Changes to CEA

[Whenurhappy]

Dear Folks, the interim changes to CEA have just been announced in DIB 2010/95. In essence, INVOLSEP rules are reinterpreted so don't expect CEA if posted to MOD or PJHQ, or into a sea-going billet.

Here's the text:

Defence Internal Brief

SERIAL: 2010DIB/95

DATE: XX December 2010











ISSUE:
Continuity of Education Allowances: Changes to Regulations and Governance
AUDIENCE:
All Service Personnel

TIMING:
Routine

ACTION:
To be briefed for Information Only

KEY POINTS:




· Minister for the Armed Forces, Nick Harvey, today announced changes to the regulations that govern eligibility for Continuity of Education Allowances (CEA)[1] (http://www.pprune.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=57#_ftn1). These changes become effective from 1 April 2011. This announcement is made ahead of the overall allowances savings announcement as it is deemed appropriate to provide longer notice of the changes to CEA regulations.

· Although changes to CEA are announced today, as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Department is reviewing the broad range of allowances paid to Service personnel. Work is ongoing to fully define the package of changes and further announcements on changes to Armed Forces allowances are expected in the New Year.

· Under the changes announced today CEA rates have not been cut, however changes to eligibility rules and the governance of claims for the allowance will reduce spend. Claimants will retain the current levels of CEA support providing all eligibility criteria are met under the new rules.

· The aim of CEA is to assist Service personnel to achieve continuity of education for their child(ren). It is designed to support family mobility when maintaining a stable family home in one location is not possible because of frequent assignments to different areas (both at home and overseas). However, where SP choose to serve unaccompanied, or where consecutive assignments occur within the same area, there is no requirement to support family mobility with CEA.

· CEA rules will be amended in 4 main areas;

· the link between Involuntarily Separated Status (INVOLSEP) and CEA,

· the “Sibling Rule”,

· aggregation of claims,

· the number of assignments which trigger a formal review.

· A dedicated CEA team will be established under the Services Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA) to ensure probity and compliance with the CEA regulations.

· In addition to these measures, the Secretary of State has directed that a review of CEA should be conducted given the current climate and the need to be clear that this expenditure is fully justified. Results of this review will be announced early in 2011.

DETAIL:


Background

1. In his Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) statement, the Prime Minister announced that there would be cuts in Service and Civil Service allowances amounting to some £300M per year. For the Armed Forces, this represents circa £250M per year from an allowance spend of approximately £880M per year. About £80M of this reduction will be achieved as a result of reductions in numbers of personnel and measures to reduce the number of movements which generate claims. The remainder of the savings will come from changes in rules and rates across all relevant allowances.

2. The aim of CEA is to assist Service personnel to achieve continuity of education for their child(ren) that would otherwise be denied in the maintained day school sector if their child(ren) accompanied them on frequent assignments both at home and overseas;

Continuity of Education Allowances Measures
· A team will be established under the SPVA to ensure probity and compliance with the CEA regulations, in conjunction with existing single-Service compliance teams.
· The link between Involuntarily Separated Status (INVOLSEP) and automatic eligibility to CEA for permanent assignments will be removed. This will mean that CEA claimants posted to MOD London, and certain designated positions within JFHQ (PJHQ) will no longer be eligible to claim CEA whilst serving unaccompanied.[2] (http://www.pprune.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=57#_ftn2)
· The claiming of CEA without accompanied service on the basis of historic RN regulations for previously designated seagoing billets will also cease. This will mean that, in future, Naval Service personnel permanently assigned to a previously designated seagoing billet who are ineligible for the transitional arrangements described below will be required to demonstrate their commitment to family mobility and accompanied service by moving their family home to the Base Port in order to retain continued entitlement to CEA, provided that all other eligibility criteria are met.
· Transitional arrangements have been agreed for existing CEA claimants serving unaccompanied whilst on permanent assignment to MOD London, designated positions within JFHQ (PJHQ) and Sea Service billets in Ships and Submarines, to retain the INVOLSEP concession for continued CEA eligibility until the end of their current assignment. Extant rules will then apply for subsequent appointments, therefore for the purpose of the assignment after serving INVOLSEP it will be assumed that a family move has occurred, even if the SP returns to a longstanding family home. Service personnel in possession of a permanent Assignment Order dated prior to this announcement and with a latest arrival date of prior to 1 Sep 11 to either MOD London, designated positions within JFHQ (PJHQ) and Sea Service billets in Ships and Submarines, and who intend to initially claim or to continue to claim CEA on the basis of the INVOLSEP provision, will be included in these transitional arrangements.

· The “Sibling Rule” will be removed from the CEA regulations. This will mean that in future, all children will be required to demonstrate their suitability for boarding for at least 3 terms before being allowed to transfer to day schooling, should the location of the family home permit.

· The Children’s Education Advisory Service (CEAS) will initiate a review of CEA entitlement where the claimant’s family home has not relocated during 2 consecutive assignments, rather than 3.
· Aggregation will be removed from the CEA regulations. This will mean that the ability to offset more expensive school fees against less expensive ones will be removed.
3. In parallel with the implementation of the SDSR allowances package, the Secretary of State has directed the Minister for the Armed Forces to carry out a full review of CEA. The importance of the allowance in supporting accompanied service, and in enabling the Armed Forces to deploy personnel efficiently to meet Service needs, is well understood. Nevertheless, it represents a significant investment in a relatively small proportion of our people, and in current circumstances we need to be clear that this expenditure is fully justified. The review will consider the fundamental rationale for the allowance, look at alternatives to reliance on independent schools and at the justification for the current set of entitlements. The review will look to give greater definition post 2015.

4. Ministers are conscious of the need to keep the period of uncertainty about the future of CEA to a minimum, and the review conclusions will be announced well in advance of any further measures being implemented. No short term savings targets have been assumed for the review, beyond those which attach to the specific changes to CEA already agreed as part of the SDSR and set out in this brief.

5. The Service Personnel Board and the Chiefs of Staff will be consulted as part of the review and their views will be taken fully into account in determining its conclusions and recommendations. It will involve consultation with the Service Community, Family Federations and other stakeholders who have an interest.
In order to avoid prolonged uncertainty, Ministers have asked that the review be conducted speedily with a view to decisions being reached in the early part of 2011. The review will consult widely with the Service community and with those outside who have an interest.

SUBJECT CONTACT:
DCDS PERS-PM-ALLCES SO1(Ingram, Toby Lt Col) 9621 86982

Defence Internal Briefs (DIBs) are released by the DMC Internal Communications Team. Comments or feedback on the process or format of this brief should be directed to Joanne Potter, DMC-Sec Internal Communications 2, Tel: 020 7218 1261, mil: 9621 81261.

For past DIBs see: http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/DefenceIntranet/News/BriefingNotes/MOD/ (http://defenceintranet.diiweb.r.mil.uk/DefenceIntranet/News/BriefingNotes/MOD/)

.

[Whenurhappy]

CONTINUITY OF EDUCATION ALLOWANCES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q. What is CEA for?

A. CEA exists to provide Service children with the continuity of education that would be denied them in the maintained day school sector if they accompanied their parents on frequent assignments both at home and overseas. In claiming CEA, a Service person must fully accept that accompanied service is the overriding principle for maintaining entitlement.

Q. What is INVOLSEP?

A. Unaccompanied service is deemed to exist when a Service person who would normally reside with their spouse/civil partner, lives in a Residence at Work Address other than that in which their spouse/civil partner and/or dependant children normally live. Unaccompanied service for a single parent (PStat Cat 2) is deemed to exist when they are serving away from the home in which their dependant child(ren) would normally live with them. Unaccompanied service may be either Involuntary (INVOLSEP), which is generally for Service reasons, or Voluntary (VOLSEP) when the Service person chooses, for personal reasons, not to be accompanied at their Duty Station by their spouse/civil partner and/or dependant child(ren). Service personnel who are separated from their immediate family, normally for Service reasons, will be classified as INVOLSEP and eligible for benefits related to unaccompanied service in the circumstances set out in JSP 752.

Q. I want to keep my spouse/civil partner in a stable environment when I am away on duty.

A. It is not considered within the spirit of the rules for a Service parent to claim the allowance if they deliberately maintain the family home in the same location for an extended period of time, with the Service person repeatedly moving assignments between local units and with no intention or likelihood of serving elsewhere or moving the family. In these cases, the existence of a stable family home will enable the educational continuity to be achieved within the local State sector.

