Hi,
I’m a relatively new Sqn Cdr and since being in post I’m building up quite a few claims for Day’s Pay, MMA, home to duty, etc. Could someone please tell me, who do I get to sign these claims? I have been told to send my home to duty claims to Wg HQ as the WExO signs off those (which he does) but what about the others? Can my Wg Cluster Officer (who is also a Flt Lt) sign my others?
I’ve looked in 20B but with little success.
Thanks 
Your answers will lie in ACP300 but I suspect that doesn’t recognise cluster (sector?) WSOs.
Our OC sends all F80, 1771, H2D to WHQ for WExO to countersign. We aren’t sectorised so I’m not sure if there are alternatives.
Yup, what Incy says. Mine invariably all go to W Hq
Thirded.
Gone are the days of OC counter signing everything, just for the WExO to counter-counter sign it…
More poor answers.
F80 only Exo’S sign
HTD, 1771- you countersign for your staff- you should send your claims to the ExO for countersignatures. If you have a local rule where to Sector/WSO signs then it is not strictly following the rules.
You should also not countersigns claims for close relatives.
ACP 300 refers
As OC everything goes to WHQ where the E1 (since we have no Wing ExO sigbs everything off) I’ve always been paid stuff I submit so no problem with that!
Whilst helpful to you, your E1 is acting way above their paygrade and financial authority and could put their job in jeopardy. Delegation cannot be pushed down that far to that level.
Indeed - IIRC OC Wg is the counter-signing authority for such forms, but may (and usually do) grant the WExO the authority.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=2409]More poor answers.
F80 only Exo’S sign
HTD, 1771- you countersign for your staff- you should send your claims to the ExO for countersignatures. If you have a local rule where to Sector/WSO signs then it is not strictly following the rules.
You should also not countersigns claims for close relatives.
ACP 300 refers[/quote]
Poor answers? Perhaps you should check your own before claiming that… not only Wg ExOs are coutersignatories.
[quote]Squadron Personnel. Claims on HQ AC Accts Form 80 for the Squadron CO and Camp Commandants are to be countersigned at part 2 of the form by the Wing CO, unless he/she has delegated authority to the Wg Ex O. Squadron staff remuneration claims for Camp Duties are to be countersigned by the Camp Commandant at Part 2. For all other duties the form is to be countersigned as follows:
(1) HQ AC for duties and courses organised by HQ AC (to be submitted to the organising Branch).
(2) Assistant Regional Commandant - for duties and courses organised by the Regional HQ (unless authority has been delegated to the Course Director or OIC).
(3) OC SATT - for staff and students on SATT courses.
(4) Wing CO (unless authority has been delegated to the Wg ExO) - for all other duties and courses.
(5) ACLC Course Commander is to countersign all claims for directing staff.
[/quote]
Only for F80’s although those guidelines have changed to those I have stated.
The rules for all the rest are still the same.
E1 can be delegated authority to sign them, they are only after all checking elibililty and entitelment.
This situation appears to have been changed fairly recently and if you look at the history of the document it has all the hallmarks of a typical ACO documentation/policy change: incomplete and inconsistent.
Versions of ACP300 from April 2011 and April 2012 include the following wording, the current version of which is quoted above. I have highlighted the now missing text.
The subsequent list of scenarios indicated nothing where the Sqn CO would countersign.
Looking further back, the following text is found on the rear of the old (excel) version of the F80. Again, notable bits in red.
Part 3 was removed when the form was recreated in Word. Actually, part 2 (signature by claimants OC) was removed and part 3 renamed to part 2. It seems that the manual has only just caught up.
So, somewhere in the loop the Sqn Cmdr has lost the authority to countersign pay claims but retains it for F1771. I hadn’t noticed before and I wonder why.
This is apparently leading up to electronic forms- once the legal issue of electronic signatures is resolved.
It was decided that there were too many signatures on the F80 and that most OC’s had no idea what they were signing anyway. A VSA of WEXO’s indentified this a nurgutory process.
The single signature was supposed to remove the administrative task from WEXO/WHQ to volunteers but apparently the COC is not happy with this.
On of the other serious ramifications of self authorised claims of the future is the problem when you claim either the wrong thing or for too many days etc than allocated in 300. The parent service view is that there is no such thing as an error in claiming only fraud. There would no longer be that check for accuracy and eligibility that happens now.
Much like in the parent service- claims were signed off by the COC then with JPA and electronic submission the control method becomes audit instead of Authorisation- and that resulted in many more cases being referred to the service prosecutors.
A suggestion running around- which is absolute common sense- is that Pay claims are tied to SMS clearances- a claim pay button for each member of staff auth’d for each event or thing- simple audit trail in one place and two button application, the check still done online by WHQ and job jobbed- but this is of course too simple!
