Finance_Guy

You really want to work all the ticket issues with your TMO (circuitous travel & Foreign Flag Carrier). Read up on JFTR Paras U3035, U3045 and U5108-A A. Transoceanic Travel. When travel is directed (as opposed to being authorized) by GOV’T/GOV’T-procured transportation and the member performs transoceanic travel at personal expense, no reimbursement is authorized for the transoceanic travel. Par. U5116-D. NOTE: The policy in par. U3002-B allowing reimbursement NTE the directed mode cost does not apply. Per U3035, travel to a designated location is considered a separate journey stop point, same with POE & POD. TMO can work with your alternate plans to Palm Springs. Normally PCS orders don't always get the # of days Auth correct. If you fly the entire way, then maybe 2 days. But you have travel to a designated location and possible driving. Normally it is one day to anywhere in the U.S. when flying. OCONUS it would all depend on TMO's scheduling. When driving on a separate journey leg, then rule of thumb is 350 miles per day and if 51 over then rolls to a second day

JFTR below. Don't confuse Non-Deductible/Deductible with the term Available Gov't Meal--missed meals are based on whether the meal was available or not. U4167 NON-DEDUCTIBLE MEALS A. Non-Deductible Meal. The following are not deductible meals: 1. Box lunches, (which include such things as C Rations, K Rations, MREs) - except when MREs and/or other box lunches are the only method of providing an adequate meal to a member. NOTE: See par. U4800-E for a member on TDY within a Combatant Command or Joint Task Force AOR., You are right, 11-208 does support the JFTR; 11-208 says flight meals are adequate and JFTR says those can be considered a deductible meal if that is the "only" method to provide to the member. So if a meal is labeled "deductible", then by definition it is also an available meal. So back to my scenario, if someone works the flightline 12 hours straight and cannot leave to go eat anywhere, the ONLY option is a flight kitchen meal. My argument is this is an available government meal the member could receive if they chose to and the CC should not approve as a missed meal. If the troop didn't get a flight meal there was no other option to obtain a meal anywhere else, so why should the AF pay $102/day per diem simply because someone says the flight meal is not a gov't meal. If the flight meal wasn't used in this scenario, there was no other option to expend $$ somewhere else, therefore no need to give them $102/day. Maybe give them Proportional Meal Rate (PMR) which would be $55/day, but CCs are approving all three meals a day. I agree CCs make the final call, but we begin to see problems when CCs delegate approval of missed meals down to TSgts. And many of the justifications make it sound as though they member couldn't leave work at all during the day, so again why pay $102/day for mere inconvenience of not being able to eat?

I've had meals from the flight kitchen and the grab-n-go plenty of times. I'm not saying someone needs to eat all 3 meals a day from the flight kitchen, just saying they will do in certain cases. The whole thing on the meal in the air began back in the '80s when the MAC/CC went to the per diem committe complaining air crew were refusing to take the flight kitchen meals since it reduced their per diem and it's been there ever since. Per diem was calculated differently then on travel days, but now gov't meals are considered not availble on travel days. My main arguments on this whole subject deals with full stationary days--not the days aircrew are traveling. There is also a part in the JFTR that says those box meals are to be considered a gov't meal when that is the only means of subsistence. So for that MX guy or FCC working the flight line who can't leave to go eat for the entire 12 hour shift he/she works, can only get a flight kitchen meal. Similar to USCENTCOM AOR policy--they consider any and all meals provided as a gov't meal, to include MREs and grab-n-gos. And by the way, it is not just in the JFTR or some finance pukes interpretation, If you are AMC aircrew, check out AMCI 11-208, para 1.21.9. It appears the AMC OPS leadership agrees that a meal from the flight kitchen is an "acceptable alternative" and "acceptable nutrition". So make sure you go through the AMC/A3 before you go knocking on the IG's door (that is of course if you are in AMC). Not sure about the other MAJCOMs. Later.

