Operation Transition - 30 day admin entitlement upon release

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
20
Points
430
Jarnhamar said:
Side bar

Not employed in a military setting doesn't mean not employed. Members are still being paid and can be directed to work off base at civilian places of work, or, on military bases in areas that have been deemed not to be a military setting (for purposes of MEL's) such as hospitals, dental annexes.

I'm not seeing where this is stated...doesn't that contradict:

In accordance with Operation TRANSITION direction, all members shall be granted 30 calendar days prior to the date of release to concentrate solely on transition activities and release administration during which they are unavailable for tasking or employment within unit. The focus must be on enabling them to complete ALL ADMINSTRATIVE ASPECTS PRIOR TO THEIR RELEASE.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
25
Points
530
I think the intent here is for retiring members to be able maximize their efforts towards their new beginning and the intent is to allow them  30 days to get their affairs in order.  And I also think the intent is that these members are on a sort of career terminal leave. 

Why cant we just say that instead of cryptic wording that allows miscreants to fiddle with policy at their pleasure ?

We seem to be addicted to letting lower commands interpret policy that should be black and white and followed to the T.

If we just issued simple concise orders it might just stop some stuff from failing the globe and mail test.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
20
Points
430
I don't think the wording is that bad;  it is just like the CFPAS policy, or leave policy.  The problem is the human interface and not holding people in positions of authority accountable when they don't follow policy.  We are better at the "not holding people in positions of authority accountable" part.

What's not clear in the wording? 
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
187
Points
680
Eye In The Sky said:
I'm not seeing where this is stated...doesn't that contradict:

I'm referring to when a member (not specifically on this 30 day admin period) has MELs that talk about not working in a military setting- it doesn't mean not employed at all.

Not a very clear sidebar sorry :)

Some units will squeeze every last drop, my unit had a guys last day at work spent on 24 hour front desk duty.



 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
61
Points
530
ATIS-BOY said:
In accordance with Operation TRANSITION direction, all members shall be granted 30 calendar days prior to the date of release to concentrate solely on transition activities and release administration during which they are unavailable for tasking or employment within unit. The focus must be on enabling them to complete ALL ADMINSTRATIVE ASPECTS PRIOR TO THEIR RELEASE.

As a former RSM, the wording, to me, is quite clear.

Sgt Bloggins has submitted his/her request for release effective Friday, 30 August 2019 and the CO has granted this request.  S/he is to commence booking appointments as part of the release process immediately.

Sgt Bloggins is still employable within my unit until 31 July, subject to availability due to release appointments and will commence any handovers required.  On 01 August, s/he will concentrate exclusively on whatever parts of the release process are still outstanding by that date and is not required to report for duty unless those duties form part of the release process which may include any remaining handovers required (administrative aspects - e.g. no loose ends).  No new taskings.  No courses.  No parades.  No secondary duties unless they form part of the administrative aspects of the release process. (e.g. mess treasurer transferring signing authority). It is the chain of command's responsibility to facilitate the release, not hinder it.

Once my CO signs the request for release, in my mind, that is an implied order for the chain of command to "get on with it forthwith".
 

kev994

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
11
Points
180
I don’t see anywhere that it needs to be the “last” 30 days, though that seems to make sense. My read is that it is any 30 consecutive days.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
61
Points
530
kev994 said:
I don’t see anywhere that it needs to be the “last” 30 days, though that seems to make sense. My read is that it is any 30 consecutive days.

True, but if my fictional Sgt Bloggins has turned in his/her kit, surrendered their 404s, cancelled all their IT, vault, QM etc.  access and cleared out of pretty much everywhere, then s/he is pretty much unemployable.  It would, as you noted, make sense that the 30 consecutive days were the last 30 days of service.  And, as I believe that the role of the C of C in this instance is to facilitate the process, one could infer that "30 calendar days prior to release" is the last 30 days.

I could see where a unit could disingenuously interpret the "30 calendar days" to their advantage as a way of being punitive towards a member who "abandons the family", for example, granting 30 non-consecutive days starting six months out from the release date.

Another point to consider is how this policy would be applied to the Reserve Force.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
28
Points
530
kev994 said:
I don’t see anywhere that it needs to be the “last” 30 days, though that seems to make sense. My read is that it is any 30 consecutive days.