Q. Seagoers in particular spend more time away from home, surely being considered INVOLSEP is part of our compensation?

A. It is acknowledged that service in an Organisation such as a ship, submarine or other front-line unit is associated with an expectation of a high degree of Separated Service. Separated Service is defined as “absence from normal place of duty or lack of freedom to enjoy leisure at place of duty/residence at work address (RWA)”. Normal place of duty is defined as “the base, station, unit, establishment, or Base Port in the case of ships”. It must be stressed therefore that Separated Service in this context is not absence from family.

In broad terms, Service personnel are considered to be INVOLSEP and eligible for payment of LSA and accrual of Separated Service when at sea, but not when alongside in Base Port. Although a Sea Service billet is mandated as unaccompanied when the unit is deployed, there is no overriding Service requirement to designate such an assignment unaccompanied throughout its duration. In essence, if the Service person wishes to claim CEA, their absence when deployed at sea should not be regarded, in itself, as rendering a sufficient impediment to the requirement to move the family home and serve accompanied when the ship or submarine is alongside in the Base Port.

When a Service person applies for CEA, they must sign a CEA Eligibility Certificate declaring that they are committed to family mobility and intend to serve accompanied. By not complying with this principle, they are not meeting the requirements of the policy intent. Further, by leaving their family home static, their child(ren) could have been educated within the local maintained day school sector.

Q. What if I choose to retain SFA/SSFA at my previous Duty Station/Naval Base Port Area?

A. CEA is related to the mobility of the family, not the Service person. Entitled families occupying SFA may retain their entitlement to SFA at the location of the SP’s previous assignment. However, SFA may be provided at the new Duty Station (Base Port for ships and submarines) provided the entitlement criteria are met. By choosing not to move the family home to the new Duty Station despite having signed a CEA Eligibility Certificate, the Service person is failing to comply with the principle of accompanied service and family mobility and would not meet the requirements of the policy intent. The Service person is exercising personal choice by electing not to relocate their family to the new Duty Station; granting CEA in such circumstances would call into question the integrity of CEA as an allowance designed to provide continuity of education during periods of family mobility.

Q. What if I have been assigned to a unit that was formerly subject to the INVOLSEP concession but I have not joined yet?

A. The transitional arrangements for those currently claiming CEA allow Service personnel who, by the date of this announcement, were already in receipt of a qualifying permanent Assignment Order to either MoD London, JFHQ (PJHQ) or a Sea Service billet in a ship or submarine and who commence the assignment before 1 Sep 11, to continue to be eligible for CEA for the child(ren) for whom they were already claiming the allowance up to the end of their current assignment.

Q. What if I am in a qualifying assignment in respect of the transitional arrangements and subsequently extended in post?

A. Extensions to current assignments purely for the purpose of continued entitlement to CEA without family mobility will not be entertained. Assignment Authorities should expect to be questioned on the business needs for any extensions granted to current CEA claimants.

Q. The allowance is entitled ‘continuity of education’ - why can’t I retain CEA for my child(ren) until the end of their current stage of education?

A. It is a fundamental condition of entitlement to CEA that a child continues to attend the school and completes a stage of education for which CEA is in issue. It is for this reason that before committing to the undertaking, prospective CEA claimants are encouraged to consider taking out insurance protection to cover school fees due to a change in individual entitlement or eligibility that may result in a cessation of CEA. At a time of high operational tempo across all 3 Services and a requirement for greater financial scrutiny and governance, a general blanket exemption from the requirement to serve accompanied is no longer considered acceptable. A CEA claimant is required to complete a new CEA Eligibility Certificate immediately on arrival at each new assignment; and when the eligibility rules are no longer fully met, the individual’s CO must initiate an entitlement check with a view to ceasing the entitlement. To deviate from this accepted practice, by affording continued entitlement to CEA until the end of the current stage of education to all claimants eligible for the transitional arrangements risks damaging both the assurance measures put in place to protect this allowance and its integrity as an allowance designed to support Service family mobility.

CEA is a high-cost allowance, representing a very significant proportion of the overall annual MOD allowances budget. To safeguard CEA for those who genuinely need it, it is crucially important that adherence to the regulations is enforced.

Q. I am ineligible for the transitional arrangements set out in the DIB, but believe that I have good reasons for serving unaccompanied in my current assignment. What should I do?

A. Should a Service person who is ineligible for these transitional arrangements consider that they have genuine and compelling personal reasons for serving unaccompanied which are not satisfied by these arrangements, they may submit a case to the SPVA PACCC for consideration to be treated as INVOLSEP. The case should be fully supported by welfare, medical or Children’s Education Advisory Service reports, as appropriate.

Similarly, should a Service person have concerns that the arrangements will unduly affect the education of their child, they should consult with the CEAS. If, on conclusion of the consultation, the Service parent believes that the prescribed arrangements are unsuitable for their circumstances, then a case should be made to the SPVA PACCC, copied to the CEAS. All cases will be considered on their individual merits in keeping with the underlying rationale for CEA. Cases should be submitted in accordance with JSP 752 Ch 1, Sect 1, Annex A, Appendix 1.

Q. Why has CEA not been cut?

A. CEA rates have not been cut, but rule tightening will reduce the spend. CEA is the subject of a separate independent review instigated by the Secretary of State for Defence. This review team will report directly to the Secretary of State with their findings by early 2011.

Q. Why are CEA claimants not being asked to pay more towards the costs?

A. The current level of Parental Contribution is judged to be at the right level to ensure that all ranks that meet the criteria to claim CEA, are able to afford to do so.

Q. Will the Ministerial Review see CEA being cut?

A. It would be extremely unwise to pre-judge the outcome of the Ministerial review of CEA. A wide range of options will be considered and no assumptions have been made about what needs to change.

Q. What will the change mean for me? How much will I lose under the new rules?

A. Rates of CEA are not being cut under the changes announced today. Therefore all claimants who remain genuinely eligible will retain their current levels of CEA support assuming that all other eligibility criteria are met.

Q. What support will there be if Service personnel are judged not to need CEA anymore? How can we be expected to shoulder the cost on our pay?

A. Any SP found to be ineligible for CEA under the new rules will have a minimum of one full term’s notice of the withdrawal of entitlement. No further financial support will be made available to those who are found to be ineligible. SP currently claiming CEA on the strength of a permanent assignment to a previously INVOLSEP for CEA purposes post will be eligible for the transitional arrangements outlined in the DIB.

Q. Does MOD expect service personnel to leave because of the changes?

A. No, because all SP who remain eligible will retain access to the allowance.

Q. How many children of Service personnel will be taken out of boarding school because of these changes? How many children of those on operations?

A. The decision to remove a child from independent school will be a matter for the SP concerned, therefore the MOD cannot predict the numbers, either for those on operations or in home locations, will make this decision.

Q. How much does the MOD think it will save through these measures? Will these really make a difference to the defence budget?

A. The aim of the measure is to save 15% of the CEA spend, c £28M per year from Year 3 onwards (2013/2014)

Q. How many other allowances are to be cut?

A. Remaining allowances cuts will be announced in due course, and I cannot prejudice this announcement at this time.

[MaroonMan4]

Whenurhappy,

I am surprised that there has not been more of a comment on this valuable post.

Although I am virtually out of the Boarding School 'trap' I am surprised that the FAQs doesn't answer the more relevant (to the wife) questions....

If INVOLSEP has gones are there enough quarters in the London area, or will the more expensive (to the tax payer) SSSA accommodation option be required?

For the RN, do all of the base ports have the required MQs for the envisaged influx of married service personnel - or will a combination of SSSA and/or sub standard accomodation be offered?

With the cost of London property in excess of that found in the majority of the country, wouldn't it be cheaper for the MoD to leave wives where they were, and review the accomodation plot of INVOLSEP personnel (rented accomodation, use of barracks and other HMG properties).

If despite requesting for postings away from my base station CEAS refuse to endorse my eligibility certificate after 2 consecutive postings, and my children are forced to break their education and return to the state system, what happens when my next posting is away from my base station? I am then forced to break my children's education again (or find someone locally for them to stay with in order to complete their education). Is CEAS now expecting me to plug and play between the local base station state school when I am 'at base' and with boarding school when my wife and I are away from base? Isn't this dip in and out of boarding school going in direct opposition of what the C in CEA stands for? Or is the MoD expecting me to find local accommodation for my children when my wife and leave the base on posting to ensure that they have some semblance of stability?

