How I got Burned on my DITY Move!

[othromas]

Back in the day, the Navy did actual parasailing where you got lifted into the air behind a boat, then hit a release and went into the water. Since the AF has come along, they switched over to land, though I'm not entirely sure on exactly why. A LCDR told me this after I broke my leg.

 

[Nomar116]

http://dodtravelregs.hqda.pentagon.mil/propub/template.htm?view=main


Someone wiser than I posted this over in the BAH f*-up discussion and I am reading through it. The following line really appealed to me. It seems to be completely opposite what has been going on regarding Per Diem, BAH would be another discussion(and THIS would actually MAKE SENSE). I mention this because I think the Per Diem issue and the PCS/DITY move issue are very closely related. IE If you're given a PCS then you shouldn't be entitled to Per Diem and if they won't move you down here than YOU SHOULD!

Chapter 3. Par. U4101 When Per diem is authorized

Unless otherwise specifically provided... the per diem perscribed in this part applies for all TDY periods and travel in connection therewith:

3. TDY periods directed in a PCS order

Par. U4102 Circumstances in which per diem not authorized

D. Travel or TDY within PDS Limits.

This means that if you live within the limits of your Permanent Duty Station you are NOT entitled to per diem, otherwise YES. I don't know if the guys with follow-on orders live within there PDS Limits. But it sounds like to me that 3.U4101 describes SNA's exactly and that they definately SHOULD be entitled to Per Diem.

I understand we do not know our PDS yet. The "rumor" is that IF you get orders to Whiting then you DO get Per Diem. That makes sense if EVERY SNA gets it, otherwise that seems completely contradictory to the directive.

What am I missing here. I'm sure someone wiser than me (like the guy that passed along the link, thanks btw) will humble me and send me on my way. I'm just trying to read through this...and maybe venting just a little.

 

[HH-60H]

http://dodtravelregs.hqda.pentagon.mil/propub/template.htm?view=main


Someone wiser than I posted this over in the BAH f*-up discussion and I am reading through it. The following line really appealed to me. It seems to be completely opposite what has been going on regarding Per Diem, BAH would be another discussion(and THIS would actually MAKE SENSE). I mention this because I think the Per Diem issue and the PCS/DITY move issue are very closely related. IE If you're given a PCS then you shouldn't be entitled to Per Diem and if they won't move you down here than YOU SHOULD!

Chapter 3. Par. U4101 When Per diem is authorized

Unless otherwise specifically provided... the per diem perscribed in this part applies for all TDY periods and travel in connection therewith:

3. TDY periods directed in a PCS order

Par. U4102 Circumstances in which per diem not authorized

D. Travel or TDY within PDS Limits.

This means that if you live within the limits of your Permanent Duty Station you are NOT entitled to per diem, otherwise YES. I don't know if the guys with follow-on orders live within there PDS Limits. But it sounds like to me that 3.U4101 describes SNA's exactly and that they definately SHOULD be entitled to Per Diem.

I understand we do not know our PDS yet. The "rumor" is that IF you get orders to Whiting then you DO get Per Diem. That makes sense if EVERY SNA gets it, otherwise that seems completely contradictory to the directive.

What am I missing here. I'm sure someone wiser than me (like the guy that passed along the link, thanks btw) will humble me and send me on my way. I'm just trying to read through this...and maybe venting just a little.

While I am far removed from this situation and it certainly wasn't so difficult back when I went through, I have read about these Pensacola pay problems here on AW for a couple years now. I suspect, been am not sure, that some of these issues are caused by the way that BUPERS writes your orders. I have never seen anyone's orders, but that is my suspicion. At the moment I can't remember just what the specific issue is (I-stops, I think), but I think the key to all of this is in your orders.

