"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:485f7053.2621899@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chaplin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>"CJ Adams" <bluebell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:k753j5-t35.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Only as chattels, much like title and rights to other things viewed
as
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> Is that why DF&E are lumped together?
>>
>>;^)
>
> What happens when you and the missus are both awficers in the grey
> funnel line? Is she still a dependant? Or are only the sprogs?
Both spouses in the "married service couple" are members within the terms
of
the NDA and QR&O. Only the sprogs are then the "D". Policy writers wrote
reams
upon such things for policies about "married service couples" because so
many
benefits (e.g.: entitlement to MQs) vary depending on family status. Since
I
left, they have legalized same-*** marriages, so I imagine the wonks have
been
busy. They take MSCs into account in posting plots, usually as a means to
save
money while avoiding jacking people about, but the needs of service are
supposed to be paramount. It gets complicated as spouses rise in rank, as
you
might imagine.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
|