If through no fault of my own my family do not meet CEA eligibility (i.e. the desk officer elects to keep me at my base station), then as a serving member of HM Forces do I receive prompt place at my local state school?

Is the SofS for Education confident that his department is correctly resourced for the potential influx of children in the designated base areas.

Again, in the rush to make cuts I am not too sure that HMT and MoD have thought this one through and yet again another nail in the (service morale and military covenant) coffin is hammered in.

[Lima Juliet]

Maroon Man 4

I concur with all your concerns and the biggest lie in the Q&A is...

Q. Does MOD expect service personnel to leave because of the changes?

A. No, because all SP who remain eligible will retain access to the allowance.



I can guarantee people will leave over this, but then again, that is what the Govt/MoD want!!!

Thanks to this consecutive rule then there will be no Continuity for a lot of Service Children when their parents get a back-to-back tour on a Station followed by a posting to the other end of the country. :ugh:

Anyone got the number for "truckmaster"?

LJ

[Whenurhappy]

Maroon Chap - couldn't agree more - this has been rushed through and, I suspect, without much consultation with DE Housing. For my last tour in London, we looked seriously at moving into SFA but what was on offer was dire (indeed subsequently deemed structurally unsafe). Even though SP levels in London have been trimmed down, I believe that there is a SFA housing shortage, resulting in families being put in SFA at remote outstations (eg Henlow, Halton) or into expensive hirings closer in to town (nett savings?). My next tour will be in to London and we will have to think really, really hard about it; we also have one child who will be at primary school (not boarding - too young) and we hear of the horror stories of trying to find a school that will take newcomers and isn't too, ahem, diverse.

I wonder how widely the sS manning staff were consulted on this? I can see that many SP will refuse to take postings if it compromises their childrens' education (eg propmotion in post, staying on a particular piece of kit/fleet...loss of continuity in the workplace?). Hmm, I think there has been limited second order effects analysis.

Perhaps no one has noticed the intended aim to reduce the total allowances package by c 40%? We are in for a real shock idc.

Added to all the other B#lls aching reductions - and bearing in mind that these are interim measures pending a more detailed report in the New Year - these are not retention positive measures. I think that the Naval Service will find the change a major cultural shock! What, live in pussers digs? You must be mad!

[foldingwings]

Whenurhappy,

Here's the text:

Defence Internal Brief

SERIAL: 2010DIB/95

DATE: XX December 2010











ISSUE:
Continuity of Education Allowances: Changes to Regulations and Governance
AUDIENCE:
All Service Personnel

TIMING:
Routine

ACTION:
To be briefed for Information Only

Whilst I commend your public spirit and intention, there used to be a rule regarding the public dissemination of this type of material albeit that it's not 'classified' as such. By its very title, Defence Internal Brief, suggests that that is just what it is: an internal brief that will be disseminated to all personnel in the fullness of time (which is usually fairly quickly) and not necessarily for display on a public forum (although it is likely, and now guaranteed by your action, to make it into the newspapers).

Have things changed?

Foldie:eek:

[Blighter Pilot]

What about when your desk officer/Manning pull the 'Service Needs' card and through no fault of your own you are re-toured?

How will that work?

And I have to agree with MM - the C in CEA is for continuity. Withdrawing CEA to parents with children currently at private school is just going to ruin their education, particulary if they are close to examinations.

The 50 mile posting rule is also a load of ****e - are they suggesting that if we only move 49 miles from our present location our children would be able to stay in the same state school?

Also, what about spouses? I know someone who is moving under the Future Brize programme whose wife has already handed in her notice due to having to relocate. As Lye is only 22 miles from Brize, and Brize is less than 50 miles from the next potential posting they will probably lose CEA.

MOD have seriously got this wrong - particulary the INVOLSEP for MOD tours and the implementation of the '50 mile rule'

The worst thing is - the people that will really suffer will be the children and many claimants I know are seriously considering legal action against the MOD if their allowance is cut.

[Whenurhappy]

Folding wings:

No it is not classified (or even UBS) and the intention of the brief is to disseminate it as wide as possible. I know a lot of people have not seen this through 'official' and unclassified channels. It was distributed to me from an official outlet via a commerical link (I do not have regular access to JPA/DII/whatever). Moreover, the importance of this change cannot be underestimated!

If you a re looking for leaks, you have to look inside Main Building itself. As a 'victim' of a leak some 12 months ago, I am acutely aware of the damage that leaks can cause. This is not a leak!

[foldingwings]

I don't think that I suggested that it was a leak - just, perhaps, inappropriate for a worldwide public forum.

Foldie:\

[Winco]

I've got an idea.....................

Lets sell all the buildings and land the MOD own in the London area, and move it all to somewhere else, say Yorkshire or Northumberland???

Just imagine how many billions could be saved if we were to do that. Why do we need to be in London anyway, just because it's the capital??

Sounds like a plan to me.................lets go for it!

[Climebear]

I agree with Blighter Pilot

I can't see the rational for the 50 mile rule - a change of school is a change of school; travelling 49 miles back to an old school daily is not an option.

Will be interesting how the posters of gp capts and above interpretate this once an individual has undertaken his staff tour. By the letter of the 50 mile rule they would need to say that there is a greater than 50% chance of that individual serving more than 50 miles away from his/her current posting (ie HQ AIR or MOD MB). I wonder what proportion of, say, gp capt appointments are not either HQ AIR or MOD (that are only about 33 miles apart).

Moroeover, why, in particular for MOD, is the distance measured from unit to unit. A posting to MOD means that you are at the mercy of DE's Housing allocation which could be to any one of a number of 'patches' within the M25 (and one just outside).

So, for instance, a posting to MOD from HQ AIR could result in a family move of:
35 miles if moving from Walters Ash to Bushey Heath

or

65 miles if moving from Walters Ash to Biggin Hill

Edited to add that both Portsmouth (Navy Command) and Andover (HQ Land Forces) are both more than 50 miles from MOD so this is likely to be a light blue VSO issue. Perhaps they should have collocated the 2 RAF Cmds at Imjin Barracks ;)

[Frustrated....]

Just a few observations.

1. I wholeheartedly agree that people want the best education for their kids and if the RAF/MOD is willing to pay to help that then brilliant - take advantage of it but you cannot rely on it being there forever.

2. If people decide to leave over this, they will still have to find money to keep their kids in the 'good' school.

3. If people refuse to take up an assignment, then we currently have an excess of people in the RAF in particular and the DO will be able to find a person willing to take the posting and the one who refuses may find themselves on the redundancy list.

Frustrated....

[Whenurhappy]

I take the point that you are making, Frustrated, however because of the frequent moves that we make (in my case 8 in 6 years) the only way continuity in education for our son once he was out of primary school was to go down the boarding route. If, on the other hand, the Service allowed longer term contiuity in post, this would allow us to park in one location and establish longer-term links with the local community. Careerwise, staying in one post for all that time would be suicide; moreover the Services would not necessarily benefit from this.

I think in the long term CEA will become a thing of the past except for those in remote overseas location where no suitable schooling is available (as in my current post). Perhaps if the recommendations of the Service Personnel Command Paper of 2 years ago are implemented, local authorities will be obliged to provide 'quality' places for Service brats. Certainly, people will walk...

[Blighter Pilot]

All personnel moving from Lye to Brize and requesting SFA have been told that there isn't actually enough, even if we use the bulk lease, SFA at Fairford, BZN and Shrivenham/Faringdon.

DE's solution - declare the LYE SFA site as surplus and recommend that people apply to stay in their current SFA until more becomes available.

Guys and girls claiming CEA at LYE and moving to BZN with onward postings within 24 months are all likely to lose their entitlement due to the 50 mile rule. A couple of guys have been refused postings away from LYE due to 'Service Needs' - is that likely to be taken into consideration with the new '2 assignment change of address' rule?

I know of at least one individual who has had the Service Needs card played twice in 3 years despite him wanting to move on promotion - will he lose his entitlement to CEA?

:mad:

[Ali Barber]

Can you use this as grounds for refusing a posting that screws up your family/child's education. Unlikely!

