Proposal to reduce CAP death benefits

[Eclipse]

The above and similar examples in CAP are why it is constantly stressed to follow procedures to the letter and not get "creative" with anything.

Despite that we have people that make things up all over the place, and then are surprised when occasionally it comes back to biting someone
on the butt (or worse).

Being the first person denied benefits because they are out of uniform, or some other "trivial" detail is not a distinction anyone should be working towards.

[Ned]

In the end after the appeal process, is the final arbitration not handled by a DOL Hearing Officer? Do you know of any information resource with a history of FECA claims granted and/or denied?

Here is a good resource to start researching FECA:  Questions and Answers About the FECA published by the Department of Labor.  It covers the basics, including the appeals process.  Notice that it specifically includes CAP members in the answers.  There are a number of questions and answers about  "scope of duty", including a discussion about whether folks are covered while driving to/from duty assignments.

There are also links to other publications that cover FECA.

[Eclipse]

C-8.        Is an employee considered to be in performance of duty while going to and from work?
No.  Employees are not generally covered by the FECA for injuries which occur before they
reach the employer's premises or after they have left it.  However, coverage may be extended
when the employer provides transportation to and from work, when the employee is required to
travel during a curfew or an emergency, or when the employee is required to use his or her
automobile during the work day.

Suitably vague.

We've been wrestling with the question of whether or not issuing transport sorties does anyone any good.

One reg is pretty clear about transport to/from, yet that travel is still reimbursed for mission expenses, so the
reasoning was that signing in a member from home with a transport sortie grants them full protections.

I'm on the side that says "I don't think so..."

[RiverAux]

Being the first person denied benefits because they are out of uniform, or some other "trivial" detail is not a distinction anyone should be working towards.

Too late, already happened according to the CAP CD training program. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Lt Col XXXXX passed away today in a motor vehicle accident en route to Scanner/Observer training in Emporia. 
     
At this time, we have little information.  We ask for your patience.  As more information becomes available, and we are made aware of the details regarding his funeral services, we will pass that information on to you.

Commander, Kansas Wing

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in my wing all the practice SAREX's I've participated in (staffing the mission base) you sign in at mission base when you get there.  The aircraft get released with the crews via a formal telephone release (and could be at any location in the wing) BUT the vehicles (CAP owned and private) never get that release while enroute to the SAREX mission base.  This procedure doesn't sound right to me 

So perhaps the denial was because CAP doesn't have a good system during a SAREX to account for personnel that are enroute travelling to the training site/mission base site to initially sign in. (Shouldn't the procedure be the same for funded training as with actual missions with someone at a mission base/IC signing the individual in and authorizing the travel BEFORE they start their travel to the mission base (just as is done with aircraft)     I know when we leave mission base we have a telephone number to call when we arrive at our home destination safely.

I would think that IF one is driving their own private vehicle to training and had an accident, without having specific authority to go to it (e.g. you call first and get signed in when you are about to leave your residence to travel), than likely there won't be evidence to indicate coverage.  I would go as far to say that the authorization should not only be the mission number but also another control number (on the sign in sheet that is pre numbered) which is given to you at the time you call in.

Also my advice to any CAP member (and also tell your family members before hand in case you are incapacitated or die) that IF anything happens to you, accident of any sort while volunteering your time for CAP, you make sure you/your family gets a lawyer to protect YOUR (your family's) interests.   As you've seen in the 2 cases presented above, there's a lot of nasty legal things that can happen and there are lawyers that specialize in just about every area including government compensation claims and also remember CAP Inc may also hold some responsibility.
RM

[Eclipse]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in my wing all the practice SAREX's I've participated in (staffing the mission base) you sign in at mission base when you get there.  The aircraft get released with the crews via a formal telephone release (and could be at any location in the wing) BUT the vehicles (CAP owned and private) never get that release while enroute to the SAREX mission base.  This procedure doesn't sound right to me 

Your experience does not echo the ops of other wings, especially those that share a lot of resources across borders on a regular basis.  And though you
indicate only practice, I can tell you that a transport sortie is very common for real-world missions where you have to travel cross-country to get there.

