AF discontinues ITDY dependent travel, transportation allowances

[Finance_Guy]

An F-22 squadron had EVERYONE (including maintainers) file all their missed meal forms en masse and ACC f**king approved for the exception clause which basically gives them off base per diem instead of processing 16000 individual missed meal vouchers: In Guam that's about 100 bucks a DAY (on a 120-180 day TDY!!!!) extra PLUS you could still eat at the chow hall!

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.

[pcola]

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.

That does sound like a scam. I think that was his point. Seems to me that they missed meals often enough that instead of deal with the massive amount of missed meals forms, somebody made the judgement call to grant full per diem. I'm sure they still missed meals, but they ate at the DFAC when they could (hence the point of the massive amounts of missed meals forms in the first place.) Just an educated guess...not in the loop with this incident.

Shameful with our current budget issues.

What do current budget issues have to do with spending TDY funds that were budgeted for and allocated prior to the current FY? Question: when has any CC at any level reached the end of the FY and said "looks like we were over funded this year. Better give the rest back."? None that I know of. More likely conversation "hey, we have $XXXK extra, lets get it spent before the end of the FY." So, what you're saying is, that since the money is already allocated and will be spent regardless, it is shameful to receive it in the form of per diem to offset actual missed meals and hardship incurred while TDY? That money should be spent in a better way, such as new plasmas so the chow hall can display AFN propaganda and daily menus?

Per diem is to reimburse for costs incurred while TDY, not to reward travelers for inconvienence.

Really? Then why is it a flat rate that seems vastly over estimated in most foreign locales? Who in their right mind would think that an aircrew lodged off base in Germany for a week needs $110+ per day merely to reimburse expenses?

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.

ROFLMAO! Yeah right, finance can barely handle the cookie cutter vouchers we currently task them with. The system would shit itself if we tried to add this workload. Get real, that would require accomplishing your "mandatory training" after normal business hours, with no random closed days, and actually providing customer service from 07:30-16:30 M-F (possibly more during contingencies and exercises.)

[Finance_Guy]

I'm sure they still missed meals, but they ate at the DFAC when they could (hence the point of the massive amounts of missed meals forms in the first place.) Just an educated guess...not in the loop with this incident.

If they could eat some meals then Proportional Meal Rate would have been more appropriate, not full meal rate.

What do current budget issues have to do with spending TDY funds that were budgeted for and allocated prior to the current FY? Question: when has any CC at any level reached the end of the FY and said "looks like we were over funded this year. Better give the rest back."? None that I know of. More likely conversation "hey, we have $XXXK extra, lets get it spent before the end of the FY." So, what you're saying is, that since the money is already allocated and will be spent regardless, it is shameful to receive it in the form of per diem to offset actual missed meals and hardship incurred while TDY? That money should be spent in a better way, such as new plasmas so the chow hall can display AFN propaganda and daily menus?

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.

Really? Then why is it a flat rate that seems vastly over estimated in most foreign locales? Who in their right mind would think that an aircrew lodged off base in Germany for a week needs $110+ per day merely to reimburse expenses?

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

ROFLMAO! Yeah right, finance can barely handle the cookie cutter vouchers we currently task them with. The system would shit itself if we tried to add this workload. Get real, that would require accomplishing your "mandatory training" after normal business hours, with no random closed days, and actually providing customer service from 07:30-16:30 M-F (possibly more during contingencies and exercises.)

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.

[pcola]

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..

Seriously? How many box nasties have you eaten? You are arguing that people who's work schedules don't allow them to make it to the DFAC during their opening times should count a box nasty as a suitable substitute? The AF wants a "culture of fitness" but at the same time they want airmen to eat up to 3 box lunches a day to cut costs? No thanks. And BTW, the AF's interpretation of the JFTR in this case is way off. This will absolutely be taken to the IG if/when the day comes that someone ever expects me to count a box nasty as a gov't meal...

JFTR:

M&IE Payment. The M&IE rate is payable to the member without expense itemization and without receipts. Box lunches, in-flight meals and rations furnished by the GOV’T on military aircraft are not a GOV’T dining facility/mess for per diem computation purposes.