[vecvechookattack]

Of course you can. You don't have to accept a posting. No one is forcing you.

[Harley Quinn]

Of course you can. You don't have to accept a posting. No one is forcing you.

Naivety is alive and well.

[Mr C Hinecap]

If, on the other hand, the Service allowed longer term contiuity in post, this would allow us to park in one location and establish longer-term links with the local community. Careerwise, staying in one post for all that time would be suicide; moreover the Services would not necessarily benefit from this.


I know you're out of the loop over there, but you need to hear some of the proposals 'Project Sirius' is throwing up. 2 streams of Officers - the 'Exec' high flyers, and the rest. Exec stream being those destined for higher things
(an official version of what is usually known unofficially in any Branch) who will do the 2 yr postings. The rest to do longer in posts, possible 'regional' posting (for the stability), lower ceiling for promotion, but quality of life improved (can you see this as a chance to reduce the entitlement for quarters?). Movement between each stream is possible (so they say).
Loads more - it was presented to the RAF Board, who sent it away for more work. A small cabal who sit in the corner of Manning are doing this work - not even engaging with Deskies to se the implications. Really depressing changes being floated.

[vecvechookattack]

Quote:
Of course you can. You don't have to accept a posting. No one is forcing you.
Naivety is alive and well.

When you are given a new assignment on JPA you have to tick the box accepting the new assignment. If you do not want to accept the assignment order then back onto the front page of JPA there is a box which will allow you to refrain from accepting any further assignments. Tick that box and you no longer have to accept any further assignment orders. You will also see your flying pay reduce.

The point is, we are all volunteers - no press gangs here. If you don t want the job then go and find a different one.

[serf]

So, should it be an assignment suggestion and not an order?

[Ron Manager]

When you are given a new assignment on JPA you have to tick the box accepting the new assignment. If you do not want to accept the assignment order then back onto the front page of JPA there is a box which will allow you to refrain from accepting any further assignments. Tick that box and you no longer have to accept any further assignment orders. You will also see your flying pay reduce.

Well you learn something every day, and apparently the only downside to refusing an assignment "order" is the loss of flying pay that I don't get. So I never have to move again. Thanks VVHA, I'll let my desk officer know that I'm happy where I am and even if he wants to move me, I don't have to go. :E

[Whenurhappy]

Has anyone had any dealing with CEAS? I have been in long communication with them over an entitlement matter and in spite of numerous emails, letters, faxes and telephone calls, I have had no substative reponse. A case was put up for senior school boarding rate from my son in Year 7, but it was dismissed over the phone on the grounds of 'you should have picked a cheaper school' which completely ignored the independent recommendations forwarded to them (and also an incorrect assumption). It is clear that the CEAS have a mandate to save money irrespective of the argument.

Similarly, prior to moving abroad on yet another overseas posting we asked for advice on suitability of schools for our daughter (6) - there being no BFS or other English-language schools in this location. The advice was 'find a school and send us the invoice'. No added value. Anyone else have experience of them?

[Could be the last?]

W,

Going through something similar at the moment, PM me and I will try and explain the process!!!

[Tracey Island]

Erm...I thought the whole reason MoD postings were INVOLSEP was due to the cost of providing SFA in Central London? So, when I return from another Optour in the middle of 2011 and head off to Town, can I look forward to a swanky SSFA perhaps near SW1A? Oh hang on a mo, there's the 50 mile ruling which means we can move to a married patch somewhere nowhere near where I actually work and face a commute of about an hour each way...the RNHQ and RAFHQ chaps would be far better staying put and saving the Queen's money...but something must be seen to be done to curb these expenses...even if it costs more.:ugh: Brilliant, I love it when a plan comes together!!!

[general all rounder]

I think you have missed the subtlety. You will no longer be INVOLSEP so you will want SFA to get CEA. The 50 mile rule will mean they can make you stay at SFA at HQ AIR or PJHQ. If you are already posted to HQ AIR or PJHQ (an dets don't count because your family stays put) you will not move house and therefore you will not be able to claim CEA anyway. As the change also means that entitlement can be withdrawn if you do not remain mobile it means that CEA will essentially be unclaimable if you are an officer who wants a career beyond unit level (ie a series of HQ and MOD tours). As personnel who are only interested in unit level careers will increasingly be limited to one unit anyway - voila, you have effectively removed CEA at a stroke without looking as though you have. The other thing to watch out for is what they will do to Home to Duty (Public). EG having forced you to stay in one SFA and commute they will then also give you less in allowances to help pay the cost.

[Climebear]

Already mentioned at post #12.

Looks as if it will affect the light blue
more than Naval Service and Army as HW is within 50 miles of both MOD MB and PJHQ.

Unless we start rusticating staff appointments at wg cdr and above so that 50% of them are away from the SE.

[Bowsprit]

I'm hearing several stories of cea eligibility being questioned/entitlement removed. In some cases, extremely large bills being presented.

Anyone know what is reallly going on here?

[Nomorefreetime]

I'm doing Handbreak house at parent unit this week to resubmit my Mobility Cert. 3 Units in 5 years, hopefully no problems, will let you know if any issues.

[Whenurhappy]

I heard the other day of a scam on a large Army unit where the RAO quietly settled out the 'extras' bill received each term. Apparently this has been a widespread practice which is under investigation.

Further to the changes highlighted above, remember that SofS has called for a wider review of CEA which is due to report 'shortly'.

[Pontius Navigator]

As personnel who are only interested in unit level careers will increasingly be limited to one unit anyway - voila, you have effectively removed CEA at a stroke without looking as though you have.

And therein lies the catch.
Assumption:

All aircrew will remain at one unit for the duration.

The Practice:

Aircrew and manay engineers remain on one type for the duration

However who would have predicted the Harrier move from Yeovilton to Cottesmore? The F3 move to Leuchars? The FJTS move to Coningsby? The Jaguar move from Coltishall?

Swapping between Benson and Odiham or Lyneham and Brize fall well inside the 50 mile rule but who would want a daily commute of 60+ miles via Reading?

Yes, some will remain static through the main period of an aircraft's life in service but others will be caught at either end and neither end it evry guaranteed to be fixed. That is the main raison d'etre for aircrew on one type getting CEA no matter how unlikely that they will remain static.

PS

And not to forget the staff officers at rusticated locations.

[Trim Stab]

an aircraft's life in service but others will be caught at either end and neither end it evry guaranteed to be fixed.


But one uprooting in a career is hardly justification for full CEA is it?

[Pontius Navigator]

But one uprooting in a career is hardly justification for full CEA is it?

Trim Stab, and therein lies the financier's arguement.

The issue is not one uprooting in in a career but one uprooting in a child's critical education.

Stating the bleedin obvious, CEA is only payable for short periods of one's career that coincide with specific periods of a child's education.

Now there are several stages the most critical being the GCSE stage and the A-level stage. Less critical and more career induced is the primary period when postings to places where there are inadequate primary schools is the issue.

It would be tempting to freeze postings during the two secondary stages, with postings occuring between the two, but this could delay staff courses and disrupt posting patterns for other people too.

The availability of CEA removes the excuse of 'can't accept that posting because . . . '

It really is going round the same buoy time after time - flexibility of employment and against the disruption of the child's future. The countries best interest is to ensure the education of its future citizens.

[Brown Job]

How on earth could an RAO do that; with most schools' bills being well above the allowance there is normally no scope for an SP to claim extras.

[LFFC]

Army and Navy officers in fraud inquiry (http://www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/news/cornwall_news/8848858.Army_and_Navy_officers_in_fraud_inquiry/?ref=rss)


A total of 16 service personnel are under investigation for fraud over allowances for children at a Penzance school.

A Royal Navy lieutenant commander, an Army lieutenant colonel and at least one other officer are among those under investigation.

The investigation surrounds the alleged misuse of the Continuity of Education Allowance, which is worth up to £5,833 each term for children who board.

It is alleged some claimants have cheated the taxpayer out of up to £20,000 through misuse of the allowance.

Ouch.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Ouch

They wont be the last you can bet that. The scrutiny has started on CEA.

[Pontius Navigator]

I hear one way that people are bending the rules.

You apply for boarding allowance and you place your child in boarding at a nearby school. The school bills you the full boarding fees and you claim your allowance.

The fraud arises because little Johnny is collected every night and taken back to school the next day and is effectively a day-boarder.

