Finance_Guy

I use IronSocket.com $50 a year but has VPN and DNS service for about all countries. They used to be called HidemyNet One review: https://www.vpnsecret.com/iron-socket-vpn-review/ They recommend paying with Bitcoin

Hello all. Now my turn to ask a question. For those around Ramstein, what are some of the best options for cell phone plans. We have iPhone 4s and will get unblocked before moving. Will those work? Don't have an issue with getting new phones provided the service is good and priced right. And while I'm at it, what are the best options for high speed internet? Thanks FG

Anyone ever used RoadRunner Auto Transport to ship a vehicle in the CONUS? www.RRAutoTransport.com FG

Don't see in that guidance where there is a limit to only 4 weight tickets. Ask them to show you in the Regs where there is a limit. https://www.move.mil/documents/dod/Revised_AF_Sup_Attachment_14.pdf I read this as well: *A14.7.1.2. Advise members to provide separate weight tickets for each segment of their moves

Maybe Hagel should stop reimbursement for temp storage of HHGs during deployments. Sure the BAH can cover that cost. BAH is to pay for a Place for your Stuff. , oh, and for you too.

I would suspect those stateside bases aren't as familiar with OCONUS booking. Cost of rotator isn't probably a factor here. Are they just giving you one-way costs or round trip. Try this website and see if there is a GSA rate. https://cpsearch.fas.gsa.gov/cpsearch/search.do?method=enter I plugged in Frankfort to Austin, TX and got a YCA fare rate of $721 one-way. Always use the YCA rate. Really shouldn't be an issue if the Ramstein TMO is giving you the figure--that figure gets put on your PCS orders and the gaining base really can't dispute it.

DITY W2s on my pay were wrong. DFAS is fixing the corrupted file and will post tomorrow

That is correct after checking my facts, it is the qualified hazardous duty areas (QHDA ) that would not get CZTE if IDP/HFP goes away. But there could be a difference in designating a CZ and authorizing CZ benefits. This is an interesting read: https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/11th_QRMC_Supporting_Research_Papers_(932pp)_Linked.pdf A few highlights I got out of it: #1. "HFP/IDP cost the Department of Defense $789 million in 2009 while the cost to the Treasury for CZTE was $3.6 billion—approximately 4.5 times the cost of HFP/IDP. #2. "An option for administering combat zone benefits more efficiently could be a distinction drawn between termination of the combat zone and termination of combat zone benefits. CZTE and combat zone benefits could be made contingent on the receipt of HFP/IDP in a manner similar to QHDAs. Since receipt of HFP/IDP is subject to the authority of the Secretary of Defense, the DoD could terminate CZTE benefits without actually terminating the combat zone. By not relying on the issuance of an Executive Order, the termination of combat zone benefits could be more timely and coincident with combat conditions. Once combat zone benefits are terminated, the process of terminating the combat zone should be easier to accomplish (7.A pg. 33). After noting those two, don't discount seeing a PEO or congressional action to remove CZTE for those areas that are no longer imminent danger areas according to OSD. The Obama administration needs to find more revenue to help distribute the income. I think the OSD action is only the first step. Sucks but I think we'll see the CZs be changed, but let's hope I'm wrong.

Well the going in position for CPTS is that when IDP for those locations goes away effective 1 June '14, so will the CZTE. So the question to OSD is to determine if there will be an exception granted to keep CZTE even though there is no IDP. So plan on IDP and CZTE going away on 1 Jun unless you hear otherwise. Rules would have to be changed to specifically authorize CZTE even though the area is not an IDP area. So Fuzz, if you continue to receive IDP and CZTE for one of those areas after 1 June consider yourself notified you will owe money.

