Too bad to check: Military demands partial refund of signing bonus from wounded vets
posted at 10:15 pm on November 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Bill Amos. I’m guessing Altmire’s bill will have no difficulty passing. But how did it come to this? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Gosh, I even didn’t want to click on this…
Babs on November 19, 2007 at 10:19 PM
How much is a Purple Heart worth?
Kini on November 19, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Insane. We should be treating our warriors like heroes, not like they owe us something for serving their country.
Vizzini on November 19, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Couple this with the story about cutting reserve deployments 1 day before they would qualify for full GI benefits and you got some serious, serious problems.
p0s3r on November 19, 2007 at 10:28 PM
First, Walter Reed and deplorable conditions…and now this.
Really unbelieveable.
JetBoy on November 19, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Gives new meaning to the term
REMFREFSF.MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 10:32 PM
The maltreatment of the military has been going on for years, all over the world.
All should read “TOMMY” by Kipling to get the idea.
jimpv on November 19, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Things like this don’t “just happen.” Someone in the military, even if a bureaucrat, MUST have considered this action of demanding the bonus money back from the many wounded, and MUST have approved of it for it to have been executed. WHAT WAS THIS PERSON THINKING? I’m embarrassed for my country.
Jordan, we’re with you. I’m in for a hundred. Anyone with me?
Detective Martin Johnson
Howard County (MD) Police Department
my personal e-mail: howardcountypd@hotmail.com
AmericanDad on November 19, 2007 at 10:37 PM
My heart goes out to them,if it’s fraud,
that’s one thing,but whether it’s active duty,or combat pay,
the soldier signs up and takes that chance,the military
takes a chance on the soldier.Both swear to uphold the
constitution,I personally think that the soldier should be well taken care of,period.And this kind of crap only gives
ammunition to the left,they might be under the appearance
of fighting for the soldier’s rights,but I know better,
for Liberal’s it’s two words that give them away,Irag and retreat.
canopfor on November 19, 2007 at 10:38 PM
As horrid as this looks I’m waiting for some further information before i do anything
Defector01 on November 19, 2007 at 10:41 PM
BAD BAD BAD. I don’t condone this in the least.
That being said, if Congress refuses to fund the war (as Pelosi and Reid are currently doing in dealing with the requirements of funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan), why shouldn’t the DOD seek refunds. After all, it is clear that Congress under Democrats have no interest in helping the troops. Every dime matters since Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrats refuse to support the troops. The DOD is about to engage in all sorts of cost-saving measures. To a certain extent this is all the fault of Democrats and we should be blaming them.*
*with full understanding this is mostly the Army being stupid.
highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 10:45 PM
This is disgraceful. Lets get Bill O on it.
csdeven on November 19, 2007 at 10:46 PM
WHISKY TANGO FOXTROT?! Are you kidding me? This reeeelly chaps my hide! I wish we could just find the screw heads responsible for this stroke of genius and bust em’ down to butt picker!
ronsfi on November 19, 2007 at 10:49 PM
That is beyond outrageous.
Whoever is responsible for making the decision to demand that money back needs to be pink slipped, yesterday.
thirteen28 on November 19, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Yep.
terryannonline on November 19, 2007 at 10:58 PM
I say the US take the money out of Murtha’s Campaign Funds.
Its the least he can do for the military
William Amos on November 19, 2007 at 11:01 PM
It came to this because there’s a building in the South side of the Potomac known as the five sided wailing wall full of a lot of good people, but also infested with the worst sort of myopic tools around. Every military organization has them, unfortunately, and unfortunately, they can’t all be readily identified and booted the hell out of the organization so they can go find jobs as sports team mascots, bounce around pointlessly on the sidelines in a costume, and then recount how they helped the team to victory years later.
Which would probably be more accurate than describing the idiocy they perpetrate in their present positions as ‘helping’
Wind Rider on November 19, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I think it’s probably the opposite. Nobody is looking at this situation and demands for repayment are going out automatically because that’s the way the system has been set up.
highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:09 PM
No, Rat Bastard Ex-Marine Murtha has already done te least he can do to support the military.
highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:10 PM
It is shameful and dispicable that those who already do 100% of the sacrificing for this war, are again and again asked to give more while 535 disgusting and shameless nitwits in Washington go without skipping a fund raising dinner. I serve, I have fought, and I love my country. But more and more, I am beginning to hate my government.
King of the Britons on November 19, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Why are you blaming Murtha? More partisan insanity and a refusal to hold the admin accountable?