It would be argued however that Daddy and Mummy may be detached at short notice or posted and Johnny would then become a full-time boarder.

As I have heard it, there is nothing improper done by the school and the only financial advantage to the parent is the placement of Johnny in a private school. Rule bending rather than outright fraud?

I don't have access to the full rules but I think what I have outlined is not strictly within the rules.

[SirToppamHat]

Schools are certainly becoming more flexible about boarding. When we first started, the school was 75 mins away (closest we've ever been), making weekly boarding possible but it simply wasn't available. The kids came home some weekends but not others, especially when they were younger. All at parents' expense of course, and no pecuniary advantage obtained. Now there's flexi-boarding where kids opt in and out on an ad hoc basis (2-4 nights a week) - must be a nightmare to administer. Remember also that in most secondary boarding schools, the children are in school 6 days each week.

If you claim for CEA (Boarding), I don't believe there is any laid-down limit on the number of nights the child actually has to stay in the school; I guess the offence occurs when the monies claimed are not passed-on to the school. That would presumably require some sort of positive action to achieve the 'receipting' of the Invoices for submission to the CEA Clerk each Term.

On the couple of occasions the kids have come home sick for a week or so, there has been no requirement to inform the CEA Clerk that I am aware of, and no refund from the school for nights away.

Edited to add that, as a Claimant, the MOD is becoming increasingly difficult to claim allowances from; perhaps that's part of the strategy?

[Scuttled]

Generally speaking then, is it time up for CEA?

If the personnel mentioned in the newspaper article on this thread are found to have claimed fraudulently (big if), then it will be really damaging to those of us claiming legitimately. The press will be all over it obviously, what with all the cuts in frontline military capability and pay freezes.

Will they just cut the allowance with a term's notice?

Will they increase the parental contribution? I cannot afford this at all on an overseas posting with a now unemployed wife, greatly reduced LOA and less than half my mortgage covered by the rent in the UK.

Will they allow those claiming it to continue but stop it for those not already claiming it?

......or will they just police it more vigourously?

I'm getting tired of my terms and conditions being eroded. Worrying times for some of us.

[SirToppamHat]

Have a look at the latest attempt at consultation - I've never seen a survey like it. Removing it completely for those not in receipt is one option as is increasing the parental contribution (tantamount to the same thing I believe).

It's worth a look even if you don't complete it, but only available on the Intranet.

What surprised me was the way the Questions were asked, in the form of "indicate on a sliding scale whether you would rather pay £1000 more or have the allowance withdrawn for those not already in receipt."

Of course paying more for it simply changes it from an all ranks alllowance to one which is available only for wg cdrs/gp capts and above.

[MaroonMan4]

I do feel sorry for those genuine CEA claimants left behind in the wake of the the Prime Minister's cuts (and let's be honest here we can attempt to hold the civil serpents, or Dr FOx or either the Chancellor responsible for the lowest service morale for 2 generations - my once serving father talked of very poor officer morale in the 70s).

This moral covenant is also all smoke and mirrors - what exactly is Government of the day legally bound to do for service personnel? Tip up in parliament and 'report' - is that it?

But back to this thread and CEA, and I only have one more term to see through before I am out of the system (in more ways than one!)......but what I cannot fathom out is:

1. What will replace the current system that allows the relevant personnel agencies of each service the flexibility to move people around when each service requires it?
2. The very weighted and one sided questionaire that gives no choice or scope to add free text (and statistics carefully manipulated by the organisation commissioning the survey can demonstrate any side of the argument).
3. Before the 'survey' was sent out the respondents had absolutely no knowledge of the alternatives that were available:
- Has the MOD and Dept of Education agreed to relax catchment areas for serving personnel to enable service children to stay with friends and relatives?
-When service families do leave their children with friends and family to ensure continuity of education through key academic years, who will be paying for accommodation and lodging?
- Once the tour of duty is complete away from their 'home super base' can the children stay at the state school, outside of their parents catchment area even though their parents have moved back into the area (but out side of the catchment area of the school where the friends/relatives live).
-For some large garrison or station locations has the Local Education Authorities been consulted on the possible mass influx of service children?
- Will service families be forced to send their children to military schools and will these schools have a military system in place (this works for some parents, but others want their children as far a way as possible from the military for their education)?
- What is the current OFSTED status of some of the military schools on offer (loaded question).
- As per the CEA survey option, is it recognised that increasing the contribution will remove the eligibility for some ranks, and be deviscive through the services?
- Is there recognition in those that set the questions in the survey that leaving a wife to look after a children at your nominated base location will after the average 22/16 year career result in many marriage breakdowns, on top of the stress caused by operational tours and the current reduction in allowances.
- Is the Depmartment of Edloucation confident that an MOD payment of around £200-£250 per service child is enough to ensure the increase in resources and infrastructure required by some state schools in the proximity of (for example) Brize, Salisbury Plain, Colchester, Catterick etc?
- If service families no longer declare themselves mobile and the children are in key stages of education (GCSEs/A Levels) can they legally remain in post until after the children's exams have been completed?
- Once the personnel department has told the service family that they are no longer mobile then does that mean that they can no longer be given short notice (often global) postings or does the service lose that flexibility?
- What happens when a service claimant's mobility is removed, then reinstated, then removed (all feasible now under the new rules) - what happens to the child (into boarding school, out of boarding school, into boarding school?)
- Why wasn't the MOD's own specialist CEA 'advisory service' not been consulted by DASA (the MOD's own statistical analysis agency) in ensuring a fair, unbiased, apolitical and rationale process (not just sliding scales of statistical weighting software).
- How much did the DASA CEA cost the MOD or was it paid for by the Treasury?

Now if I were a service parent about to sit down and complete a CEA questionnaire with such importance for my future family and education of my children, then the above questions are but a few that I would ask.

What the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the myriad of Civil Servants beavering away to rush through cuts to hit financial targets are forgetting is that unlike the Private Sector, and elements of the Public Sector, the nation's military relies on the conceptual component of fighting power, as well as the physical.

If this is the aim, and the best of the UK's military minds and workforce are forced to leave (or opt to leave due to eroded pay and conditions) then the military will not only have no equipment, but when called for duty and to lay down their lives will be missing that unquantifiable and hidden (to the treasury and those that have never experienced it) values that this Government will go down in history as removing.

Never has the world been so unstable and yet the nation's military is retreating into an isolationist shell.

Let's hope that the same lesson after the 1920s depression are not painfully re-learned again in the next few decades.
I have, and CEAS deny all accountability for the survey and have absolutely no idea what will replace it or how the (non) mobility of service personnel will be managed by each service in the future.

Good luck to all those genuinely claiming and still left in when all this is over.

[Greenielynxpilot]

If this is the aim, and the best of the UK's military minds and workforce are forced to leave (or opt to leave due to eroded pay and conditions)

Maroon Man -

In this statement, you fall into the same trap as every other apologist for CEA, in supposing that it is somehow meritocratic, or that it rewards talent. This is rubbish.

There is absolutely no correlation between a service person's individual preferences about the merits of a state or private education and his/her ability to do their job well.

In fact, my experience of CEA claimants is overwhelmingly the reverse ... mediocre officers who remain trapped in posts that give them no joy, and to which they add no value, but benefiting from a rewards package far, far greater than the singlies working alongside them. That is why CEA is under threat ... and will continue to be so until Defence starts to pay people what they are worth, not what it costs them to fund a lifestyle they think they are entitled to.

[MaroonMan4]

Greenie Lynx Pilot,

You confuse one sentence that potentially goes off thread with a wider observation on the decline of service personnel terms and conditions, with the fundamental main point with the current situation in the ambiguous state of the future education of service children and a recent very dubious software driven survey by an MOD agency.

As to any correlation about merits of public/state education - don't be daft, of course there are some extremely good state schools (I know because I went to one).

Your wider point about increasing the value and worth of service personnel and adjusting their Ts&Cs is certainly nothing to do with CEA, and if in your environment you have that mediocre contingent then I feel sorry for you. I do not work in such an environment, infact the opposite, I work with some exceptionally talented people that sacrifice alot as a 'servant of the crown' but they do so knowing that their wife and children are cared for.

The big point I was making was by all means remove CEA, more than happy with that - but before the MOD starts commissioning statistical surveys from one of it's agencies that it should inform the service parents of the alternatives. The MOD cannot have it's cake and eat it, it cannot remove mobility for a couple of years, and then all of a sudden request a posting away from home base if the child is half way through key academic stages.