If not claiming TLE then no receipts are required for the PCS CONUS land travel. PCS moves get what we call "MALT Plus". The "Plus" is the standard CONUS per diem rate. If the CPTS still insists on receipts ask them to show you in the JFTR/AFI that a lodging receipt is required for PCS MALT Plus travel. See JFTR ref below which basically says you get the standard rate--doesn't matter if you spent money on meals/lodging or not. U2025 STANDARD CONUS PER DIEM RATE A. Definition. The Standard CONUS per diem rate is the rate for any CONUS location not included in a defined locality (county/area) in the CONUS. B. CONUS PCS. The Standard CONUS per diem rate is used for all CONUS locations when PCS is involved. U5105 TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS B. ‘MALT Plus’ for POC Travel. Other than for transoceanic travel, PCS travel by POC is to the GOV’T’S advantage. A member traveling by POC is authorized ‘MALT Plus’. The MALT (par. U2605) is paid on a "per mile" basis for the official distance of each portion of the ordered travel (par. U3010). The ‘Plus’ (per diem) portion is paid on a whole day calendar basis for the allowable travel time. 2. Per Diem. A flat per diem at the Standard CONUS per diem rate is paid for each PCS travel day between authorized points, NTE the allowable travel time computed under par. U5160. If used, GOV’T QTRS and/or mess have no effect on the per diem amount paid. Each member traveling in a POC is authorized the Standard CONUS per diem rate.

TMO is the OPR to answer that question, not finance. I checked the AF Supp to the JFTR and don't really see anything clearly stating you don't also get the HHG shipment in addition to the NTS. I do see the 180 day reference. See page 23. https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4_7/publication/jftrv1-jtrv2_afsup1/jftrv1-jtrv2_afsup1.pdf

Don't need them for the driving portion within CONUS but would need lodging receipts on nights staying at the APOE/APOD when going to or coming from OCONUS locations.

New CY 2014 DLA Rates attached. SYNOPSIS: Increases the DLA rates effective 1 January 2014 based on the monthly pay raise of 1.0% IAW 37 USC §1009 and Executive Order signed by the President on 23 December 2013. UTD MAP 245-13(I) DLA Rates 1-1-14 Revised.doc

Typically you have to be authorized IDP to get CZTE--only a few rare cases which are the airspace over a few seas (Red & Arabian?) . If they have decertified IDP then most likely the CZTE goes away too. Would be hard to claim an area remains a combat zone while taking away the IDP. Double banger here--DoD saves $108M and the FEDs (IRS) gets a lot more. RE: DODFMR Vol 7a, Chapter 44, para 440103.b.5.b Edit: I sent the question to our AF Pay Policy POC--they are asking OSD if any executive orders on combat zones will be changed.

Can say I've never heard of that. First, as mentioned above, this is privatized housing so essentially the same a renting an apartment. Dependents being with you has NO affect on your lodging entitlement--so they are dead wrong on what they told you. So get a copy of the lease and/or rent receipts and use that as the receipt/support and they should reimburse up to the cost of a single VOQ room--which should be about $53.25/night. You should also be able to do a lost receipt form for the rent, but I'm sure the company should have no problem getting you some kind of document to show you paid the monthly rental amount. In rental situations you do not need the daily itemized receipt. FG

Any % going to TSP? What about state taxes?

Not really--Looks like this era paid by check. You can see he signed the VCH on 8 Sep 1969 and it was paid by check on 19 Sep. 11 days isn't too bad, but dang you'd think he would get VIP treatment. However it did take him over 40 days to sign the voucher. I'll bet he had a lot going on at that time and wasn't worried about 49 bucks, nor signing a voucher. FG

Attached is something you may or may not have seen before--Neil Armstrong's travel voucher from the July 1969 trip to the moon. FG edit to add attachment Armstrong_Travel_VCH_to_the_Moon-July1969.pdf

I would suspect that finance didn't single-handedly make the decision to back pay the fly pay. I'm sure they receive a military pay order (MPO) from the flight records office before processing anything. All transactions must be backed with a source document from the authoritative source, which in the case of fly pay is not Finance. Most likely they processed whatever flight records gave them. BTW, a guy who works with me pulled up the records on this MSgt-DFAS SDAP debt debacle. In a few minutes we discover the reason for the debt was MPF processed a SDAP stop transaction (3002) but made the stop date retro to about 2 years and 4 months earlier. So when it made its way from MILPDS to the pay system, the pay system automatically set up the debt. Not sure why out of all the people Reuters contacted someone couldn't just find out that information. Not really sure why MPF would have input that transaction but they did. FG

