Does not qualify for Veteran benefits Capt Kim Fawcett

From day one,on basic, they fed us the horse sh** that we were COVERED 24/7. On duty, off duty, vacation, you name it.
Shame on the system, on CAF , on VAC, 'ministers', etc.
Sad state of affairs
People still joining? That new 'shit ...' in terms of deployment should be interestin.
I am just quoting some politicians with balls who used that term.
Who was it? do not remember now

This is truly sad to the point of sickening wrt modern-day military leadership and no surprise from VAC. What happened to the good old days when your supervisor (who actually gave a shit about you) had you sign a blank leave pass for those "just-in-case" times that shit went sideways like this? I long for those days and the sad part is the "new veterans" haven't a clue as to how much has been lost. Here's hoping Capt Fawcett's case gets the proper outcome it is due. I have forwarded this story on to some currently serving members as an example of the importance of a properly filled-out CF-100 Leave Pass. The same goes for a properly filled-out CF98 Report of Injury.


Rubicon

Yeah Bigrex....seems to be a system that does not treat everyone the same.

I agree, that it would be a long shot, but that is the only possible way I can see her even trying to link this to service. But I do have to say, that reading this, really triggered me, because I was diagnosed with moderate OA in my knee in December, as a result of an injury sustained in the Gulf, and that January, I was told that I was going to be medically released. I think it was a grand total of 40 days from diagnosis, and the 3B decision, which included the Christmas holidays. That was before they even tried seeing if it could be managed with medication, or corrective surgery. Yet this is the second time I've heard of soldiers, losing a leg in MVA's while off duty and not having any immediate career implications.

yup sad situation for sure . when it comes to ( d ) this has always revolved around a properly filled out leave pass . eg; Gagetown to cape Breton and back only on the travel dates on the leave pass only in the vehicle with the plate number on the leave pass . of cores if called back early with the use of the phone number on the leave pass you would be covered for your return by any appropriate means .

so if she had a leave pass she would be covered under " authorized leave " ( d ) im guessing she did not thus the denial . not saying she cannot make a case under ( d ) but im thinking not a good one and would eventually fail. im thinking however she may be able to get some assistance from war amps and maybe the legion .

propat

Reading (d) makes me think they are not talking about this captain's situ. And as a military member you must be ready 24/7 which means you are responsible for your children's childcare needs. It is not the military's responsibility for your childcare and you as the member must have someone on call to take your children immediately if you are deployed and do not have a care giver at home to care for your children.

I would agree with the military here, as much as I sympathize with this situation, I just don't see it being the military's fault. And if thè military is deemed responsible then the whole VWB Act would have to be rewritten to cover all soldiers 24/7 365 days of the year under VAC regardless of the circumstances. I really can't see that happening as the cost would be astronomical.

We have Sisip to help members not covered under VAC. Of course, it does not cover medical expenses. I don't know how much the military paid towards any prosthesis she has. Maybe they pay for a basic model while she is still in. Have no idea on that.

I have to agree with you, that this would not normally be approved, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them give her a compassionate award, without accepting responsibility for the injury.  But honestly, this should be something that should really be covered by her insurance, or the insurance of the truck driver that hit her.

But I bet her argument is going to revolve around this, from the NVC ( now called the Veterans Well Being Act) regulations

(d) the transportation of the member or veteran while on authorized leave by any means authorized by a military authority, other than public transportation, between the place at which the member or veteran normally performed duties and the place at which the member or veteran was to take leave or a place at which public transportation was available;

So her argument will likely be that she was going from her authorized place of leave (her home), and her place of employment, and was even authorized to place her child in childcare, in order to report to work. At least that would be how I would approach the case.

This is an interesting article. She is fighting for what would be veteran disability benefits for her prosthetic leg but does not qualify.

Now, while I sympathize with her situation including the loss of her baby, it is clear that she does not qualify for Veteran benefits. The accident that took her leg and took the life of her baby was not on military time. She was bringing her baby to her parents to be cared for while going on military duty. It was parental duties.

Now we know that if you are in a place like SDA you are covered 24/7 while in theatre. But you are not covered when you go home on leave. Likewise, in Canada you are not covered 24/7...only military duty. Taking her son to her parents is not military duty. If she wins the appeal then they would have to change the veterans act and make all soldiers covered 24/7 regardless of duty. And that won't happen nor do I think it should.

Thoughts anyone?



http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/after-a-crash-took-her-child-and-her-leg-air-force-officer-left-fighting-her-military-bosses