GYA(P) vs MUSA?

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by why_am_I_here?, Jun 23, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is it me or does anyone else think that there is a mismatch between GYA(P) and MUSA allowances between UK and Europe?

    I work INVOLSEP in London but my wife is in Germany, where we have a house. Because I cross a 'Theatre Boundary' I'm told I am only entitled to MUSA rather than GYA(P). The difference is that I am worse of my about half the amount.

    If my wife were in, say, Glasgow, which is about the same distance, is as easy to get to and costs about the same, I would get GYA(P). Are those of us that cross the Channel (in either direction!) to see thier families being penalised for travelling east-west, rather than north-south?

    After posing a question to the powers that be, the rather limp-wristed and unilluminating response from PS10 was that:"Both GYA(P) and MUSA stand independently in their own right, and we have no flexibility... blah, blah", which was obviously written on a Friday afternoon and didn't add anything to the argument, and clearly isn't in the spirit of the original intention.

    Surely the answer is to delineate the boundaries here by a time or distance limit, rather than a meaningless line in the Channel. Personally I'd rather be assisted in travelling to see my family, rather than compensated for not being able to. Comment anyone?

    P
     
  2. I suppose it might come down to the fact of why you are INVOLSEP. If it is a personal reason on your side, (wife needs to stay in Germany for some personal reason) then this is fair however if it is because of some service reason (no MQ or too short a posting) then perhaps you should make a case thro' the G1 CoC.

    Can you tell us the reason, then maybe we can help.
     
  3. As INVOLSEP implies the reasons are service-based rather than personal. However, this is irrelevant as separation status is not a factor in receipt of these allowances. As I quote, a G1 case was made to DPS(A) and you've seen PS10's perhaps rather expected reply.

    However, the cynic in me wonders if, with the number of service personel currently separated from their families by the Channel, then perhaps this is a box that they are hoping isn't going to be opened...

    P
     
  4. I have asked Mrs_Doctrinus to answer this one:

    Mrs_Doctrinus: A little explanatory piece on both these allowances first, for all those who aren't aware of the differences:

    GYH(P) or Get You Home (Posting) is an allowance paid as a consequence of being posted to a location where it simply isn't feasible to get home every night. It is 'mileage based' and pays out to support 2 trips a month back to your home. It pays out at 50 miles + within theatre.

    MUSA (Married Unaccompanied Separation Allowance) is based on the separation incurred as a consequence of being posted away from your spouse to a different theatre. It has nothing to do with being INVOLSEP.

    Examples of INVOLSEP include being posted to BFFI - where your spouse is unable to follow i.e. where the post is designated 'Unaccompanied Posting or Attachment'.

    W_a_I_h: I can see your point, but would the same case could be applied to a soldier who has a house in Fiji or Nepal, and is posted to the UK? Under your suggestion, the lucky soldier would be (literally) rolling in cash. Where would we draw the line? Although you may feel disadvantaged, like most rules, there are inevitably those who will not fit inside the perfect model that such rules are designed against.

    Sorry.

    Mrs_D.
     
  5. Not quite, and I think you miss the point slightly. Whereas from Fiji it simply would not be possible to get home twice a month (or whatever); but from London to Germany (or vice versa) it certainly is. In fact, one of the main reasons that makes it so illogical is that it is possible to travel significantly into Europe (ie: across that 'Theatre Boundary') while still not actually travelling as far a distance as one might do within the UK. Therefore, the logical way to bound MUSA is not by theatre boundaries, but by distance or travelling time. While I realise that MUSA is also paid in distance terms, the meaningless theatre boundary restriction should be binned and replaced with a 'for distances (times) over...' parameter; so that for separation within this figure GYA(P) is paid, and for distances over, MUSA. It stands to reason that the crossover between one and the other is not less than the maximum distance able to be travelled within the UK (ie: the old Land's End to J O'G).

    Does this sound more reasonable?