If they could eat some meals then Proportional Meal Rate would have been more appropriate, not full meal rate. Um, you may want to check with your CC. I think you will find this year is a whole lot different. How many civilian positions were cut this year? And check this out--this is REAL: https://afitc.gunter.af.mil/ , ATA may be next. Oh, unless your travel funding is funded by TWCF---the bottomless pit. Lastly, per diem is not for "Hardships" and should only be increased when a person misses a meal while at the same time has to procure instead from commercial sources. That is the rule for USCENTCOM AOR and has to be approved by the installation CC. USAFE should adopt the same policy. My point exactly and who in their right mind would approve missed meals for all 3 meals, every single stationary day at Ramstein, while staying on base, and working the flight line (24/7 flight kitchen?). Whoever figures the max rates have lost touch with reality and need to go visit a few real "regular" eating establishments. I pretty sure OCONUS rates are established by the Dept of State. https://aoprals.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=184&menu_id=78 You are correct, and hence why there is a flat rate, but the rates for OCONUS are ridiculous as you said. I don't work at a base finance office and don't have mandatory training time. However, DTS could be reprogrammed to have you enter all your actual meal costs--but if you still file paper vouchers you must be a reservist. If you want the extra money, do the extra work, or just be happy with the GMR, or at tthe least no more than PMR.

Highlight, "extra PLUS you could still eat at the chow hall!". Um, WTF, doesn't that contradict filing for missed meals in the first place? So let me get this straight--you claim you can't make it to the DFAC, so you file for missed meals to get full per diem. Now once on full per diem people now all of sudden they eat at the DFAC? Sounds like a scam if you ask me. I guess it is all about how much $$ I can make on this TDY. Shameful with our current budget issues. Per diem is to reimburse for costs incurred while TDY, not to reward travelers for inconvienence. Maybe the rules should be changed to put everyone on gov't meal rate (GMR) and if you miss a meal, provide a receipt for the alternative "commercial" meal purchased and you be reimbursed actual cost of that meal in addition to the GMR. No, that is too much work, let's just sign off on a missed meal form and be done with it. Who cares how much is costs the taxpayer.

Under normal circumstances, true, but $$ can be reprogrammed between the pots at OSD level. Sometimes some pots need some help. https://comptroller.defense.gov/execution/reprogramming/fy2012.html

Oh, you don't want to do that. I had heard that only about 15% of people took advantage of this entitlement anyway. Maybe they had to cut back here so AF could still afford to pay all those missed meals for crew rest--can't have everything you know.

I like. There may never be an automated system that could know this. The work-around is to put in a same-day stop (like Dover) even though you may not have stopped there--use the same date as your day of departure from Travis. That puts in an interim location where the system can calculate a time zone track for your direction. DTS uses time zones of your PDS and TDY points to try and figure out which direction you traveled and it is thinking you went the other way (lowest number for the difference of time zones). Or, maybe have the system ask the traveler the question, "Did you cross the IDL"?

Its not really a policy. A recommendation by the travel assistance center (TAC) is that no more than 20-25 people be added to any one group auth (GA). Up to 20 people on a GA should cover most instances except for ORI flyaways. It is never recommended to book commercial air within DTS on group authorizations--book commercial air outside of DTS and if more than 9, then work with TMO first.

It did come from Sec. Gates: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/pc/docs/3-14-2011_Track_Four_Efficiency_Initiatives_Decisions.pdf See last page of the PDF file.

Group Auths are still working. There were some issue later last year but we've not heard of any recent problems. Try them out again.

All, looking for serious input here. We've all heard the gripes about DTS and how it don't do this or that and is so hard to use. GSA/DoD is looking for input on what users would like to see in the "Next Generation Travel System". RE: https://www.federalnewsradio.com/445/2889993/GSA-to-launch-14B-next-generation-travel-management-system Slated for sometime in 2017, but who knows? So here's your chance and I'll collect these inputs and send them forward. I'm looking for issues with the actual system and not external processes. A few questions to ponder for your input: 1. What is the worst thing you hate about DTS? One I hate is when you update one itinerary stop of the dates, DTS will reset your entire per diem entitlements back to the defaults--even after you may have spent hours updating lodging and meal options> 2. What are some enhancements you would recommend? Better Wizard to capture the travel itinerary. 3. What are any features you like about DTS? I like the trip template -- try it out if you never have. I've been using the system since 2004 and it has got better over the years but it can be better. Already a half billion pumped into the current system and it still has some issues. Looking forward to some good inputs. Thanks. FG

From a Finance perspective and I'm sure some may agree - LeaveWeb; some may not agree, but you will find no disagreements from FM people who used to manually enter every data point from the AF FM 988 into the pay system. A tedious process task. RE: https://www.securedatainc.com/SL-Products.aspx https://ww2.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/120800/3614-1.shtml https://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-3003.pdf

Permissive is still possible per AFI 65-114 para 4.5 but a couple of things need to be covered. #1. The travel order cannot have "Directed" a mode other than POV #2. The travel order must be written that POC for personal convenience is authorized. There could also be questionable issues since the AFI says "at one location". The scenario presented above deals with more than one location.