We also seem to be doing a lot more remote operations and VFR-direct to the AO for missions.  In most cases there is no need to have a GT
"high-five" the mission base just to turn around and drive to the AO.

Part of this stems from the finance system which needs a sortie per 108.

That's why I am raising the question, because it would seem that the assignment of the sortie for 108 purposes may, or may not, be giving the
member the impression of coverage they don't have.

I have yet to get a definitive answer on this.

[Spaceman3750]

Anyone volunteer to be the guy taking my 0300 call to get a release? (Not making that up, that happened a lot last year when I was driving four hours upstate the day of.

[Johnny Yuma]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

[PHall]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

But was the mission "open" yet and was he offically signed in?

If he was on the way to the Mission Base from his home then he was probably not signed in yet and thus not on "CAP Time".

Same deal if you had an accident on the way to your weekly squadron meeting.

[lordmonar]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

So the to and from rules apply.

[Ned]

Colleagues,

I am not going to discuss the details of so tragic a loss, and I urge you not to engage in speculation about what may or may not have happened and why a particular claim may have been denied. 

It is both unprofessional and unseemly to discuss the particulars in a place that may be viewed by his friends and loved ones.

Feel free to discuss if you might be covered on your way to/from and AFAM, and certainly continue to point out the wisdom of all of us having adequte insurance to provide for our families in the event of illness, death, or disability regardless of our CAP status.

[billford1]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

So the to and from rules apply.

Civil Air Patrol training duty means going to different locations, unlike the job I drive to each morning.

If I am awakened out of bed and alerted to proceed from my home at 2:00 AM to a CAP designated Mission staging area am I only covered when I get to the staging area?  It's not like I'm driving to a job at the Post Office.

[billford1]

Being the first person denied benefits because they are out of uniform, or some other "trivial" detail is not a distinction anyone should be working towards.

Too late, already happened according to the CAP CD training program.

I missed the CD training program. Is it confirmed for real that you have to be in a 39-1 compliant CAP uniform as a condition for FECA eligibility?

[RADIOMAN015]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

So the to and from rules apply.

Willing to bet you will find that federal employees reporting to a directed training site away from their normal duty station are covered by FECA for their travel right from their residence to the site and return.    Since the CAP volunteer is being reimbursed for travel to and from the training site it would seem that they are in an authorized travel duty status and CAPR 900-5, para 13, section D specifically states that travel to/return is covered on AF Assigned Missions, so this validates the logic of travel to an AF designated training site (e.g. mission base). 

I sincerely hope the family of that member had a lawyer well versed in the federal claim regulations reviewing that denial of the claim .    Also got to wonder if there congressional representatives were brought into this.

Too bad we can't find out the reason why that claim was specifically denied.

RM

[PHall]

Too bad we can't find out the reason why that claim was specifically denied.

RM

Because he was already covered by his personal insurance?

[lordmonar]

AFAM?

YES!!!

He was the IC.

So the to and from rules apply.

Civil Air Patrol training duty means going to different locations, unlike the job I drive to each morning.

If I am awakened out of bed and alerted to proceed from my home at 2:00 AM to a CAP designated Mission staging area am I only covered when I get to the staging area?  It's not like I'm driving to a job at the Post Office.

Nope....If I get called at 2:00 A.M.  I make sure that the individual calling me signs me into IMU and generates a transport sortie from my place of residnce to the mission base....so the to and from rule does not apply.

[RiverAux]

A transport sortie from your house to mission base?  Never heard of that being done. 

[davidsinn]

A transport sortie from your house to mission base?  Never heard of that being done.

It's SOP for SAREXs here. They actually had me do a sortie for a four mile trip last summer. I didn't waste my time on going for reimbursement though.

[RiverAux]

I suppose it makes sense, but the admin associated with adding 20-50 sorties into WMIRs to cover people driving to/from the mission must be a nightmare. 

[Eclipse]

I suppose it makes sense, but the admin associated with adding 20-50 sorties into WMIRs to cover people driving to/from the mission must be a nightmare.

Front end or back end - they all need a sortie for the 108, so it's no more work, it's just when you do it.