flipflop on November 20, 2007 at 6:58 AM

jtkerch79 on November 20, 2007 at 7:21 AM

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.

The military has apparently been demanding that soldiers discharged after being wounded in combat give back part of their enlistment signing bonuses. Pittsburgh’s KDKA reports on one case:
The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded …

This is why we need a conservative president.

Gives new meaning to the term REMF REFSF.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 10:32 PM

Nah, you had it right the first time.

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

This has been going on a long, long time. What is really sad is that it took this long for anyone to care.

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.

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.

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
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 parliament republic 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

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.

jtkerch79 on November 20, 2007 at 7:21 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.

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.

jtkerch79 on November 20, 2007 at 7:21 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.