This part makes me angry, "He said the personnel center has no responsibility for special-duty pay." --That is total Bullshit. Personnell is the ONLY source who have access to start, stop and adjust SDAP. I would suspect some FSS person screwed something up right as the guy retired. Finance could only see there was a debt and yes could easily tell what it was for, but by that time the MSgt was probably no longer at the base. Shame on those personnell folks for deleting the MSgt's SDAP This part makes me angry, "He said the personnel center has no responsibility for special-duty pay." --That is total Bullshit. Personnell is the ONLY source who have access to start, stop and adjust SDAP. I would suspect some FSS person screwed something up right as the guy retired. Finance could only see there was a debt and yes could easily tell what it was for, but by that time the MSgt was probably no longer at the base. Shame on those personnell folks for deleting the MSgt's SDAP

I love to hear stories like this--don't get them often. 2 on what Jughead said. I found one of the glitches has to do with Compatibility Mode in IE. SO for all you out there who have not used PIPS, when you do get logged in, click on the Compatibility Mode in IE. Doing so will prevent hang ups whenever you select from addresses previously entered. I brought this to the PMOs attention and said if they knew this was a problem, then why not program the page to enter in that mode to begin with. I even sent them the Bill Gates technical details on how to set pages up on the IIS server to auto load the compatibility mode. DTS has some of the same issues on certain things. Later FG Edit for dumb grammar

Rule 3 in Table 7 fits--Personnel owns the PTDY process and your MPF needs to get better acquainted with their own AFI. Losing commander authorizes it and MPF Outbound must put the statement on your orders--see attached for full text of the rule. Gaining unit supervision has nothing to do with approval and once on your PCS orders and you notate correctly on your travel voucher, finance will charge those days as permissive appropriately. If not on your orders then you will be charged ordinary leave.

Variations authorized is not to allow leave but rather lets you variate from the originally stated TDY itinerary--only to variate to other TDY locations as the mission dictates. Leave does not always have to be amended on the orders but as others have stated, needs approval from your unit leadership and documented on the travel order. Leave before or after the TDY should not be input to LeaveWeb, just reported and shown on the final travel voucher. DODFMR Volume 9, Chapt 2: Variations Authorized. This authorization permits omission of travel to a place (or places) stated in a travel order; changes in order of travel to places shown; and travel to places not shown. It is not used in place of adequate advance planning nor is it interpreted as granting an open travel authorization. https://comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/archive/09arch/09_02.pdf

Good god this will wreak havoc on determining BAH entitlements and other "dependent" related entitlements. I've not seen any changes to the entitlement REGs but no DOD is going to have a tough time--an you thought the REGs were tough to interpret now. I say we just get rid of any Dependent driven pay entitlements. Give one BAH rate and do away with the With or Without Dependent rates. Don't even get me started on FSA. Dig up history on the purpose of FSA(below) and I don't see how two dudes married to each other should qualify (the other dude can certainly handle yard or automotive work--you would hope). I guess the two dudes could adopt a child and that might fit FSA better. I don't really agree with Mil-to-Mil couples with no kids getting FSA either, but they do. This is just going to get messy and I'm not looking forward to the crap finance is about to be fed. Finance is going to need a legal read from JA on every "marriage" certificate once DOD determines what the hell they are going to do with entitlements. FSA: In 1963, Congress established the family separation allowance to help offset the additional expenses that may be incurred by the dependents of servicemembers who are away from their permanent duty station for more than 30 consecutive days. Additional expenses may include the costs associated with home repairs, automobile maintenance, and childcare that could have been performed by the deployed service member. https://www.gao.gov/assets/250/243126.pdf

A definite possibility -- https://www.sanktpaulushof.de/restaurant-pizzeria-ramstein.html We've known the owners since back when I was stationed at Ramstein and live in the next village, Obermohr. Friends of ours stayed there inbound and, 7 years later, outbound. A very friendly family owned place and the food is very good. They have a Facebook page as well. Of course would only be beneficial if you get a non-A for on-base TLF. Later.