It is clear that their intent is that in-flight meals provided by flight kitchens are not to be considered a gov't meal. Ordinary interpretation of their obvious intent: "1. Box lunches, 2. in-flight meals and, 3. rations furnished by the GOV’T on military aircraft are not a GOV’T dining facility/mess for per diem computation purposes." The only reason the words "on military aircraft" are included in that sentence are to distinguish any other type of ration that could be provided onboard a military aircraft from the ordinary box lunches and in-flight meals.

Some jackass at AF finance has bastardized this to be interpreted in the following manner: "1. Box lunches (only when served on an aircraft), 2. in-flight meals (only when served on an aircraft), and 3. rations furnished by the GOV'T on a military aircraft... This does not even make any logical sense. If a box lunch was to be considered a meal, what difference does it make if it is eaten while airborne or when on the ground? None. Clearly the intent was that any and all box lunches are not to be considered gov't mess for per diem computation.

I'll guarantee that jackass came up with this interpretation because A: he needed to boost his OPR and B: he won't be the one eating that shit 3 times a day.

For reference, the AF's bastardized interpretation of the JFTR in this incidence: (AFI 65-103)

15. Box lunches are considered a meal in a government mess. (The issue usually only arises when the all meals available rate is directed or under field conditions). However, according to U4125, “box lunches, in-flight meals and rations furnished by the government on a military aircraft are not considered to be a government mess for per diem computation purposes.” If the box lunch is consumed in the air, it doesn’t count for per diem purposes. If the box lunch is consumed on the ground, it counts for per diem purposes.

Edited June 30, 2012 by pcola

[AnimalMother]

Probably the best advice I've received thus far in my pathetic career: Don't ever try to save the Air Force money, ever.

[Finance_Guy]

Seriously? How many box nasties have you eaten? You are arguing that people who's work schedules don't allow them to make it to the DFAC during their opening times should count a box nasty as a suitable substitute? The AF wants a "culture of fitness" but at the same time they want airmen to eat up to 3 box lunches a day to cut costs? No thanks. And BTW, the AF's interpretation of the JFTR in this case is way off. This will absolutely be taken to the IG if/when the day comes that someone ever expects me to count a box nasty as a gov't meal...

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.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Finance_Guy

[pcola]

I've had meals from the flight kitchen and the grab-n-go plenty of times.

Sure... 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.

No, you implied that a 24/7 flight kitchen is a suitable substitute, when it's clear that the JFTR says its not. So, if its a suitable substitute once, it's a suitable substitute all the time. Presumably, the reason a troop at Ramstein would file missed meals is because his work schedule would not allow him to visit the DFAC during its operating hours, to which your suitable alternative was a box nasty. What's to stop this from being 3 meals/day for someone with so unfortunate of a schedule? There is no line.

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.

Haven't seen this in the JFTR, but then again, I'm a pilot, not a Finance-O. USCENTCOM-AOR policy does not apply here. Apples to oranges. We are talking about a hypothetical situation in Ramstein, or Guam, or Hawaii, or anywhere else that a person would expect to receive full M&IE when they have to pay out of pocket for a suitable alternative.

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.

I am well aware of the 11-208. Again, apples to oranges. The essence of a failing argument. This regulation, particularly this paragraph, has absolutely zero bearing on per diem. 11-208's concern: moving the mission. 65-103's concern: rebuking an inconvenient paragraph in the JFTR to save the AF money at the Airmen's expense. Nowhere in 11-208 does it mention that their definition of "acceptable nutrition" should define a member's per diem entitlement. In fact, IMO, it supports the JFTR

1.21.9.1. Crews must plan on using time during crew rest to get meals. Whenever possible, mis- sions should be scheduled to coincide with services’ enroute operating hours. Missions should not delay solely for flight crews to get a hot meal when acceptable alternatives are available. Flight lunches, frozen meals, meals ready to eat (MREs) and other foodstuffs available to aircrews through flight kitchens, etc., provide acceptable nutrition.

It says that in lieu of a gov't provided hot meal, sub-standard meals will provide adequate nutrition in order to move the mission. No way would I interpret this to mean that those types of food are adequate to sustain a member for an entire deployment. This is the line you draw by including a 24/7 flight kitchen box nasty as an adequate substitute as long as it is not eaten in the air. There is nothing to keep the line mx dude from being forced to eat that crap for an entire deployment because his schedule rarely allows him to make it to the DFAC, thereby costing him out-of-pocket to get real food.