Real Republicans are honest and hold everyone equally responsible, regardless of politics, even their own side.
AprilOrit on November 19, 2007 at 11:12 PM
bean counters and pencil pushers. destroying our country one defense budget bill at a time. if this proves to be true there should be massive lay-offs and rehires by merit. put their retirements into social security and tell them to get in line. PERIOD. or just start killing them. one bean at a time. with pencil sharpeners.
Griz on November 19, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Souhnds like a paperwork or procedural SNAFU.
Mazztek on November 19, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Yep, you beat me to it. Some of that fine civilian “management”.
jdkchem on November 19, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Words fail me. What an outrage. FIX IT CONGRESS !
Maxx on November 19, 2007 at 11:37 PM
To: AprilOrit on November 19, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I was responding to William Amos on November 19, 2007 at 11:01 PM That’s why I was “blaming Murtha.”
As to the rest of your post “Real Republicans are honest and hold everyone equally responsible, regardless of politics, even their own side.”
So do “real Democrats.” You disagree with that?
highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:44 PM
If the video report is accurate then I doubt its a mistake. The reporter said it was happening with “thousands” of returning wounded from the battlefields.
This sounds like minutia buried in the fine print of the signing agreement. Which would make what the government is doing lawful… but immoral and reprehensible nevertheless. These men and women have more than earned their money and we could never pay them for what their sacrifice is worth. To ask for a refund of any of this signing bonus is totally wrong.
When I think of all the pork found in every bill in Congress just so the Congressman can make himself look good for re-election…. and then to see this, it makes me want to puke.
Maxx on November 19, 2007 at 11:50 PM
This bill will pass. H.R.3793 has 219 cosponsors
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.03793:
bnelson44 on November 20, 2007 at 12:17 AM
In the first place, God made snakes. That was for practice. Then he made congressmen.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on November 20, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Curious most of the co sponcers are Dems
Including this one
Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 11/13/2007
William Amos on November 20, 2007 at 12:47 AM
This is what happens when a bureaucrat is in charge of anything. This is why governments topple, because these goons end up running everything, and ruining everything they touch.
right2bright on November 20, 2007 at 12:53 AM
I got a knot in my gut thinking about how these guys got hurt saving MY ass. To have them treated this way is unforgivable. I thought we were better people than this. I’m calling my useless vote broker tomorrow.
ronsfi on November 20, 2007 at 12:55 AM
This will be another case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. This hasn’t come up before since the large signing bonus’ came around. There’s probably a good chance the administration knew nothing about the rules put into place. Bush will make sure the troops returning will be taken care of, and this thing about returning money will go away.
stacman on November 20, 2007 at 1:11 AM
On the surface it looks like the vets get a pretty bad deal. The fact is all will have unlimited health care, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of surgery and prosthetics. Most, if not all will be medically retired from the military and will draw nearly the equivalent of their full pay for the rest of their lives. Not to mention full tuition for these folks to earn degrees they didn’t get before enlisting.
stacman on November 20, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Absolutely there are some serious problems, particularly when you consider the BILLIONS in pork that Congress has been appropriating, and the BILLIONS in other money dumped into numerous other useless projects.
This is just an absolute travesty. I am sure each of these soldiers were certain they would fulfill their commitments, and now, through no fault of their own, cannot.
…and at the same time, the feds and many states can come up with millions to provide health care to those who CHOOSE to live irresponsibly.
NUTS!
91Veteran on November 20, 2007 at 1:57 AM
I wonder how many would trade all this just to be healthy?
I know I would.
As for what you stated. Unlimited health care? No. Substandard socialized medicine provided by the VA long after the veteran’s injuries have been deemed service connected, only to be treated like dirt when showing up for some kind of care by some doctor who was trained in some third-world medical school.
Surgeries and prosthetics? Oh what a treat!
Medically retired? Possibly. There have already been a number of reports of soldiers being screwed in that area as well. Full pay? Not anywhere near it. They would get a percentage of disability which would amount to a fraction of what they were paid. They would only get close to full pay if they were considered seriously disabled.
Full tuition? Depends on the rules at the time of their enlistment, and what their home state might provide.
Again, I’m sure most if not all would give up such bennies just to be healthy again.
91Veteran on November 20, 2007 at 2:13 AM
How profoundly summed up. Indeed, you have all the reasons to “hate” your/our government. I’m beginning to hate both sides of the isle, quite vehemently. It’s a
parliamentrepublic of whores any more.Still, thank you for serving the country. Maybe, just maybe, it can still be saved.