 

[jus2mch]

http://dodtravelregs.hqda.pentagon.mil/propub/template.htm?view=main


Someone wiser than I posted this over in the BAH f*-up discussion and I am reading through it. The following line really appealed to me. It seems to be completely opposite what has been going on regarding Per Diem, BAH would be another discussion(and THIS would actually MAKE SENSE). I mention this because I think the Per Diem issue and the PCS/DITY move issue are very closely related. IE If you're given a PCS then you shouldn't be entitled to Per Diem and if they won't move you down here than YOU SHOULD!

Chapter 3. Par. U4101 When Per diem is authorized

Unless otherwise specifically provided... the per diem perscribed in this part applies for all TDY periods and travel in connection therewith:

3. TDY periods directed in a PCS order

Par. U4102 Circumstances in which per diem not authorized

D. Travel or TDY within PDS Limits.

This means that if you live within the limits of your Permanent Duty Station you are NOT entitled to per diem, otherwise YES. I don't know if the guys with follow-on orders live within there PDS Limits. But it sounds like to me that 3.U4101 describes SNA's exactly and that they definately SHOULD be entitled to Per Diem.

I understand we do not know our PDS yet. The "rumor" is that IF you get orders to Whiting then you DO get Per Diem. That makes sense if EVERY SNA gets it, otherwise that seems completely contradictory to the directive.

What am I missing here. I'm sure someone wiser than me (like the guy that passed along the link, thanks btw) will humble me and send me on my way. I'm just trying to read through this...and maybe venting just a little.

Here is where the problem lies for the Whiting factor. The "limits" are from where you are training, to where you will be next. What are the "limits"? You have to look them up, which I am sure a bunch of people have done, and that is where the trouble is coming from. Another catch at a quick glance if in the the PDS limits is:

H. TDY within the PDS Limits. Travel and transportation allowances are authorized for a member performing TDY (other than at the residence or normal duty location of the member) within the limits of a PDS when authorized by competent authority. Par. U4105-H allowances are authorized when such duty is performed under emergency circumstances that threaten injury to human life or damage to Federal Government property, provided overnight accommodations are used by reason of such duty. See Chapter 3 for transportation allowances.

When authorized by competent authority. If they don't authorize it you don't get it.

 

[Nomar116]

I agree, it should be up to the CO or whomever if your going to Whiting. The problem is, its the guys going to Whiting that are being told (and paid) that they are entitled to Per Diem. Its the SNA's that DO NOT have the follow orders, the ones that are TDY with no PDS designated that are told we are NOT entitled to Per Diem.

To me, the following would make sense. SNA's without dependents are designated as temporarily being in Pensacola. This is needs of the Navy, etc., so they can send us whereever they want. In this theoretical, logical scenario, the Navy says 'You are temporary so you can only move a limited amount of your stuff (600#) and are only paid a limited BAH (which seems hard to justify our living expenses would be lower because of less stuff).' But it seems equally logical that we should then be entitled to Per Diem for temporary duty.

If this stays the course its headed, SNAs will NOT be entitled to a PCS move, NOT be given full BAH, and NOT collect Per Diem. Meanwhile, those with follow-on orders to Whiting are expected to find their permanent living situation immediately upon reporting to Pensacola. Therefore they ARE entitled to a PCS move (makes sense) and are entiteld to full BAH (also makes sense). But PCS is saying they are ALSO entitled to Per Diem.

Ugh... they seem to have the Per Diem issue backwards. I'm sorry if this reads like another long rant...

 

[WillH]

I didn't read this entire post, but it is making me a bit concerned about my upcoming move. Is it still the same situation for SNAs moving to Pensacola? I thought it was a PCS, but now not so sure(feverishly scanning orders...). I have already scheduled an HHG move of ~1300lb to be picked up and shipped from California and also a PPM move of 500lb in my POV for mid October. I have been working with a Coast Guard office, so not sure if they know all the ins and outs of a Navy move, or at least for this specific situation.

 

[Recovering LSO]

You good sir, win the "Way Back Search Success" award. Eight and half year old thread, well done! But seriously, tell your friends - the search bar works.

 

[Brett327]

I don't think you would have been able to schedule a HHG move if you didn't have PCS orders.