Basically all of your release admin is done in the last 30 days. Medical / dental, kit turn-in, etc. Considering the overall policy and intent, if any CO/RSM were to read this policy and conclude that it doesn't have to be the 30 calendars immediately prior to their release, they should be asked  if they want their C&P to read that they wouldn't follow clear direction or if they would like it to read that they were too incompetent to understand clear direction, and whether they'd prefer Dundurn or Gander for their next posting... and then given the opposite.
 

medicineman

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
24
Points
430
I'd have loved to have something like this when I got out of the Reg Force in 2011 - not only was I doing release stuff, I was doing my usual job, did ZERO handover, and had a Base Duty WO tossed in for good measure.  My final work day was a grad day for the QL5 Cl Divers - did the grad, closed up my sick bay and went home after dismissal.  Returned to Base a few days later to sign final release papers, handed in my ID, and was driving to MB the next morning.  The fact that I was on the "30/30" plan really forced the issue, but still had to do my job right up the end - come to think of it, in all my years, I never really had a chance for a release or posting slump until I pulled the pin from the PRes. 

:2c:

MM
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
56
Points
630
medicineman said:
I'd have loved to have something like this when I got out of the Reg Force in 2011

In emergency services, I got four hours to transition,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrSe6pj460w

About two minutes of admin. Rest of it saying good-bye to people at HQ.
 

medicineman

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
24
Points
430
mariomike said:
In emergency services, I got four hours to transition,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrSe6pj460w

About two minutes of admin. Rest of it saying good-bye to people at HQ.

Don't get me wrong, seen people go home from work on a Friday, come back on Monday at 0730 and find that they're going to escorted back to the shacks to clear out their civvy gear and then to the guard house to turn in their ID and parking pass by 0900...however, odds are that TEMS wasn't paying a cost move to somewhere that had to be sorted out, a literal shyte tonne of uniforms and equipment to go back to different locales, VAC appointments, medical and dental appointments, senior official interviews, out clearances from places I hadn't even cleared into, in places I had to find on a large scale map of the Base. all while still doing my actual job.

MM

 

Brash

Jr. Member
Reaction score
9
Points
130
PMedMoe said:
Well, I guess I waded in with the wrong argument.

Yes, I released prior to this policy.

Sorry, but I can still see this being abused without some kind of monitoring.  Just MHO.

And someone can still be considered "on duty" without being at their workplace.

One can play with the term "on duty" as they like, but the order refers to employment ("...during which they are unavailable for tasking or employment").
If you are directing the member to come in to the office in the 30 day period prior to their approved release, you are employing them contrary to this order.

To be clear about your position, could you provide an example of how this policy may be abused? 
Could you also explain what type of monitoring that you interpret this order to be giving (implicit or explicit)?
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
54
Points
530
Brashendeavours said:
One can play with the term "on duty" as they like, but the order refers to employment ("...during which they are unavailable for tasking or employment").
If you are directing the member to come in to the office in the 30 day period prior to their approved release, you are employing them contrary to this order.

To be clear about your position, could you provide an example of how this policy may be abused? 
Could you also explain what type of monitoring that you interpret this order to be giving (implicit or explicit)?

A CO is still responsible for that member and there should be some sort of process to ensure things are on the rails for release and the member isn't dead or dying on a ditch.  Having a member check in with someone (phone/high five/telegram) is not employment.  It is just due diligence.  Putting a veh tech on the floor, giving them a duty shift,or  having a AO do some soldiers paperwork are all examples of employment.  Touching base with Bob, knowing that everything is going good for their release and ensuring their well-being in a process for some that can be challenging and daunting is just plain common sense.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
55
Points
530
Am I the only one that sees handing over and tying up loose ends as administration related to release?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
131
Points
680
Seems pretty straightforward; we do this all the time during relocation leave, and similarly subject to recall while off on PGT. Easy enough to send an occasional update to the folks responsible for me, and I'm left alone to get my schooling done.  That doesn't interfere with my job of getting the PG done, and similarly not a lot to ask to get occasional updates during this 30 day admin period to make sure it's going okay. Fortunately, in the age of email, doesn't even require picking up the phone!

Also, we're all professionals so if a turnover is required, not hard to include this 30 day period into the equation.  Probably too much to hope to have that factored into the posting timing for the replacement, but most people won't leave their backfill swinging in the wind, so sure that will just get factored into the turnover plan.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
80
Points
530
Brashendeavours said:
To be clear about your position, could you provide an example of how this policy may be abused?
 

Hmmm...

Cpl Bloggins gets seriously injured while water-skiing.

Sgt Whatsis gets charged with a DUI.

I just suspect some might use it as "extra" terminal leave as opposed to actually doing admin.

MJP gave a good example of monitoring.

Honestly, maybe the directive is too broad and/or generous.  They could have offered "up to 30 days, as required."
 