Believe it or not, CCs use judgement when they determine that a missed meal form is valid. Some finance guy sitting behind a desk talking about "what about box nasties" shouldn't be the one to make the call. The officer in charge on location should be the one to make it.

Oh and don't worry, I'm aware of the chain of command, thank you. You can also see how much faith I have in them to fight a broken system, hence my mention of the IG.

[C-21.Pilot]

Fvck it...

"Should vs. Shall" argument applies.

We "should" use the DFAC, however, we "shall" try to collect as much per diem as possible. Period.

Edited July 1, 2012 by C-21.Pilot

[pcola]

Fvck it...

"Should vs. Shall" argument applies.

We "should" use the DFAC, however, we "shall" try to collect as much per diem as possible. Period.

Right. Unfortunately, I'm not only arguing this on this forum. There is a real push right now to enforce this flight kitchen bullshit on real people that are going to get screwed by the powers that be. Nuff said about that here and now...

[Finance_Guy]

No, you implied that a 24/7 flight kitchen is a suitable substitute, when it's clear that the JFTR says its not.

Haven't seen this in the JFTR, but then again, I'm a pilot, not a Finance-O.

I am well aware of the 11-208. Again, apples to oranges. The essence of a failing argument. This regulation, particularly this paragraph, has absolutely zero bearing on per diem. 11-208's concern: moving the mission. 65-103's concern: rebuking an inconvenient paragraph in the JFTR to save the AF money at the Airmen's expense. Nowhere in 11-208 does it mention that their definition of "acceptable nutrition" should define a member's per diem entitlement. In fact, IMO, it supports the JFTR

There is nothing to keep the line mx dude from being forced to eat that crap for an entire deployment because his schedule rarely allows him to make it to the DFAC, thereby costing him out-of-pocket to get real food.

Believe it or not, CCs use judgement when they determine that a missed meal form is valid. Some finance guy sitting behind a desk talking about "what about box nasties" shouldn't be the one to make the call. The officer in charge on location should be the one to make it.

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?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Finance_Guy

[Champ Kind]

Maybe some people need to remember that being in the military can royally blow and one of the benefits of being TDY can be per diem, and the last thing they want to hear is some finance troop offering their interpretation of various regs that they really care nothing about.

And yes, I know we are broke.

[guineapigfury]

I've been on the ludicrous end of this, living off MREs*, RipIts, Cliff Bars and random boxes of Girl Scout Cookies for weeks on end because my schedule didn't line up with when the chow halls were open.

*These were provided for the express purpose of not paying us missed meals.

[pcola]

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?

Why would you assume that because someone could not leave the flight line (or any other place of duty, for that matter) that they didn't spend money to eat during that period of time? Delivery? Carry out? That is simply not your call to make; from thousands of miles away you can't presume to know the conditions imposed on the individual filing the claim. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if they spent one penny of that $102. What matters is that the JFTR says that if gov't provided meals are missed, they are entitled to per diem. You don't get to decide how they spend it.

[Jughead]

You are correct, and hence why there is a flat rate, but the rates for OCONUS are ridiculous as you said.

No argument that OCONUS rates are typically higher than the true cost of a "normal" meal, but not always*--and, many OCONUS areas see seasonal fluctuations even greater than that reflected in a variable per diem rate (which typically adjust for lodging costs, but less so for M&IE, if at all). Isn't this the same case of "hence why there is a flat rate" (i.e., it's easier--hence a money-saver overall--to pay a flat rate that may be "too high" some of the time than to try to track accurate costs for any specific time)?

*Indeed, I (and presumably many others) have seen the reverse--hitting anywhere in the Med around Aug can be challenging to get a room at any price, and good luck eating even one dinner for less than your daily M&IE per diem. And isn't filing for actual expenses fun...? That's where I found out, as a young captain, just how much my signature as an officer was worth.... [/sarcasm] Of course, lest this be taken for whining, being anywhere in the Med around Aug carries its own, non-monetary compensations....

EDIT: spelling

Edited July 3, 2012 by Jughead