This my friend is the concerns of any service family, and not a mediocre work force.

Once the MOD has told service families what it proposes to replace CEA, then Greenie all of your mediocre work makes that you believe have the misfortune to be 'trapped' can all make an informed decision about how they want their families brought up.

It still will not get you a pay rise though!

[Scuttled]

GLP - Please answer the below and tell me my way ahead.

In simple terms......

I'm on an accompanied overseas tour. I'm here because HMG wanted me here. Allowances I based my decision to accept the job on have been slashed by several hundreds of pounds, net, per month. It's painful. Bit off topic, but still.

My 15 year old child is at boarding school in the UK. What would you have me do - should I have taken him overseas a year or so ago at the start of his GCSE critical period because my employer wants me here?

CEA is there for mobility and flexible employment of personnel. I'm not sure I agree with it for primary school age offspring, but for older children it is really important.

What am I meant to do if it is discontinued? I doubt they would chop it mid-tour/claim, but who knows. What should I do then?

Thanks.

[Whenurhappy]

Green Lynx Pilot,

I think that you are out of order.

As with Scuttled, I am in an interesting non-traditional post abroad working in an international environment - not on a Garrison or PJOB, not on a US base, indeed not even near a city of any particular merit. It is remote, there are no suitable English-language schools nearby (indeed the closest International School is in another country) and UK boarding is the only realistic option (which costs us an absolute packet, as well). I would like to think that I am not mediocre and that my son is getting an education that he is entitled to and that I am serving HMG's interests aborad. If not, this post wouldn't exist.

PS: GLP - were you beaten up by a Public School boy in an earlier life?


Brown Job:

The investigation is looking how the 'extras bills' were being swallowed up and ascribed to some other budget area...ie no parental contribution

[Greenielynxpilot]

If your employer needs you to be in a location that is incompatible with your family commitments, then the compensation package for that appointment should, quite properly, be sufficient to allow that care to be provided in some other way - by all means through boarding if that flicks your switch.

However, most of the posters on this, and other threads, are at pains to stress the C in CEA ... continuity. This, they argue, justifies an expensive perk for all service personnel who might, at any point in their children's education, be employed in a location as described above; for this, they expect their lifestyle choice and personal aspirations to be funded by someone else, in some cases for more than a decade.

This is a very expensive way for the MOD to buy flexibility and mobility in its workforce. Right now, expensive is not something we can afford. Also, the flip side of "expensive for the MOD" translates directly to "valuable to the employee". It is this additional, and unmerited benefit that accrues to some employees, based not on their talent but on their proclivity to breed and their aspiration for a private education for their spawn, which annoys me (and not some imagined beating I ever took at the hands of some toff).

Many people pay for a private education for their children out of their net income - and hats off to them. Bleating that it should be the service that foots the bill, or that it is the service who is the real beneficiary of this scheme when the reality is quite patently the reverse in a great many cases, smacks of public sector largesse and officials with their noses in the trough. MPs expenses, anyone?

If CEA really was just a compensatory allowance, then surely any claimant could easily sell their labour on the open market to any other employer who would be more than willing to offer a comparable rewards package to allow similar lifestyle choices to be funded from net income, right? The phrase "boarding school trap" would have absolutely no salience. And, most telling of all, no one would be on this forum bleating about the loss of an allowance which is little more than a fair compensation for their working conditions, and which any other employer would match - either explicitly or by some other proxy such as higher pay. Thought not.

[Whenurhappy]

GLP,

You raise an interesting point - ie private education made available when required when it is in the interests of the Service. However, that is not the same as provision of continuity of education, which is the stated aim of the allowance. My son, for example, has been boarding for 2 1/2 years now; in that time I have served in London and two consecutive overseas posts (part of an all-too complicated posting jigsaw). However if I were to return to the UK if this post goes (quite apart from my stated desire to leave) my son would then be obliged to leave his school as he approaches a critical period, providing no continuity whatsoever.

This is the change in the new regulations: yes - boarding school will be part-funded when there are no practical maintained school alternatives; otherwise, loss of continuity will arise, therefore punishing the children because of decisions made about the career of one (or both) of their parents. The 'new' regulations are about providing subsitute schooling and not about providing continuity.

Clearly it was Grammar School Boy who stole your lunch money!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Not sure why GLP is getting such a hard time for stating the bleedin obvious.

Those of you who have a genuine and real need of CEA in it's present format are going to be gang raped by the bean counters because of the plethora of thieving pikeys who have been claiming CEA when they know full well they have more chance of becoming Pope than they have of being posted :=

[adminblunty]

Civil Servants don't make all the decisions about CEA, these people probably do have some input into the decision making process, I only see one Civil Servant on the list:

MoD Publishes Military Covenant Report | Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/12/mod-publishes-military-covenant-report/)

Service Personnel Directors
Major-General Andrew Gregory, DG Pers, Army
Air Cdre Dan Hill, Head of Strategy and Programmes, DCDS (PERS)
Lt General Mark Mans, Adjutant General
Commodore Michael Mansergh, Director Navy Personel
Air Vice-Marshal David Murray, ACDS (PERS)
Group Captain Paul O‟Neill, DACOS Pers Strat, RAF
Wg Cdr D J Read, Pensions Compensation and Veterans, MOD
Lt Gen Sir Bill Rollo, DCDS (PERS), and former Adjutant General
Grp Capt Carol Smith, DCDS Pers-SCW-AFW Asst Head
Tracey Vennai, Deputy Head, Pensions Compensation and Veterans, MOD
Commodore Simon Williams, Director Naval Personnel Strategy
Squadron-Leader Jason Chalk, DCDS PERS-PM-SO2

I'm sure a trawl through the DII Global address list for DCDS Pers will show a large number of military personnel in influential positions.

[minigundiplomat]

I'm guessing Jason Chalk sorts out the tea and biccies.

[Really annoyed]

Just like you open and close the door for your customers. Somebody has to do the menial tasks in life.

[Compressorstall]

Well, it would be unlike the MOD to institute a policy they haven't thought through carefully...

Clearly this will also mean an end to the calls from the Desk Officer for the short-notice posting due to the 'Service Need' catch-all? The allowances had inherent flexibility in them so that families could feel that there was at least an attempt to maintain quality if life, if it all become harder to acquire due to increased stringency in the rules, then the Desk Officers must come under equal scrutiny. I have never really had any career management, but this will become vital in the post SDSR RAF.

[Scuttled]

Lordy. What a lot of wordy posts.

Simply, because I like it that way and we can all follow/argue about it more easily.

Me.

Joined up very young, airman 16, silly as I was and made nco (young again), was keen went nca did ok and got promoted in that too, went commissioned back end - hopefully still useful- have done ooa tours often, like most, and am doing something interesting now. Been around, wife moved mostly, but not every time. Overseas again. Didn't get hitched at 18 to the love of my life (!) to be apart for prolonged periods. I'm now still useful to my employer, yet due to my, erm, career path, not a very senior bloke.

Signed on to 55. I've no intention of leaving. Redundancy scares the sh1t out of me. Honestly. The RAF has had all I have got, good enough or not, and to give my chosen employer that, all I have asked extra is 5 years of cea on a 37 year engagement so that my boy has a decent chance to do well in life. Not through public school snobbery (please....) but continuity in the most important educational years he has.

So, 37 years commitment (and I am committed) for an extra 80K or so. Is that wrong, am I asking too much? I have pledged my entire working life to the service I still, unfashionably, love.

There you go. Heart on my sleeve. Shoot me down.

[Whenurhappy]

I'm not sure that re-publishing the names of those officers is particularly helpful, nonetheless I know four of them quite well (2 of them very well) and I know that they are familiar with the system that we are discussing - also several are unmarried and don't have children - and have not served overseas except on short-term detachments, unaccompanied of course. Most of the RAF are of the old Admin (Sec) Branch, too. AVM Murray is a particularly interesting chap, especially given his family background - father was Gen Sec of the TUC in the 1980s.

