10 hours ago, Ram said:

your next stop is IG if the issue is not resolved.

I see this thrown around frequently here...has anyone actually had success with an IG complaint?

12 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

can anyone speak to the process for getting combat deployment back pay? i've contacted the on base finance people who said i should have it this month (i don't).

what next logical step is there to take at the lowest level?

How long ago did you submit your travel voucher, or are you currently deployed?

On 1/24/2017 at 4:04 PM, F16Rooster said:

I'm on title 10 orders for all 28 days of February.  Since my unit won't extend the orders to let us take leave, I tacked on 4 days of title 10 alert orders so that I could have "more than 30 days" and receive full BAH.  Finance told me today that because the funding is different, they can't combine those orders and thus I am not on orders "more than 30 days."  Anybody have a good reference that I can use to get that extra $180.  It's not much but I'm trying to make a point. 

 

Quite literally different pots of money (even title10), I think you're going to get screwed.  Not sure if yours is, but our alert is title 32 until the klaxon goes off then magically they switch us over.

3 hours ago, Day Man said:

I see this thrown around frequently here...has anyone actually had success with an IG complaint?

Yes, the IG can get results.  But for most cases it's more in an assistive or ombudsman way.  They're not your attorney and they don't work for you, but they can help facilitate making things right.

7 hours ago, Weezer said:

How long ago did you submit your travel voucher, or are you currently deployed?

submitted in Jan

im frustrated because this is a trend...three deployments in a row with finance pay issues

It never gets better


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Is the AF broke? Why all the changes fighting, and directives concerning pay/reimbursements....and will the pot-o-money flow again soon....?

Ive had moderate success using the threat, never actually had to get the IG involved. 

Ive had moderate success using the threat, never actually had to get the IG involved. 

The IG works well when there is a clear violation of an AFI or law and you have clear references...otherwise it can be a mixed bag.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

55 minutes ago, BeerMan said:

I think we should just spend it all and ask for more when we run out. Irresponsible? Sure. But it would be fun!  

The USN is doing this with their FHP (or whatever they use to track flying hours).  Without a change in funding, they're done this July for FY17.

 

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/07/vcno-navy-will-be-just-flat-out-out-of-money-without-supplemental-funding-would-cancel-flight-hours-ship-avails

1 hour ago, Herk Driver said:

The IG works well when there is a clear violation of an AFI or law and you have clear references...otherwise it can be a mixed bag.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Yes, this is true.  I've never actually gone to the IG, but a valid threat and explanation of broken AFIs the IG will eventually hear about is usually all it takes.

Remember when the USAF tried that in 2013? https://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/archives/2013/04/08/reduced-flying-hours-forces-grounding-of-17-usaf-combat-air/78539120/
Congress barley flinched!

Ha, that's because the USAF and military as a whole wastes so much damn money on non-essentials, they need to prioritize better.

I'm deployed and just in awe of how much it must be costing the taxpayer to deploy airmen to do jobs that shouldn't even exist at home base, let alone deployed locations.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

7 hours ago, BeerMan said:

Remember when the USAF tried that in 2013? https://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/archives/2013/04/08/reduced-flying-hours-forces-grounding-of-17-usaf-combat-air/78539120/

Congress barley flinched!

I remember.  My squadron stood down for 4 months.  

Yes, this is true.  I've never actually gone to the IG, but a valid threat and explanation of broken AFIs the IG will eventually hear about is usually all it takes.

Absolutely true.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

update to deployment pay fiasco:

Finance paid out combat tax free for one month...but for the two months in 2016 they didn't pay any $$$...rather gave me a corrected W-2

sure that's fine if you think of taxable income amount and cold hard cash is 1 for 1 substitution.

I think its a $hitty deal how they "fixed" the issue, but im sure there's an AFI governing this...anyone in the know have more details?

There were three of us who called base finance and all three got different answers

 

I don't understand your actual issue besides "finance screwed me"

Finance doesn't "pay out combat tax free." The Federal government doesn't withhold taxes for the months you're eligible for combat zone tax exclusion.

If the corrected W2 shows how much tax the Feds actually withheld then it is in fact a 1 for 1 substitution (or will be as soon as you file your 2016 tax return) which is due in 10 days.