    P
     
  6. I do sympathise with you W_A_I_H, however. Would you be arguing the toss if you were posted to say Preston or somewhere further North of London, and it WASN'T possible for you to get home to Germany every weekend ?

    I do know what you are saying, however the FACT that MUSA is an allowance specifically designed for those who are in seperate theatres screws your argument a wee bit mate.

    At least now we have copious types of allowances, unlike pre IR allowance days where you could onlly receive SEPAL.
     
  7. But that's exactly my point, Jock, me old china; the term 'theatre boundary' is completely meaningless when travel is as easy across it as within it. Really, what does it matter if an arbitrary line is crossed or not? Crossing it doesn't automatically make BMI or Ryanair prices or availability doubly difficult, does it? Granted if we were talking UK theatre to Middle East theatre, it would not be practical; but when the whole issue is within 300-miles of Calais it's another matter. It was the former that MUSA was designed for, otherwise it wouldn't be a compensatory allowance really, would it? There would be nothing to compensate for. Now if the whole thing were delineated by distances, that would be far more logical, ie: within a certain distance GYA is awarded, and beyond that, MUSA.

    The MOD should wake up and smell the coffee!

    P
     
  8. The other thing of course that the allces are predicated on is a UK based army. This means that it is expected that "home" for most people is in the UK and will not normally recognise Germany as such. German wifes have the same problems with the allce regs.
     
  9. Completely understood W_A_I_H, however do you really think the MOD would be daft enough to pay you any allowance, no matter what it might be called, which would exceed the daily rate you are receiving now for MUSA ?

    Secondly what would happen if you were a person who happens to own your property in Germany and wanted to claim GYH (SA) ??? Do you think the MOd would pay out for that - I think not.
     
  10. No, you are correct they would not, as above this is a uk army. If for personal choice a squaddie bought himself a place in Germany, why should wee Mrs Smith the widdowed pensioner from South Queensferry be expected to pay for that out of her taxes?
     
  11. This is typical madness and yet again demonstrates the inflexiblity of PS10. I had a similar whinge at the latest round of CGS briefing team visits...

    Although slightly different, mine was along same vain...I complained about not being able to claim extra warrants to get to my house in South-London which my G/F was living in. I was paying mortgauge/council tax etc.

    When I was based in Ballykelly I could claim 12 warrants annualy to visit property, however, when I was posted to JHQ I was unable to claim, despite the cost being slightly less than travel from NI. Distances- Bky to Home 550 miles, JHQ to Home 290 miles...the same limp-arguement was used, "what if i was posted to kenya or canada or wherever?"

    Time to grow up and show some flexibility me thinks!

    (Its a little like the soldier who wrote into Soldier recently, who at the end of his 22yrs wanted to resettle in the Netherlands, around 100 miles from his BFG posting. The System would not pay for his final move to Holland, but would ship him, family and kitchen sink back to Blighty, from there it was his own responsibilty to get himself back out to Holland! Barking!!)
     
  12. Ahh, don't go opening that box! Go down that road and we can't get away from questions about why any of us should pay for a 'Greenwich Borough Gay and Lesbian Alternative Lifestyle Liaison Officer', or somesuch rubbish, from our taxes!

    As with the allowances comments mentioned above my reply is 'why not?'. If in another framework a similar situation would be possible within the UK, then any other decision would be effectively discriminating against Germany-based soldiers. It may be a UK-based Army, but don't forget that we're all 'Europeans' now, aren't we? Tony can't have it both ways, eh?

    P
     
  13. Well I suppose it is back to the No1 Army Rule


    If you can't take the joke don't join!
     
  14. That's far too cynical for me, PM. I prefer to pretend that by lobbying the AFF, 'Soldier' Mag and making a general nuisance of myself then DPS(A) might actually come out of this looking a bit foolish, and therefore possibly change things. No use 'talking-the-talk' of saying that they support families issues if they only pay lip service to it and don't actually follow through with solid logic.

    ...Well, that's my illusion anyway.

    P

    It might be interesting to find out just how many soldiers this may effect, perhaps?