Next JHQ will rule that Germany is an exit on the M25!

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by laptop_kid, Nov 9, 2007.

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. I know it's expecting a lot thinking that something may have spread far and wide from the esteemed HQ BF(G) in only a week, but has anyone come across the latest penny pinching edict from the ivory towers at JHQ regarding the classification of dependency in BF(G)? It would be laughable if it weren't so bloody stupid!

    If I have read it right, SIBA(G) 3217 states if you happen to be married to a German national and your family resides in your own property in Germany, unless you work within daily travelling distance of your property your family are not classed as dependants. What madness is this???

    So overnight all those hard working squaddies in Germany who have instead of moving their family into a substandard SFA opted to serve unacompanied within the same theatre as their families have been told that their dependants have no right to any of the very few privileges that make it worth while serving there!

    That means that the wife can no longer get free treatment at the nearest service medical centre, or drive the car that she paid for because it is BF(G) registered. And even if she were to grasp the nettle and register the car with the German authorities the husband couldn't drive it anyway because that would contravene SIBA(G)s!

    And just to put the boot in, even though they are maintaining a family home in the same theatre they are serving in they are not entitled to LOA for the family.

    This reminds me of the last bright idea about withdrawing concessionary welfare flights as guys were deploying to Iraq. Has the last vestage of brain matter finally dried up in JHQ?

    Is anyone out there affected by it? Or more to the point is there anyone out there in a position of influence that feels that this short sighted move obviously driven by penny pinching (in my opinion before you sue :twisted: ) should be reversed forthwith?
  2. Bit like they are going to charge contractors that were having free accommodation the going rate for the accommodation and then they are going to pay them it back as costs?
  3. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    Without wishing to be unsympathetic about your plight can I just point out the irony of your GAFometer?
  4. I agree that mindless penny pinching is bad, but at the same time I have always tried to balance that with, "What is fair". Taking your point about LOA. Essentially, LOA is supposed to reimburse you for many things that are different between the UK and here, and some of the additional costs of communicating/travelling back to the UK. So if you are married to a German national and live in a local House in Germany, you have not got as much of those costs as a UK based couple. i.e your wife is used to shopping in German shops and doesnt want to pay extra for the British items. Your wifes relatives live in germany, travel to them is not as expensive, neither is telephone calls etc.
    So effectively, you are the only one in your relationship who is "overseas" your wife is in her host country, so therefore, why should you get more LOA than a singly?

    not trying to be a c@nt, just trying to rationalise a bit
  5. I see where you're coming from on that score and when you put it like that could make sense, but then surely they have contradicted themselves by not making the same rules apply for all individuals residing in their own homes in Germany, what about the individuals who reside within daily travelling distance of their workplace? There is no difference in any of the areas, except the service person drives home every night. Why should someone who is most likely near the end of the time who has opted to put his family stability ahead of his own dip out in the never ending quest to save a penny or two?

    This ruling in itself will cause major problems for lots of poeple for no good reason.

    You know, a conspiracy theorist could think maybe it was a rule that originally intended to go that far but was amended when it was realised just how many of the staff who have been working in JHQ for decades own their own houses in Rheindhalen :roll:
  6. Having been married to one, knowing plenty of lads who are/was I can sum that initial statement up in a word Bollox. It makes no difference, they are classed as dependents & are entitled to the same as anyone else. As for living on the German net, same as the UK if you want to live in your own property, it ain't cheap. It like saying if the bloke gets killed or injured & they don't get any benifits. BTW not married to the Boxhead anymore, cost to much to keep :?
  7. Sounds like anothe retentive positive incentive. Jolly well done J1, you must be proud.