You do know that it's called a tax refund for a reason? You get back any taxes you overpaid the previous year. In 2016 you overpaid-blame finance, I understand-but you get it back. It didn't disappear


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I don't understand your actual issue besides "finance screwed me"

Finance doesn't "pay out combat tax free." The Federal government doesn't withhold taxes for the months you're eligible for combat zone tax exclusion.

If the corrected W2 shows how much tax the Feds actually withheld then it is in fact a 1 for 1 substitution (or will be as soon as you file your 2016 tax return) which is due in 10 days.

You do know that it's called a tax refund for a reason? You get back any taxes you overpaid the previous year. In 2016 you overpaid-blame finance, I understand-but you get it back. It didn't disappear


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I'm with Warrior on this one. 2016 came and went; get the money back on your taxes. In my case, I'm annoyed because my Feb 17 tax free payed out, but not my Jan 17, requiring intervention on my part. This new system of using DTS for CZTE seems inferior to the days of old, IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

so both valid posts, but i'd rather get the cash ON TIME and not give the government a interest free "loan" at my expense until i file my taxes.

my opinion only.

 

I'm with Warrior on this one. 2016 came and went; get the money back on your taxes. In my case, I'm annoyed because my Feb 17 tax free payed out, but not my Jan 17, requiring intervention on my part. This new system of using DTS for CZTE seems inferior to the days of old, IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DTS for czte? Can you explain. I deployed dec-mar and am in need of a w-2 amended. The only thing I've seen this far is my fsa pay. No hardship pay, no HFP or czte.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

DTS for czte? Can you explain. I deployed dec-mar and am in need of a w-2 amended. The only thing I've seen this far is my fsa pay. No hardship pay, no HFP or czte.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

When we submit our Vouchers, finance automatically checks the locations and if we have CZTE/HFP eligible locations, they process it accordingly and it shows up a month or two later on our LES.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:

When we submit our Vouchers, finance automatically checks the locations and if we have CZTE/HFP eligible locations, they process it accordingly and it shows up a month or two later on our LES.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait, what? You serious?

Wait, what? You serious?

Yes. It was shocking to me too. It's also annoying because I'm about to take leave and should have 7.5 days of tax free leave, but it hasn't posted yet and I'm only showing 2.5.

 

On the topic of tax free leave, it's annoying it's always the first to burn, even if you already are tax free for the whole month (I'm not for April).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some background on the situation before I go on a rant. Four of my B-Course bros and I got stationed at Elmo and 3 of us decided to buy trailers so we could make money off the DITY and bring the trailer up to AK where trailers and campers are 2x the price. We figured we'd take the AMHS ferry to take a break from driving and to avoid driving through remote and wintry Canada. We all made it up to AK now and finally got to be graced by finance's presence only to be told that they will only reimburse up to 21 feet in cost for the ferry car storage. I had 34 feet, including my truck and trailer. So, doing the math I lose out on ~$1000 because someone decided that they'll only reimburse up to 21 feet and for some reason I can't find that reg anywhere in the JTR. Oh and the finance dude said "This is the first time I've ever seen someone drive a trailer onto a ferry to travel up here". I'm trying to figure out the logic behind it and how you could actually accomplish a DITY move during winter where it's nearly impossible to drive the entire distance through BC/Yukon.

Okay now that my rant is over, does anyone have any experience in this subject matter that can help us argue our situation? After all, we were told by both the Tyndall TMO and Finance that the Ferry was fully reimbursable, even with a trailer. Shack on me for believing anything that TMO or Finance says.

1. Ask to speak with the first officer in the finance chain

2. Have the JTR reference that shows you should be reimbursed for dragging a trailer. 

3. The burden of proof is on FINANCE to show you the reg/reference that says 21 feet max. 

4. If you think their proof is in violation of the JTR (which trumps local policy and afi), elevate. 

5. If finance turns out to be right, work to fix the process so the next round of b-course dity movers aren't similarly surprised. 

6. Profit

I'm not sure the reg but I remember in '04/'07 I was warned about some trailer issues on the ferry so this is not new. I think both length and number of axles was a factor.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums