24hr lodging "rule"

[Finance_Guy]

WARNING!??

I seem to remember if you invoke the 24hr rule, then break (standard ops for C-5 crews) and go past 24 hours, you are SOL and Finance will not reimburse you for the off base stay. Am I correct?

AFI 65-114 has the answer--see below. Looks like there's an out to pull the "adverse affects" card. If filing claims in DTS, it's up to the approving official(AO). Remember you don't have to have a Non-A from billeting per U1045-C--you can make a statement and have the AO approve. Would be best to type a quick memo stating the facts and have it endorsed by the AO, finance cannot refuse it for payment. Be sure to reference JFTR U1045-C. Begin your memo with something like this, "Per the guidance in the JFTR, Para U1045-C, I'm providing a certification Govt quarters were not available due to blah, blah, blah....." You could add that moving from off-base to on-base would adversly affect the mission as well.

AFI 65-114: 4.10. Availability and Use of Government Quarters.

4.10.1. Members who perform TDY of 24 hours or less at a military installation are encouraged to use available government quarters to the maximum extent possible. Per diem cannot be reduced if a member does not use government facilities when the duration of TDY or delay is less than 24 hours, even though the travel order directs use of such facilities (JFTR, par. U1045-B4). A member whose original delay was 24 hours or less, and is extended at the location (to include circumstances beyond their control), reverts to the rule for members TDY for more than 24 hours and must use available government facilities, unless the government quarters use would have adversely affected mission performance. If a member voluntarily uses quarters at a nearby military installation, use of available messing facilities does not reduce per diem entitlement (JFTR, pars. U4125, U4400 and U1045). For non-availability documentation, see JFTR, par. U1045-C.

JFTR U1045-C:

C. Travel Authorization/Order or Voucher

1. Documentation. A travel authorization/order/voucher must document availability/non-availability by:

c. Member certification that Government quarters were not available on arrival.

2. Authorization/Approval. When a member provides acceptable documentation on a travel authorization/ order/voucher of Government quarters non-availability, the AO must authorize/approve reimbursement for commercial lodgings.

[Techsan]

AFI 65-114 has the answer--see below. Looks like there's an out to pull the "adverse affects" card. If filing claims in DTS, it's up to the approving official(AO). Remember you don't have to have a Non-A from billeting per U1045-C--you can make a statement and have the AO approve. Would be best to type a quick memo stating the facts and have it endorsed by the AO, finance cannot refuse it for payment. Be sure to reference JFTR U1045-C. Begin your memo with something like this, "Per the guidance in the JFTR, Para U1045-C, I'm providing a certification Govt quarters were not available due to blah, blah, blah....." You could add that moving from off-base to on-base would adversly affect the mission as well.

AFI 65-114: 4.10. Availability and Use of Government Quarters.

4.10.1. Members who perform TDY of 24 hours or less at a military installation are encouraged to use available government quarters to the maximum extent possible. Per diem cannot be reduced if a member does not use government facilities when the duration of TDY or delay is less than 24 hours, even though the travel order directs use of such facilities (JFTR, par. U1045-B4). A member whose original delay was 24 hours or less, and is extended at the location (to include circumstances beyond their control), reverts to the rule for members TDY for more than 24 hours and must use available government facilities, unless the government quarters use would have adversely affected mission performance. If a member voluntarily uses quarters at a nearby military installation, use of available messing facilities does not reduce per diem entitlement (JFTR, pars. U4125, U4400 and U1045). For non-availability documentation, see JFTR, par. U1045-C.

JFTR U1045-C:

C. Travel Authorization/Order or Voucher

1. Documentation. A travel authorization/order/voucher must document availability/non-availability by:

c. Member certification that Government quarters were not available on arrival.

2. Authorization/Approval. When a member provides acceptable documentation on a travel authorization/ order/voucher of Government quarters non-availability, the AO must authorize/approve reimbursement for commercial lodgings.

Was looking for AFI 65-114, and not so much luck on e publishing. Does this thing still exist?

[HuggyU2]

Was looking for AFI 65-114, and not so much luck on e publishing. Does this thing still exist?

I found it on e-publishing. 26 Aug 05 publishing date.

[zmoney]

I've pressed to test this rule recently. I got a fair amount of weird looks, but the following references back it up:

BTW: The new lodging reg has removed the "two stop" requirement. In other words, they can split your crew up as much as they want... as long as its all on base or all off base.

JTR: Paragraph 2565, line 4.

https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/perdiem/JTR.pdf

"The Services have predetermined that Gov't Qtrs are not available:

4. For any TDY/delay of only 1 night at one location (stopover or multiple locations);"

AFI 65-114: Paragraph 4.10.1.

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_fm/publication/afi65-114/afi65-114.pdf

"4.10.1. Members who perform TDY of 24 hours or less at a military installation are encouraged to use

available government quarters to the maximum extent possible. Per diem cannot be reduced if a

member does not use government facilities when the duration of TDY or delay is less than 24 hours,

even though the travel order directs use of such facilities (JFTR, par. U1045-B4). A member whose

original delay was 24 hours or less, and is extended at the location (to include circumstances beyond

their control), reverts to the rule for members TDY for more than 24 hours and must use available

government facilities, unless the government quarters use would have adversely affected mission performance.