Entelechy on November 20, 2007 at 2:30 AM
To be sure, the “whores” are all of us, those of us who vote for the worthless political whores in Washington.
Entelechy on November 20, 2007 at 2:32 AM
Proving that Purple Hearts, for the most part, are no more than reminders of malpractice, mistakes and mishaps. It’s no wonder that some of us have no use for them. Regardless…, the troops who sign up or RE-enlist are entitled to their bonuses and perks. It’s part of the contract. A deal’s a deal. God bless them all.
Rugged Individual on November 20, 2007 at 2:46 AM
This is a terrible story and I hope that Congress fixes this problem immediately.
SoulGlo on November 20, 2007 at 3:21 AM
They didn’t ‘cut them one day short of their benefits.’ The orders were originally for that many days. If the limit isn’t the limit…where’s the limit? Do we say anyone 2 days short of the required time also gets it? 10 days short? 30? Someone pulling a Kerry tour of duty?
In a similar vein, while I haven’t had any 179-day deployments that wouldn’t qualify me for a 180-day short-tour credit, this sort of thing happens all the time.
James on November 20, 2007 at 6:29 AM
Another nail in the coffin.My heart breaks for the future of OUR Country.
Regney on November 20, 2007 at 6:55 AM
Before we all go off half-cocked and scream bloody murder about the stupidity and crassness of the military bureaucracy (even though, like all bureaucracies, it is stupid and crass), keep in mind the level of automation in the military personnel administration system.
A computer generates a list periodically of members who’ve separated, and if the separation date was prior to the planned separation date, and the member was paid a signing bonus, the computer calculates a pro-rated amount of the bonus that’s due back to the government, without regard to the reason for separation. The same computer generates the notice to the separated member, and the member is most likely the first human to actually see it.
It was probably never the intent of the program to demand repayment for early separations caused by injury in the line of duty, but the hacks that drew up the policy failed to account for this likelihood.
And since military policy is largely rooted in public law (the signing bonus program was most likely part of some defense appropriations bill), it’ll literally take an act of Congress to fix it.
flipflop on November 20, 2007 at 6:58 AM
This is exactly what happened. Those of us that have served will tell you that the pay system’s quirks are difficult even if you are still actively serving honorably. I guarantee you that there is no connection between the actions of DFAS asking for the money and some greed on the part of the military. DFAS probably doesn’t have any idea why these servicemen and women are no longer serving their commitment. That link of communication probably doesn’t exist (though it should). The law that created this fiasco is probably 8 years old.
I have confidence that, like many other stupid decisions in the past, the military and the congress will fix this. The reasons will be different (morality vs. votes), but the result will be the same.
Do not forget the law of unintended consequences.
jtkerch79 on November 20, 2007 at 7:21 AM
I can see the Army doing this. It’s small peanuts compared to this but when I was discharged during the Vietnam war, they sent me a bill for my coat saying I was suppose to turn it in when I got out. I was flabbergasted, kept the ratty coat and threw the bill away.
Rod on November 20, 2007 at 7:24 AM
Nothing new, unfortunately. Militaries have been doing this the world over since Sargon whomped on the Sumerians. Soldiers, like it or not, are tools. When those tools get broken, the crapweasel bureaucrats in the organization will try to cut them loose on terms most favorable to the organization, not to the individual soldier. They are literally trying to cut their losses. As they see it, they’re already down one fighting man and the X amount of dollars it took to train him plus whatever it takes to train his replacement. Want to fix it? (I sure do) Congress has got to pass a law guaranteeing full receipt of benefits in the event of injury not self inflicted or caused by gross negligence. To be perfectly honest, I was under the impression that this was already in place. I know SGLI (life insurance) can be denied if the above is true (i.e. suicide) and it sounds a little fishy that the service is asking for signing bonuses back (just not unprecedented). I went over my contract a few months back during a spat with the VA and I don’t recall seeing any clauses about being wounded voiding the bonus (mine was college money, though, so it might be different). Unsatisfactory completion of service, yes, but not injury.
Which means that if some jackass is construing combat related injuries as an unsatisfactory completion of service, said jackass should be instantly fired/dishonorably discharged as unfit to shine the shoes of those he has so grievously screwed over.
For a good example of similar shaftings, read Goodbye Darkness by William Manchester. The treatment of his father during and after the First World War was truly shameful… and very familiar.
