THERE has been no change in this policy.
As far back as 2000 the then Indman stated: “Travelling Allowance is paid to meet the reasonable costs of accommodation, meals and incidental expenses incurred when a member is to make an authorised journey within Australia on duty, posting or termination of service.”
The term “authorised journey” means when the member:

  • travels at Commonwealth expense to perform duty at a place other than their normal place of duty, and
  • that visit requires the member to be absent overnight from his or her normal place of residence.

Defence Determination 2003/21 enhanced the policy to allow members who normally live-out but are required to live-in while on “a course of training at the member’s posting locality” to receive incidentals “for the balance of the period”.
The “balance of the period” begins immediately after midnight on the 21st day.

It is reasonable to expect that, in the short-term, a member required to live-in on course in their posting location would not incur additional expenses in the same way as a member who is temporarily located outside their posting location.

That is why members on course at their posting location do not receive incidentals for the first 21 days.

Confusion seems to come from the term “normal place of duty”. The wording in the Pacman has been changed to “posting location” to make it clearer that members who do not travel away from their posting location to undertake a live-in course are not entitled to receive incidentals for the first 21 days.

Posting location is already clearly defined in clause 1.3.52 of the Pacman, which is available online at http://intranet.defence.gov.au/pac/ or http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac/.

Another issue raised is the reimbursement of reasonable costs of keeping accommodation.

Clause 9.5.38 of the Pacman provides an entitlement to members without dependents required to perform periods of duty away from their normal place of duty (posting location) for more than 21 days.

Without this clause these members would lose their living-out accommodation entitlement.

Members attending a live-in course at their normal place of duty (posting location) do not require a similar provision as they retain their normal entitlement to living-out accommodation.
 
Scrutiny: A drug test in progress.
Drug policy questioned

I WOULD like to express my concerns on a very touchy subject, and that is of the so-called zero tolerance drug policy that the ADF has in place.

From what I can see, in regards to members who have taken drugs, there is a whole lot of tolerance towards them.

For starters they get the ability to “show cause” straight away. Wouldn’t this be counted as tolerance? Yes, I am aware that some people may have their drinks spiked etc, but it’s a bit hard to have your drink spiked with cannabis.

I am also aware that critical trades get a blind eye turned because, as the name suggests, they are highly needed within the forces. I am aware of two cases where members have been convicted of using drugs in the Army and were very harshly followed up with Soldiers Medallions and deployments to Afghanistan. What gives? We have to work with these people.

Was this zero tolerance policy just set in place to shut the media up, because I’m sure anyone reading can relate to at least one instance of a drug user that has not had administrative actions and discharge taken against them. Who’s with me?
Cpl Trent Wiseman
4CER
Ringwood East Depot
Maj Sue Kerr, SO2 Pers Policy,

DGPers-A, responds:
YOU raise a number of points in regard to the ADF prohibited substances policy. I would like to respond to your points and clarify a number of issues that you raise regarding this policy.

In every instance, on confirmation of a positive test result for prohibited substance use, termination of service action is commenced.

Under this process, every member is given the opportunity to write a statement of reasons explaining to the relevant authority the reasons as to why he or she should not be discharged.

This opportunity does not demonstrate tolerance of prohibited substance use, but is a legal requirement under the Defence Act. If the member elects not to provide a statement of reasons, he or she is discharged.

If the member provides a statement of reasons, the member’s CO and brigade commander provide their recommendations as to whether the member should be retained or discharged.

The member’s career manager at SCMA, the APA or DOCM and the respective commander of those organisations also provide their recommendations.

Commander Career Management Agency is the authorised delegate for reviewing the member’s statement of reasons and the accompanying recommendations.

While the career manager may make a recommendation to retain the member because he or she is in a critical trade, Commander Career Management Agency will consider this recommendation in conjunction with the points raised in the member’s statement of reasons, the member’s service history and the other accompanying recommendations.

Most members who test positive are discharged, however, some leniency may be given to younger and junior members when considering their “show cause” statements and retention may be approved under strict conditions.

While I cannot comment on the two cases you mention, I can assure you that Army treats the use of prohibited substances very seriously and by far the majority of cases of confirmed use of prohibited substances have resulted in termination of service.
Heartfelt thanks
 
Family man: Capt Mark Bingley with his wife, Melissa, and their son, Mitchell.

TO the men and women of the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force and in particular to the deployed members of Operation Slipper:
Commanders, officers and enlisted members of 6 Sqn RAAF Amberley, Land Command, 4RAR Commandos, 1 Div, 5 Avn Regt, SASR, 16 Bde, 1 Avn Regt, 3 Bde, 1 and 2RAR, HMAS Kanimbla and my beloved 171 Avn Sqn – I just wanted to say thank you all so very much for your messages of love and support that so many people sent after Mark’s accident.

Your words and gestures have given me so much strength to cope with the most horrible of circumstances. Mitchell will also gain a lot of strength and pride when he looks over these messages that I have kept.

I have been overwhelmed with the outpouring of compassion you have each shown us and it has restored my faith in humanity. I am so very proud of Mark, his achievements and how he served his country. But I miss my husband so very much, the life we shared and the future we had planned with Mitchell. My wonderful memories and treasured photos keep his spirit close to my heart and are giving me strength on those trying days.

If you have some special memories that you would like to share with myself and Mitchell, please email memories_of_mark@hotmail.com. Thank you again for your love and support.
Mrs Melissa Bingley
Townsville
Lone Pine request

I AM a published author currently writing the story of Lone Pine and am seeking information concerning infantry and light horsemen involved in the August 1915 battle.

Information is also sought on the 2nd and 4th Field Engineers, miners or fatigues involved with the excavation of the B Group tunnels in this area.

Original material, including unpublished letters, diaries or photographs, is sought for the book.

Any information used will be credited and safe handling and prompt registered return of loaned material is guaranteed. Write to me at 20 Williams Road, Melville WA 6156, WA; phone (08) 9331 5954 or email tunnellers@pacific.net.au.
Mr Murray Ewen
Melville, WA
Posties’ reunion

PLANNING is under way for an Army Posty Reunion in Townsville in November.

The invitation is extended to all Army posties who served from 1960-1997 in Townsville, whether Townsville Military Post Office, NQ Area Postal Unit, 1 Div Postal Unit or any of the AFPOs overseas.

I have quite a few names already and this thing is going to be bigger than Ben Hur’s chariot.

I am trying to locate Randal McLelland, Paul Townsend, Ken Jackson, Arthur Forrester and Ken Ryley. If anyone can help, I can be contacted on psdk4@aapt.net.au or (08) 9593 3172.
Mr Peter Terrell
Warnbro, WA
Medal precedent

WO2 Dave Bastian’s letter regarding the wearing of the NATO medal awarded for serving in Afghanistan was interesting (Army, February 8).

The response from the Director Honours and Awards did not mention that Vietnam veterans have been awarded two medals for service – AASM with clasp Vietnam, and the Vietnam Medal – and also the foreign award, the Vietnam Campaign Star.

So WO2 Bastian, the precedent has been set: you and your Diggers deserve to be able to wear the NATO medal with pride.
Mr A. B. Pearce
Woodcroft, SA