LOA Entitlement Question

Greetings all,

The RAWO has upped sticks and left. One of the things he has left me is to do with LOA; I have in my possession a course JI that sates that as the exercise is a "level 4 AT exercise" the people on it are entitled to full allowances as outlined in 752.

I might be a fool (and blind), however I can't find anything in 752 that mentions AT exercise levels, only;


b. On a visit to an LOA area to carry out an expedition or adventurous training, with the exception of staff assigned to that area who are undertaking their primary duties, who retain their eligibility to receive LOA. - and they aren't PTIs so its not primary duties.

Anyone want to clarify this for me?

Many thanks
You see that's what exactly I thought. Buy why would a Major include a covering letter to the JI's saying we're all wrong and they should be paid for it? I tempted to ring him and ask
Possibly because he has not read the JSP correctly :p

Just wait until the Culture Change on JPA kicks in properly and all manner of claims are being authorised - good times !! :twisted:
I get these quite a bit, non instructor guys going on exped expecting to get paid LOA. I just quote the JSP and send them on their way.
The JSP is the guide, the AI is authored by somebody a little out of date perhaps, but LOA is most definitely out for AT.
Only if you're a recipient of said AT. If you're a facilitator, then you still get it. We've just had this battle as a result of the Div skiing champs!
Back_at_RD said:
Only if you're a recipient of said AT. If you're a facilitator, then you still get it. We've just had this battle as a result of the Div skiing champs!
Wrong - only instructors whose primary duty is instructing have an entitlement - not suitably qualified members of a unit who go on an exped, etc as an instructor, as I said before there is no entitlement.

OK, just to clarify, how does one distinguish between s/o who goes on AT with the primary reason of instructing and s/o who is a qualified instructor and instructs on said AT? The semantics make the mind boggle!
An example is an APTC type whose primary job is to instruct - ie Parachute instructor posted to Bad Lippespringe in Germany would get LOA whereas his students wouldnt. (That's just an example mind, probably a bad one)
That's not the same as what Paywog stated above (and I queried). Students, by definition, are not instructors (instructors = facilitators, to bring us neatly back to my original point).
B_a_RD - You are begining to confuse the issue!!

Students/ individuals taking part in AT - no LOA.
Instructors who hold the qual primary assinment anything other than AT instructor eg Sergeant Major - no LOA.
Instructors whose primary assignment is instructing AT - i.e. assigned to BAC, KYC, etc - LOA.
Admin staff on ex but not participating in AT either as student or instructor - LOA - where authorised.

So by instructor at your Line 2 you are refering to, for example, DS of a ph 1 establishment? They are "instructors" but NOT AT instructors.

I'm seeking to clarify rather fuzzy language, not to confuse the issue further.
NO if they are DS at a Ph 1 establishment they have a primary assignment to instruct Ph 1 not AT if they then attend AT as instructors due to an AT qual or they attend as students they are NOT entitled to LOA as far as the current regulatuions stand.

I wanted to clarify it as the language was desperately unclear (probably due to whoever wrote the JSP knowing exactly the circumstances they meant but insufficiently communicating it to the rest of the Army)

I think we've got to the bottom of it now.

Thank you.

Similar threads

Latest Threads