Neither of those options are authorized. This scenario is exactly why it is not always wise to drive a POV as personal preference. @Ebony zer - If you are still deployed your best bet is to p/u the car enroute back to your PDS. That way you may get some travel entitlement, although no non-chargeable leave. Not sure where you left the car or where you will fly back from deployment, but essentially you have a travel entitlement from whereever you land in the CONUS (Rotator?) to your PDS. You could then fly to where the POV is located then drive it back to the PDS. You would be reimbursed your airline ticket and mileage up to the cost of the airfare (plus taxis) from the Rotator arrival point to your PDS. That could be your travel expense entitlement. But that option would only allow for one day of travel and therefore any extra days used would be charged as excessive travel time. The non entitlement aspect would be that personnel doesn't allow any deviation from itinerary when returning from deployment but I'm sure you could work a waiver with the CC.

~~~~~~~~~~~Please share the message next under~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On March 20, 2012, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will expand their trusted traveler program known as Pre✓™ to Service members flying out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). Service members, active drilling Reservists, National Guardsmen, and members of the Coast Guard, who present a valid Common Access Card (CAC) at security checkpoints will receive expedited security screening. To participate, members must go to the TSA Pre✓™ lane at the security checkpoint in terminal B (gates 10-22), and present their CAC to a TSA officer who will scan the card to verify their status as an active Service member. Once verified, members will not be required to remove their shoes, outerwear, belts, laptops and any small liquid containers from carry-ons when going through security. Eligible Service members do not need to be on official travel or in uniform to take advantage of TSA Pre✓™. Family members ages 12 and under traveling with an eligible member can also process through expedited screening. While this program offers expedited screening for Service members, TSA plans to continue applying random and unpredictable screening measures as part of the agency’s layered approach to prevent terrorist from “gaming” the system. The program is expected to be expanded to members flying out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport in the upcoming months. This concept holds the potential to enhance the travel experience for government travelers. TSA hopes to expand the Pre✓™ program to DoD Service members and DoD civilians at airports across the country in the future. For more information on TSA’s Pre✓™ program, visit https://www.tsa.gov/w...do/rbs_dod.shtm. Deputy Director Defense Travel Management Office

I'd say you can use the prior weight and certify you had the same "Stuff" on the next leg. That's what I would try but it is ultimately up to TMO as to what they will accept. I think their AFI has something that discusses "constructive weight". The AF Supp to the JFTR mentions it. I would say with the prior ticket and your statement, that should qualify. AF Supp to the JFTR, para A14.7. SHIPMENT WEIGHT This is a must link for DITY/PPM : https://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/JFTRV1-JTRV2_AFSUP1.pdf

I'm not really sure without reading the exact intent of the letter mentioned. It appears this is getting into JA's territory as the JFTR's purpose is to spell out entitlements and just reimbursements, not to delve into Leadership's abiltiy to command the troops. The JFTR does not forbid a CC from ordering someone to stay on-base--the JFTR does say that available on-base facilities should be used. I think the paragraph below allows a CC to "order" a military member to utilize Gov't QTRs--it is from U1045.A.2. Now if someone refused that direction, the JFTR goes on to allow reimbursement up to the Gov't QTRs cost (U1045.A.4), but will not address any repercussions the member may receive by not obeying the AO's direction (AO could be the Commander). That is a matter for the JA to address. All I can address is if you turned in a voucher claiming apartment rent along with a letter from the CC ordering you to stay on base, the JFTR allows FM to still reimburse up to what the Gov't QTRs cost would have been. U1045.A.2: 2. The AO may direct adequate (based on DoD and Service standards) available GOV’T QTRS use for a uniformed member on (not near) a U.S. INSTALLATION only if the uniformed member is TDY to that U.S. INSTALLATION. (DOHA Claims Case No. 2009-CL-080602.2, 7 July 2010).