The SMS system (both the actual software and the overall process as it exists at the moment) is a long way from allowing electronic pay claims to be a reality in the way that you suggest. There are so many loose ends to be joined up that I wonder whether a CFAV-JPA system (or just using JPA now that it seems that the catastrophic teething problems have been ironed out, though we’d need to get access over the Internet) wouldn’t be a more realistic goal.
Any system would need to be able to have the list of attending adults modified post-approval. It would need to be able to track and advise on how many days they have remaining (and cope with extra days being taken from a pool, or temporary modifications to the total number of days available to an individual). You would need to be able to claim for extended (eg, camp commandant duties) or partial duration claims. Possibly the most difficult of all, you’d need to ensure that the responsible agency actually generates an appropriate activity.
That is why the SMS system is actually the only sensible way to do it and not that difficult to implement as it is only another functional process. claim pay button- sends e mail to WEXO who checks and approves, simples.
If, and if it is a big if, all VRT were on JPA (it is only for members of the RAF or reserves) then I would expect a few visits from the RAFP to some staff following audit, it is another example of transferring work rather than removing it. We would still have to work out how to pay the SNCO cadre plus who would fund the JPA terminals? UAS have their staff enter their staff claims and that is what we would end up with, forms sent to permanent staff for input into JPA which is very close to what we have at the moment.
Adding the claim to SMS simplifies the whole process as all the audit functions are in one place as well. It will require some money spending but will speed up the submission process, whether the team who have to manually process this at HQAC can work any faster becomes the key, unless as I suggest the claiming is done via SMS and WHQ authorises the payment meaning we save around 8 posts at HQAC and subject it all to periodic audit by HQ 22 Gp.
Fairly easily done given that their is no other solution that removes any substantial elements in the existing process.
At the moment, until they sort out the problem of Squadrons not updating owners of accounts, electronic pay applications won’t move forward. There is too much, “oh, i’ve been using this for months” for it to be safe and secure.
Updating accounts is not critical to this process, the I/C activity or OC applies for Auth via SMS, it is granted under the system already in place and this will have the staff and cadet nominal roll. The post activity report which must be completed can list those staff who attended, for how long and what is authorised for pay, this can be done via drop downs for ease of use, once sent to close the activity down an alert can be sent to the Exo who then checks pay days allocated to the individual and then can fill in a live form on the brand new MOSS system which is then harvested by HQACO Accounts each week or so and sent to payments.
If there is no pay avalable or the activity does not attract pay this can be clarified in the application side in much the way it is done now.
I can’t think of an easier way to do it within the limititations of the current technology and systems already working.
It would mean little extra work for the I/C activity, the volunteer or the OC apart from pushing another button.
I may be mad of course!
[quote=“asqncdr” post=2479]Updating accounts is not critical to this process, the I/C activity or OC applies for Auth via SMS, it is granted under the system already in place and this will have the staff and cadet nominal roll. The post activity report which must be completed can list those staff who attended, for how long and what is authorised for pay, this can be done via drop downs for ease of use, once sent to close the activity down an alert can be sent to the Exo who then checks pay days allocated to the individual and then can fill in a live form on the brand new MOSS system which is then harvested by HQACO Accounts each week or so and sent to payments.
If there is no pay avalable or the activity does not attract pay this can be clarified in the application side in much the way it is done now.
I can’t think of an easier way to do it within the limititations of the current technology and systems already working.
It would mean little extra work for the I/C activity, the volunteer or the OC apart from pushing another button.
I may be mad of course![/quote]
“I didn’t ask you to process this financial claim in my name. You have claimed funds for me for something i didn’t want. This has caused problems with my Working Families Tax Credit/JSA now. Who’s going to sort this out. I was doing this one for free like i told you the other month. I now have to get a letter saying why it was paid.”
etc etc etc.
Hence why the end user has to initiate the claim and be the agreer of the statement, “I certify that I attended a properly authorised period of duty, iaw ACP 300 FI 308 and FI 314 as follows:”
That, and each recipient would need to have their individual travel element also recorded onto the SMS activity somewhere since travel can account for a max of 4 hours. Which then leads onto, “you only put one hour travelling. I told you it was three. May pay got bounced. Please change it and resubmit it. What do you mean you can’t change it because the activity is locked to prevent post payment modification? Well i want paying via another method. What do you mean there isn’t another method because the SMS activity one accounts for “days left in year”?”
I’m not being negative, i’m just explaining the reason why the end user has to generate their own claim.
Not a viable reason- remember that to claim incorrectly is not in fact legal, this removes it or the risk, and hands it to the organiser, he will sign that you were indeed there and did what was needed etc. if you did not want paying you could communicate this to the OC/ i/c and wing, I wonder how many people work like this, I do days until I have ran out of days then carry on anyway.
The form/submission area would still be checked before submission at Wing level and paid out from there so it would not be locked until this process was over.
Any other Glass half empty type points?
Actually it’s a very viable set of reasons and you haven’t really explained the mechanisms (safe ones) to avoid those situations occurring.
Many thanks for all your help. I think you’ve answered my question and everything should go to our WExO.