[Nomorefreetime]

Advice needed please

What documents do you need to provide to have next terms fees authorised?
My unit need a copy of last terms fees plus a copy of the next terms fees.
My school does not usually release next terms fee until a week before the end of term. If this is the norm why has the claim window already been open for a while. It does not help now being wet, muddy soon to be hot and dusty located. Handbrake house's words were 'Your wife cant bring in the bill when you receive it' would love to but there would be a 150 mile travel claim going in to support it.

Thanks in advance

[Climebear]

My unit admin (AGC(SPS)) just need a receipted copy of the previous term's bill.

Edited to add that I have just checked the JSP (JSP752, Chapter 9, Section 1, Annex E, Sub-para 1d) the current original bill is pnly required if SENA or admissible extras are being claimed, otherwise it is the receipt from the previous term.

Other docs required are

A valid CEA Eligibility certificate.

If there is an increase in school fees, a statement from the school.

Details of any childcare vouchers being used.

[Whenurhappy]

A call to the school Bursar and they will provide you a 'draft' invoice for next term's fees and a receipted copy of your previous term.

Because of my remote location I receive scanned copies from teh school to my hotmail account which I forward to my parenting unit - which accepts them, because of teh difficulties in getting ahrd copies in a realistic timeframe.

Separately, it is certainly worth asking the school to increase the level of MOD Bursary if you are finding it financially tight.

[Nomorefreetime]

Cheers Guys

It must be Rompers Green admin then. I've only been claiming it for 6 years and always run in to hastles with this, also try explaining to them I never did that at my previous unit. Visit to the chief clerk on return me thinks

[Could be the last?]

For those that may be re-considering the CEA,

As a result in the changes in allowances and CEA regs, the system is now prepared to allow parents/servicemen to remove their children from boarding school without recovery action being taken against them. Check the latest DINs.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

For those that may be re-considering the CEA,

As a result in the changes in allowances and CEA regs, the system is now prepared to allow parents/servicemen to remove their children from boarding school without recovery action being taken against them. Check the latest DINs.

Not sure why they would need to make that concession as surely everyone who is in reciept of CEA is fully entitled to it...............or are they making the statement that they know full well half those claiming it are nowt more than thieving pikeys who are milking the system but what the heck and to save on the prosecution fees heres your "one shot get out of jail free card" :=

Would love to see the stats on how many folk are suddenly having a change of heart over this :p

[SirToppamHat]

I saw this a couple of weeks back in the form of a 'T-Letter'. As I recall, the announcement is the result of changes elsewhere in the regs that mean pers posted to MOD may not have the opportunity to be 'accompanied' because the system is so f***ed-up, but whereas previously they were considered 'involuntarily' unaccompanied, that is now no longer the case, so the entitlement to CEA ceases at one-term's notice. In light of this, the changes to CEA are now catching up with reality.

Seeing that they will shortly be screwed by the system, some people are electing to withdraw from the scheme at their own (and their kids own) convenience rather than waiting to be bankrupted or simply having the rug pulled from under them. This goes against one of the principles of the scheme - that people can't opt in and out as it suits, hence the necessity for a change of policy. I understand that in some circumstances, people may be able to opt back in to the system.

The lunatics have finally taken over the asylum.

If I read it right, one of the reasons we are in this mess is that there is an inadequate number of FQs in London to enable personnel to serve 'accompanied'.

Just coming back to Nomorefreetime's point, I have never been asked to provide an estimate for the following term's fees; however, I have
been asked to provide evidence that mychild has a place when starting a new school and/or moving from one stage of education to the next.

STH

[Red Line Entry]

STH,

Don't follow your comment that:

"pers posted to MOD may not have the opportunity to be 'accompanied'".

I fully agree that the invol sep rule change for MB will drive people to require non-existant FQs in the London area, but as this is an entitlement, surely SSFA will have to be paid to find hirings on the local market?

As long as they are willing to follow the flag (and if not then they shouldn't be getting CEA anyway), I don't understand why you say they "may not have the opportunity"?

[Could be the last?]

My understanding of the letter and the DIN is that the system knows that many have, due to the reduction in allowances, suddenly found themselves questioning the affordability of the CEA.

I for one have had to rehash my finances to take into account the 30% reduction in LOA and the 100% reduction in spousal income!!! Maybe its not all about those working in 'Town'!!

[SirToppamHat]

RLE

MOD was one of the examples given when my OF5 briefed the SDSR Allowances changes, and it was met with a general question about what the MOD was going to do about the lack of FQs in London - I think those with an interest could see that the whole thing would fall apart if all those entitled to FQs in the London area demanded them. The only reason the entitlement hadn't been squeezed previously was that the status quo suited all concerned - the cost of additional FQs (or more likely SSFA) would/will be far in excess of the likely savings in CEA.

STH

[Blighter Pilot]

Simple question regarding London and MB:-

Does the FQ/SSFA/hiring bill for all the Service personnel posted to MOD come to more than the cost of CEA for those who were entitled to claim as INVOLSEP?

If it does then there is simple solution - keep INVOLSEP status or provide more cost-effective FQ within the London area.

:mad:

[Nomorefreetime]

According to the Current Bun today, I'm a senior officer. Where's my staff car and driver, I need to go to the school today.

[Pontius Navigator]

Nomorefreetime, your not a separated dark blue Cdr are you? I believe he may have a chauffer driven car for a little while.

[Could be the last?]

I keep hearing that the system is considering further changes to the CEA; can anyone expand on this?

Also, as I do not have relatives or a suitable guardian capable of transporting my children to an airhead, I pay the school to escort them. Obviously the school do not do this for free and charge me a small fee for the service. However, I have been informed that as well as my personnel contribution to the transport of the children increasing (50 - 100miles), I can't claim the fee charged by the school. Has anyone else encountered this or know of ways legitimately around this rule? There also seems to be some confusion by my PSF as to whether or not I pay the contribution for each child or in total? They are particularly unhelpful and I seem to get the clks interpretation of the rules as opposed to a definitive. What do others do?

It certainly appears that the system is trying to make this process as difficult as possible, to ensure indiviuals just give up and stop claiming.

[Biggus]

I believe the changes to CEA are due to be announced soon, no doubt published in some obscure DIN that you have to go hunting for...

I seem to remember reading 12 July as a publication date, but my memory, like most of my body (and spelling) is deteriorating with age, and since I no longer claim CEA, my child having finished full time education, I no longer have any personal interest in the world of CEA to focus the attention - sorry!!

[Nomorefreetime]

Negative, I'm light blue although I haven't worn blue No2's for a while.

[Lima Juliet]

Latest RAF IBN today details Project SIRIUS - the officers career stream. What does it mean?

Officers at Sqn Ldr and above will elligible for selection to the "Executive Stream" (ES) if they are to attend Advanced Staff College (ASC) from Sep 11. If they have attended ASC in the past and are 0-5yrs senior in rank they will automatically chop to the ES and if they have 5-9yrs they will be reviewed on a case by case basis. For the rest of the Sqn Ldr+ "has beens" they join the "Main Stream" (MS).

ES will get tours of 3years or less and MS will get 3years+ tours.

So why post this on a CEA thread? Well, how are manning going to state that a MS officer is 50% likely to posted within 4 years, when under these rules they will not? QED - effectively, immobile and then not entitled to CEA...more money saved.

To spell it out - only those Sqn Ldrs and above that have attended Advanced Staff College will be likely to get CEA from 1 Sep 11 under Project SIRIUS. :ugh:

This is just one of the reasons why I will be submitting my resignation of my regular commission with an application for Early Termination in the next fortnight (also a lack of suitable SFA in the London area is another reason).

Who knows, maybe this is what they want? But I doubt that the ES officers that came up with this plan are that intelligent!

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

nomorefreetime, you missed the irony. In yesterday's Torygraph was then news of an RN Commander being court martialed for claiming £75,000 for CEA to which he was not eligible.

He separated and did not have responsibility for his children but continued to claim for 13 term's worth of fees.

[Nomorefreetime]

Saw it late last night, was on school run yesterday, good job I've only got one more school year left. Get away from it before it gets even harder to claim

[Whenurhappy]

Has anyone seen the 'report on CEA' that was due to be released on 12 July?

I am connected to the UK by a damp piece of string and we are often overlooked when DINs, IBNs etc are distributed.

Note to self: Must investigfate how to have my son educated at Eton gratis, as per the 'article' in the Sun last week. Or perhaps the Army have different CEA rules..........