TOPIC: Policy and Procedures Update - Extension of the FICA Percentage Reduction for 2012 1. This message is to inform you that the president signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 which, amongst other things, continued the reduction in the FICA withholding percentage for the remainder of calendar year 2012. 2. Based on the continuation of the 2011 reduction in the FICA percentage, the FICA withholding rate remains at 4.2% on earnings up to the maximum amount subject to withholding ($110,100.00). Medicare withholding remains at 1.45% on all wages earned. 3. DJMS [pay system] has been updated to reflect the continuation of the FICA withholding percentage reduction for both Active and Reserve\Air National Guard components. 4. This message is effective February 22, 2012. DFAS-JFLM/IN Military Pay Operations

Any deviation from ordered travel is leisure travel--therefore orders would not need amended. If not directed MilAir you could turnin the return ticket. Procure your own flight to SAT, p/u car then drive back to LR. Your entitlement is up to what the one-way return ticket value is. So you add the new ticket purchase to the mileage from SAT to LR and are paid that amount not to exceed the return ticket for the ordered travel. It is basically done as a cost comparison. Edit...post above is assuming you are going back to LR. If you planned to p/u car in SAT and then proceed on to Cannon, I doubt that s/b done. You would need to return to LR (Current PDS) then proceed on to new PDS.

Let's not compare finance airman either since I was one of those airman--went on a few 130 runs, or whatever was flying uprange, to delivery the cash to the forward operating locations; we call them Jingle Runs. Not that we do that day in and day out, but finance isn't just about giving you a dumb ass briefing on FSA, which by the way most frequent travelers know better than most finance airmen. Someone has to get the cash to those locations. All I'm trying to say is when they do the jingle runs they are subject to the same "danger" as the aircrew during that mission....just saying.

The key difference in IDP and HFP, with HFP, the scenario requires that you were subject to actual rounds being fired at you (or the aircraft), or an explosion occured where you were close enough to have been in danger. So in your examples 1 and 2, you get prorated IDP, and as already mentioned, tax free (CZTE) is not prorated. Now if #1 read this way, you'd get HFP: If we get to OEF for 1 day during a normal 7 day trip out of CHS and our plane is hit by a rocket propelled grenade, luckily we were not hurt. Another key difference is you qualify for the prorated IDP with only your filed travel voucher. With HFP, your commander has to certify you were entitled. Simply put for HFP, you must have been in danger, whereas with IDP, danger "could" occur, it just did not. DoD Compensation page has this to say: The commander determines HFP based on whether a member is: Subject to hostile fire or mine explosions In an area near hostile fire or mine explosions which endanger the member Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, mines, or any hostile action https://militarypay.defense.gov/pay/hfp_idp.html

Protated IDP is here. See below and attached OSD memo and notice projected to be posted on myPay. No changes to CZTE except for the fact that a lesser amount of IDP would be added to the highest enlisted base pay instead of the full $225. If in the zone for the entire month, then really no changes to CZTE. Early Bird Article -- Military Danger Pay Now Calculated By The Day, Not The Month GovExec.com February 2, 2012 Military Danger Pay Now Calculated By The Day, Not The Month By Amanda Palleschi Military service members now are receiving imminent danger pay only for days spent in hazardous areas, Pentagon officials have announced. The change went into effect Wednesday and was part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama on Dec. 31, 2011. The act required the Defense Department to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. Previously, a military member could receive $225 per month for spending any amount of time in an area considered "hazardous." Service members will now receive $7.50 per day for days spent in these zones. Prorated amounts reflecting these changes will be visible in Feb. 15 pay records, the Pentagon said. The change will require personnel traveling to the zones for fewer than 30 days to keep track of each day they are in the area, officials said. Defense defines "imminent danger pay" as "places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions." The military services can waive or remit debts for members who could have been overpaid for January "when there is no indication of fraud, fault, misrepresentation or when members were unaware they were overpaid," Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said in a statement. Signed Policy - Prorate IDP - 31 Jan 2012.pdf DRAFT_MyPay_msg.pdf

That paragraph is a temp.to Chapter 1 while they re-write and incorporate into chapter 2. Once that is complete it will be moved to Chapter 2. The old reference was JFTR U1045, but is now renamed within part Z (temporary merger area).

For the moving the car, most likely nothing extra. JFTR U5417 could apply but only if both of you traveled in the first POC at the same time. Now, you will instead be claiming the cost of her airline ticket. So might be best to try and find a company that may ship it for cheap. Some individuals may do it for a small fee and return airfare.