PMedMoe said:
And further at the note to 205.45(12) it states that:
"Where a military spouse, who is a member of the Reserve Force is moved in accordance with CBI 209.80 (Movement of Dependants), but not for the purpose of a period of Reserve service at the new place of duty, the spouse is moved as a dependant in accordance with paragraph (3)(a) of that instruction and is not entitled to PLD."
Spouse CT'd, so no longer a PRes member and not moved.
But the body of your quoted ref states:
205.45(12) (Member of service couple posted) A member of a service couple referred to in paragraph (11) who is posted to a new place of duty:
[list type=decimal]
[*]authorized to move, is entitled to receive an unreduced PLD for the PLDA in respect of the principal residence at the new place of duty. Their service spouse who remains at the previous location unaccompanied ceases to be entitled to PLD; or
not authorized to move, is not entitled to receive the PLD in respect of the principal residence at the former place of duty. Their service spouse who remains at the previous location in their principal residence reverts to 100 percent of the PLD for the PLDA for the location of their principal residence.
[*]
[/list]
So IF the transfer to LdSH is considered a new "place of duty", AND the posting message states that a move is not authorized, then it could be interpreted that the member is not entitled to PLD. Conveniently, "place of duty" is not listed in the terms section of the CBIs...
HOWEVER, para 12 is contingent on para 11, which states:
[list type=decimal]
[*]205.45(11) (Service couple) If both members of a service couple are entitled to the PLD for the same PLDA, and jointly occupy a principal residence, each member is only entitled to receive 75% of the PLD rate.
[*]
[/list]
So for para 12 to really apply, both members would have to be entitled to and receiving PLD, then one is moved. This would be the basis of my argument against the possible decision that the member would not be entitled to PLD due to the application of para 12; she isn't currently receiving the 75% as she wasn't entitled.
Long story short: according to my interpretation of the Instruction you should both be getting 75%. I was just saying that somebody might try to get smart and decide you aren't entitled, but they wouldn't be able to make an argument at all if a move was authorized. It's always a good idea to have a copy of the Instruction, just in case.