Militant Bibliophile on November 20, 2007 at 7:31 AM
Exactly right. The humans at DFAS (that’s Defense Finance and Accounting Service, btw) are probably as horrified as the rest of us over this cock-up.
flipflop on November 20, 2007 at 7:33 AM
Note to self, read all postings before posting. You are exactly right on this regard, although I do think that there is some possibility that some paper pusher buried deep within the pay system is trying to save a little cash for the next budget battle. Or at least that such a hypothetical is more than just a little bit possible.
Militant Bibliophile on November 20, 2007 at 7:35 AM
I am a two time OIF vet and still serving. I swore an oath to defend the constitution… and am wondering why noone else in this government seems to be doing the same? Ever wonder why there were militia movements in most, if not all, states? It’s time congress started having nightmares of crowds of people standing at their door with pitchforks and torches… It is sad that it has come to this, but I’m starting to think the threat of this will be the only thing that might get these slimy, self-serving career politicians to start doing what is right for this country.
BadBrad on November 20, 2007 at 7:40 AM
they will straighten this out soon i bet, it sounds like a beuracratic snaffu to me,,, at least i would hope so.
our wounded hero’s shouldnt have to worry about this type of stuff at all.
paytime in the army was crazy in the 80’s early 90’s, felt like a crapgame. the pay was done in such a crazy way, i remember getting 3 differnt types of pay and would always worry it would all be right.
i rarley ever used paper money personaly, i had it going home to my wife. being in the infantry i rarely saw a base or store so never thought about it.
trailortrash on November 20, 2007 at 7:43 AM
Some folks somewhere need to be held up to public accountability over this.
doufree on November 20, 2007 at 8:04 AM
I hope no wounded soldiers have paid back these bonuses. They should all be fighting it and refusing to pay until it is corrected by congress. That better be a hugely one-sided vote - no partisonship allowed.
ctmom on November 20, 2007 at 8:07 AM
This 24-year Navy veteran is seriously ticked off about this! There is no justification for harassing veterans who were offered this bonus and served faithfully and zealously.
This government routinely wastes millions of dollars on grants (endowment for the Arts???) and public funding of all sorts of needless things (PBS) - and they try to recoup money from our veterans????
I would think that the military in which I proudly served wouldn’t stoop this low. My, how times have changed.
Corky on November 20, 2007 at 9:29 AM
I am willing to give the military the benefit of the doubt to straighten this out before freaking out. Though if this is policy and it stands, as a veteran I think that is bulls**t.
dvldog1142 on November 20, 2007 at 9:44 AM
This has been going on a long, long time. What is really sad is that it took this long for anyone to care.
Lawrence on November 20, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Nah, you had it right the first time.
Oldnuke on November 20, 2007 at 10:51 AM
What branch of government runs the military?
This is why we need a conservative president.
Valiant on November 20, 2007 at 11:19 AM
This has been the military’s policy on Signing bonuses or SRB (Selective Reenlistment bonuses) since day 1. You get 50% of the bonus the day you enlist/reenlist, and the rest is paid to you in annual payments over the next 2 or 3 years. If you do not fulfill your service obligation in any way, you don’t get the rest of the payments, but you DO NOT have to give back what you already have.
However, I do think they should make an exception for those wounded in combat, but it’ll set a huge precedent. How many Gulf War vets couldn’t complete their obligated service because they were wounded in combat? Then you have those who claim they were exposed to nerve agents that’ll come out of the woodwork.
RMCS_USN on November 20, 2007 at 2:39 PM
You both nailed it.
Hubs reenlisted while in Afghanistan, the bonus was paid in one tax free lump sum one month after his reenlistment date. If he leaves the Army during his term of reenlistment, the entire bonus has to be repaid in full.
What has happened to this and other injured vets is way wrong, BUT…Someone in congress didn’t dot the i’s and cross the t’s to cover every scenario. Stupid, yes, done intentionally? doubtful.
The military is a giant bureaucracy, we deal with crud like this all of the time…sometimes people get around to fixing it, sometimes they don’t.
What I find almost funny at this point is that many of the NOW most vocal politicians are people who haven’t given a damn for the last umpteen years..but now that voters are paying attention and those politicians can get their face on TV…suddenly, they “support the troops”
riiiight.
Tink on November 20, 2007 at 4:36 PM
The military and CIA were infested with Clintonistas….this is merely the result.
landlines on November 20, 2007 at 10:07 PM