If a member voluntarily uses quarters at a nearby military installation, use of available

non-availability documentation, see JFTR, par. U1045-C."

AFI 34-135: Para 3.2.5.1

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi34-135/afi34-135.pdf

"3.2.5. Per JFTR, Volume 1, government quarters are considered not available when the TDY

is less than 24 hours. Therefore NA numbers are not issued in such circumstances. This

should be stated on the member’s travel orders or the TDY member should note this on

his/her travel voucher. (T-3)."

Edited January 15, 2015 by zmoney

[slc]

Anyone have any issues with finance kicking back a voucher for lack of a Non A when using the "24 hr rule"?? I did some research today and here is what I came up with.  The "new" JTR dated 1 July 2017(formerly the JFTR) does not contain the verbiage for the 24 hr rule i.e. that a member does not have to check with lodging for stays inside of 24 hrs.  However, the current AFI 34-135 Sept 2014 pg 32 still states that Per JFTR, Volume 1, government quarters are considered not available when the TDY is less than 24 hours. Therefore NA numbers are not issued in such circumstances. This should be stated on the member’s travel orders or the TDY member should note this on his/her travel voucher. (T-3)."  It seems as though the AFI has not caught up with the current version of the JTR which essentially eliminated the 24 rule tactic.  My question is can the AFI take precedence over the JTR?  

This is going to be a big surprise for a lot of old heads going XC and I'm trying to clarify everything so I/we don't get burned.

[nunya]

The AFI is subordinate to the JTR.  Unfortunately (in this case) we've spent a lot of years telling the AF it has to pay us IAW JTR because AFI was not in our favor and the JTR trumped AFI.  Now the roles are flipped.  

As much as possible, don't land on bases when you go XC.

Edited August 27, 2017 by nunya

[slc]

Wow,  this should be put out in an FCIF.  Gone are the days of the good deal XC when you have to stay on base now.  Bummer

[DirtyFlightSuit]

It will only get worse, congress is attacking DoD on spending and one of the focus areas is TDY spending.   While I'd argue the waste in TDY spending is not what is getting reimbursed but rather the TDY's that are occurring that do not need to. (For instance every single POS from Shaw AFB that manages to touch and go AUAB once a month for a year of tax free)  Those tickets non stop from BWI to OMAN cant be cheap.

[ThreeHoler]

The so-called "24 hour rule" has never existed the way aircrew try to apply it. Looks like the fixed the glitch.

[HossHarris]

 

[the g-man]

13 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

It will only get worse, congress is attacking DoD on spending and one of the focus areas is TDY spending.   While I'd argue the waste in TDY spending is not what is getting reimbursed but rather the TDY's that are occurring that do not need to. (For instance every single POS from Shaw AFB that manages to touch and go AUAB once a month for a year of tax free)  Those tickets non stop from BWI to OMAN cant be cheap.

Nice opec /sarcasm

[Weezer]

18 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

The so-called "24 hour rule" has never existed the way aircrew try to apply it. Looks like the fixed the glitch.

Per the JTR, you can still self-certify.  That means, you can apply the AFI as the definition of unavailable when you do so...

[Guest]

Per the JTR, you can still self-certify.  That means, you can apply the AFI as the definition of unavailable when you do so...

Try winning that argument with finance...

[DirtyFlightSuit]

On ‎8‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 7:16 AM, the g-man said:

Nice opec /sarcasm

OPEC as in Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries? 

[the g-man]

2 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

OPEC as in Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries? 

stupid autocorrect.  OPSEC

[Weezer]

On 8/28/2017 at 3:59 PM, ihtfp06 said:

Try winning that argument with finance...

Should just need to convince your approving official, right?

[ThreeHoler]

6 hours ago, Weezer said:

Should just need to convince your approving official, right?

Finance does random audits of all paid vouchers. If they differ in opinion from what the AO approved...they'll kick it back months or years after the fact...even though the AO can pretty much approve anything "reasonable."

[Homestar]

25 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

Finance does random audits of all paid vouchers. If they differ in opinion from what the AO approved...they'll kick it back months or years after the fact...even though the AO can pretty much approve anything "reasonable."

Can confirm... Had mother AF yank back hundreds from my 365-day deployment voucher three years after the fact because shipping pro-gear turned out to not be authorized.

[dream big]

14 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

Finance does random audits of all paid vouchers. If they differ in opinion from what the AO approved...they'll kick it back months or years after the fact...even though the AO can pretty much approve anything "reasonable."

Truth, they'll come after me 5 years later over a minor discrepancy in a complicated 7 month TDY-Deployment; when I "owe" then money it magically disappears but when they owe me money it takes months.  Worst organization in the military, besides MEO. 

[Guest]

.  Worst organization in the military, besides MEO. 

Worse than Green Dot?

[pawnman]

On 9/7/2017 at 2:09 PM, ihtfp06 said:

 

Worse than Green Dot?

 

Green Dot has only cost me about two hours of my time so far.  Finance has cost me far more in time, frustration, and actual dollars.