Brash

Jr. Member
Reaction score
9
Points
130
MJP said:
A CO is still responsible for that member and there should be some sort of process to ensure things are on the rails for release and the member isn't dead or dying on a ditch.  Having a member check in with someone (phone/high five/telegram) is not employment.  It is just due diligence.  Putting a veh tech on the floor, giving them a duty shift,or  having a AO do some soldiers paperwork are all examples of employment.  Touching base with Bob, knowing that everything is going good for their release and ensuring their well-being in a process for some that can be challenging and daunting is just plain common sense.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood my post, or if you are making an attempt at gas-lighting me.
Nowhere in my post did I say that phoning the member was out of the question.
I made the point that employing them during the 30 day protected period, however, was. I am glad you agree with that statement.

Touching base is fine.
Meddling in the release process or inserting unqualified advice as someone's boss or colleague, isn't.
The directives are pretty clear in terms where the resources and subject matter experts are (and that these resources are REQUIRED to be contacted as part of the release process).
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/transition-guide/annex-c-appendix-1.html
 

Brash

Jr. Member
Reaction score
9
Points
130
PMedMoe said:
 

Hmmm...

Cpl Bloggins gets seriously injured while water-skiing.
Sgt Whatsis gets charged with a DUI.
I just suspect some might use it as "extra" terminal leave as opposed to actually doing admin.
MJP gave a good example of monitoring.
Honestly, maybe the directive is too broad and/or generous.  They could have offered "up to 30 days, as required."

Again I will quote from the instruction: "..unavailable for tasking or employment within unit."
Go read the instruction. They even go so far to CAPITALIZE and bold certain key phrases that aren't getting through some thick middle-management's heads.

Neither that instruction nor my post purport to:
  • relieve the member from communicating an injury to his CoC or reporting to sick parade, if he/she hurts themselves waterskiing (!)
  • relieve the member from reporting being arrested by police, or getting charged with a DUI
If they complete their entire release checklist and then want to sit at home and watch soap operas during their 30 day protected period, they can.
If they believe that this is the best way for them to personally prepare for reintegration with civilian life, that is THEIR choice to make.
That is the member's prerogative, not yours, to assert.


My apologies for getting fired up, but clearly this instruction was required because the old way wasn't getting it done for the CAF, it wasn't getting it done for the member.
Every dinosaur now wants to twist this instruction around to suit their worldview of how things were done "back in the beginning".
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
56
Points
630
medicineman said:
Don't get me wrong, seen people go home from work on a Friday, come back on Monday at 0730 and find that they're going to escorted back to the shacks to clear out their civvy gear and then to the guard house to turn in their ID and parking pass by 0900...however, odds are that TEMS wasn't paying a cost move to somewhere that had to be sorted out, a literal shyte tonne of uniforms and equipment to go back to different locales, VAC appointments, medical and dental appointments, senior official interviews, out clearances from places I hadn't even cleared into, in places I had to find on a large scale map of the Base. all while still doing my actual job.

MM

The transition was pretty simple. You give them 30-days notice. They keep you on 9-1-1 operations until your final four hours.

Hand in a few items and go home. That's it.

Did not mean to imply it was a complicated procedure, because it wasn't.

mariomike said:
About two minutes of admin. Rest of it saying good-bye to people at HQ.

Like I said, pretty much like this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrSe6pj460w

 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
54
Points
530
Brashendeavours said:
I'm not sure if you misunderstood my post, or if you are making an attempt at gas-lighting me.
Nowhere in my post did I say that phoning the member was out of the question.
I made the point that employing them during the 30 day protected period, however, was. I am glad you agree with that statement.

Touching base is fine.
Meddling in the release process or inserting unqualified advice as someone's boss or colleague, isn't.
The directives are pretty clear in terms where the resources and subject matter experts are (and that these resources are REQUIRED to be contacted as part of the release process).
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/transition-guide/annex-c-appendix-1.html

No one is gas lighting you.

You said words to the effect of asking someone to report is employment, and I politely disagreed and highlighted why.  Then gave some examples of employment.  It was a pretty simple post just to highlight how different people look at the issue.  In fact, this was the same type of spirited discussion I had with my boss and a few other folks when we learned of the policy.  As professionals we want to make sure our people are taken care of, and in some cases we have to adult for them, so we want to make sure our soldier's release is going good and they are doing well mentally as well.  It is what leaders do.

I have already said I think this is a great policy and agree with it.  There are some CoC that just don't get it and this is exactly what is required to get around them.  In true internet fashion this is thread is spiraling on tangents, 99.9% of folks will come into work on their own, high five their boss and get their release crap done. 
 
Top