[Excommunicator]

Whenur,
I was told yesterday that this was a "no than earlier" date for the announcement. I believe (from other sources) that CEA is remaining for the timebeing; check your PMs for details.

[FODPlod]

Note to self: Must investigfate how to have my son educated at Eton gratis, as per the 'article' in the Sun last week. Or perhaps the Army have different CEA rules.......... According to the media's warped view, you will only stand a chance if you are a 50+ year-old member of the 'Top Brass' (despite the fact that your children are likely to be in their mid to late 20s by then). If you are a typical 18-25 year-old private or corporal equivalent, you won't have a snowball's of putting your boarding school-aged children through Eton because the 'class-based rules' won't let you. Anyone see some anomalies here?

In reality, it seems the scheme is being 'exploited' by middle-ranking officers, WOs and senior NCOs who are typically in the 30-45 year age range and tend to be more mobile in their postings. I can't think why, can you?

[VinRouge]

This sirius thing... one point i am sure the blunty bean counters havent missed. A non executive stream sqn ldr will now potentially face a 20% pay cut in one of their 4+ year uber tours from year 3 onwards.

Are they frikking insane? Do they really expect an aircrew mate to put themselves forward for a 20 % pay cut together with writing annuals and all the other bollocks that goes with promotion?

The lunatics are surely running the asylum.

[Whenurhappy]

The Armed Forces Minister has just released the report on CEA. A bit of a damp squib - no real changes - esxcept that you can't enrol your kids just for the 6 Form now...

Here's the MOD link.

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Review of Continuity of Education Allowance concludes (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ReviewOfContinuityOfEducationAllowanceConcludes.htm)

[Lima Juliet]

Not such a damp squib...

I left the RAF today over this. I had put my daughter through prep school for the past 5 years expecting CEA to kick in for her next 8 years following a year of full time boarding funded by me.

But no, having lived in my house for just 4 years I need to move house. The OMQ they offer me are 15 mins further away in commute time (door to door) than where I currently live ( 1hr 10mins), but I have to move to be entitled. So a new OMQ will cost me £9k to realise £12k in CEA and a commute 15 minutes further for a high end posting in MOD - where's the sense in that? Hence I PVR'd and I retire today with a gratuity that will pay for my sibling's schooling until University - madness!:ugh:

Thank goodness my Boss is a fantastic bloke who may be able to influrence this madness in 5 years time when he is a 2 star!

Better than the Sqn Ldr air trafficker that I spoke to tonight that is in position to influence VSO opinion and has no idea about what the RAF needs and what Airpower is all about - no wonder we're f*cked when non-operators are put in positions of influence!

LJ

Per Adua - let's hope so :(

Sent on my iPhone

[Lima Juliet]

PS. Happy to have a flat iNVOLSEP in London or an OMQ closer to MOD than I currently live. The system could offer me neither. So I would either lose CEA, drop my kiddy out of school, move to further away or pay for her with my pension - no brainer really, I just pity those less fortunate than I that can't!

LJ

[Scuttled]

Absolutely crazy situation Leon.

Were you, perhaps, quite happy to go anyway? I mean was there no chance of an alternate posting elsewhere for example?

Just playing Devils Advocate, I'm curious.

[Whenurhappy]

I meant 'damp squib' compared with the changes announced earlier this year - INVOLSEP &c.

It would be interesting to know (cue PQ) how much more it has cost to hire SSFA around London, to accommodate those personnel required now to move with their families to ensure continuity for those children in receipt of CEA, compared with CEA savings. Bugg#er all, I suspect.

[xenolith]

It would be interesting to know (cue PQ) how much more it has cost to hire SSFA around London, to accommodate those personnel required now to move with their families to ensure continuity for those children in receipt of CEA, compared with CEA savings. Bugg#er all, I suspect.

Null point I fear, different budgets!:hmm:

[Lima Juliet]

How could I ask for a different posting? I would immediately become non-mobile and ineligible for CEA!

LJ

[Whenurhappy]

I was chatting to some colleagues the other day - there is an interesting paradox now emerging: Overseas posting are no longer that keenly sought after - reduced allowance package etc. But Mongstream officers are now not so keen to return to UK because if they are put in a longer post in Blighty (as proposed) their CEA is jeopordised, thus I beleive that some are asking to extend in the various career-dead NATO appointments!

Oooh, that's a saving!

[LFFC]

MoD bows to Forces pressure not to cut boarding school allowance (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8825167/MoD-bows-to-Forces-pressure-not-to-cut-boarding-school-allowance.html)

With a huge dose of bitterness from the Telegraph:

Mr Cameron was told by his former schoolmate who is now Director of Special Forces that cutting CEA would have a “devastating” effect on morale and prevent his sons attending Eton.

However, the new problem is that:

The MoD is now faced with having to find cuts from elsewhere after it promised in the defence review to cut the Forces total £800 million allowance package by £250 million.

So standby for another sha£ting!

[Ken Scott]

The MoD is now faced with having to find cuts from elsewhere after it promised in the defence review to cut the Forces total £800 million allowance package by £250 million.

It wouldn't be a saving from the allowances budget but the amount in question is not that far removed from what the MOD is paying/ has paid to squeeze all the AT fleet into one station despite the astounding silliness of the move which is now coming home to roost as the Oxfordshire residents pile on the pressure to stop anyone doing any training in the Brize circuit.

Then there's the cost of Project Future Lyneham......

'Different budgets' I know but I'm sick 'n' tired of hearing that expression, it's actually all one budget, the Defence Budget and until we look after it as a whole we'll never sort the mess out.

Still, at least my kids have finished school.....

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

How could I ask for a different posting? I would immediately become non-mobile and ineligible for CEA!

LJ

Thousands have been doing just that in Wilts and Oxon since time started, hence the much needed CEA changes, your bad luck is the fault of year upon year of Pikey thieving.

[Scuttled]

Leon,

Humour me, I've moved considerable distances when the time has come and so this situation has not come up for me. I am in receipt of cea.

I do not doubt that what you say is absolute fact and that the situation for you is what it is.

BUT. To clarify, you are saying there is no flex in the system so that even though you are moving further from your place of work and into an FQ which costs them to administrate and look after..... They still insisted that you move? Letting alone disturbance allowance payments etc? This is ridiculous.

I thought I fully understand mobility requirements. To use 2 bases (10 miles apart) as an example, does this mean that if I lived in Lossiemouth town in my own house whilst based at RAF Kinloss and then got posted to RAF Lossiemouth where there were no FQs, I could be allocated a house at RAF Kinloss and have to move and commute? Because that is bloody stupid.

Sorry if I am missing something obvious, I just don't understand how your situation was dealt with so inflexibly for the benefit of neither party.

[Lima Juliet]

Yes, you are on the money. I have lived in my house for 4 years and it is 1 hr 10 mins door to door to Main Building. I was posted to MOD and was told that I would not get another eligibility certificate unless I moved to Quarters. They offered me Biggin and Bushey and both are farther away than where I live in travelling time.:ugh:

I spoke to the LCpl in JSAW and she said there was nothing I could do - quarters or nothing.

Hence I became a Mr today!

LJ

[Scuttled]

I've never heard anything so stupidly inflexible in my life.

I feel like coming out in sympathy and also pvr-ing. Unfortunately I'm one short of the number of wings required by a civilian employer, so I'll be holding on by my finger nails whatever they throw at me. Good luck.

[Lima Juliet]

The thing that REALLY p!ssed me off is that my Mrs works in London and we would quite happily have taken a quarter within 45mins of Whitehall. I would even have taken a flat. I couldn't find anyone in the HIC at Aldershot who would help (it used to be High Wycombe until recently) - you can imagine how busy Aldershot HIC is with pongos on short 3 year "in and out" engagements.

So my gratuity now pays for my kid's school fees and my mortgage is paid by the pension. Anything I earn on top is now living expenses and pocket money :ok:

This CEA change of re-qualifying criteria and Project SIRIUS (the new officers' career streams) were the 2 biggest push factors for me. After 22 years the Service is barely recognisable to what I had joined and I see it getting worse before it gets better (if it ever does). If the senior leadership really are that bright to make it so bad for us middle ranked officers to "up and leave" then they have succeeded (I hear I am one of 18-odd that have PVRd this year from a cast of just under 400) - sadly for those that remain I suspect the seniors are not that bright (hence Tranche 2 is delayed whilst they let their brains catch up).

LJ