# 2009-018 - Allowances and Benefits, Forgiveness , Home Leave Travel Allowance (HLTA), Improper Administration of SE...

Allowances and Benefits, Forgiveness , Home Leave Travel Allowance (HLTA), Improper Administration of SE through an Aide-Memoire , Recovery of Overpayment/Debt Write-Off

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2009–09–14

The grievor married a foreign national while on leave outside Canada. Because of immigration requirements, the spouse could not come back to Canada with the grievor right away. The grievor was authorized free rations and quarters by his unit, as part of separation expense (SE) benefits. Before travelling to bring back his spouse to Canada, the grievor applied for leave transportation allowance (LTA) which was approved. Months later, the grievor was informed that he was not entitled to SE and LTA and was asked to reimburse the overpayments.

The grievor submitted a grievance challenging the decision and asked for a debt write-off.

The initial authority (IA) partially granted the grievance by ordering that the grievor be reimbursed any LTA advance funds that were recovered up to a stated maximum. However, the IA denied SE on the basis of the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) 3 Aide-Memoire of April 2006.

The Board noted a problem with the application of the Aide-Memoire and found that the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 209.997 was the applicable SE policy. Nonetheless, the Board found that the grievor did not meet the eligibility criteria for SE.

The Board found that the recovery of the overpayments was reasonable and that it could not recommend a debt write-off.

Through the review of this grievance, the Board has come to realize that the administration of SE was done through the DCBA Aide-Memoire instead of the CBI Instructions 209.997. The Board was aware that the DCBA was seeking proper Treasury Board (TB) authorization to publish its Aide-Memoire as the approved regulations on non-relocation benefits. Given the number of inconsistencies noted between the different documents applicable to the administration of SE (CBI, Aide-Memoire and CANFORGEN), the Board felt that an in-depth review was required to minimize future issues of interpretation and application.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) deny the grievance.

The Board recommended that the CDS direct an in-depth policy review and that representation be made to the TB regarding the SE benefits, in order to clearly address SE entitlements or ineligibilities, through proper regulations.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2010–06–16

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and its recommendation to deny the grievance. Although the CDS wrote that the applicable Aide-Memoire was the April 2006 version, the CDS was of the view that it was incorrectly applied to the grievor as it was intended for members who had been attached posted away from their place of duty or were undergoing training at another location, which was not the case for the grievor. The CDS recognized that there was confusion between the Aide-Memoire and the CBI 209.997 with regard to SE, and, therefore, this systemic issue, previously raised in grievance files, is being addressed by the DGCB. The CDS agreed that not only did the grievor not meet the SE eligibility criteria, but his situation did not meet the intent of the policy.

Page details

Date modified: