Army Discriminates Against Single Career Soldiers Deploying in Support of GWOT
The Army G1 Staff, BG Gina S. Farrisee, published an interim policy effective APR08 that results in dozens, possibly hundreds, of career single Soldiers losing their BAH while deployed on Military Transition and Training teams (MiTT).
This policy was intended to manage personnel PCSes during the transition period of moving the MiTT training support mission from Ft. Riley to Ft. Polk. BG Pharisee and her staff determined that the best interum alternative would be to PCS all MiTT personnel to Kuwait (dependent-restricted location) until JUL09.
This policy solely benefits the married Soldier or Soldiers with dependants because they get to keep their BAH while deployed. In fact, they also get to move their families and household goods anywhere they want prior to deployment and then move them again when they return from deployment (essentially two PCS moves per family in less than a 15 month period). On the other hand, the single career Soldiers and dual-military Soldiers (without dependants) lose all of their BAH while deployed. How can this possibly be fair?
What really makes this interim policy confusing, is that all Single Career MiTT Soldier prior to APR08 and after JUL09 continue to collect BAH while deployed. Single Career MiTT Soldiers prior to APR08 were PCSed to Ft. Polk and authorized BAH at the Ft. Riley Rate. After JUL09, all Single Career MiTT Soldiers will begin PCSing to Ft. Polk and collect BAH at that location rate. But all the Single Career Soldiers assigned to MiTT Teams between APR08 and AUG09 get absolutely no BAH because the policy forces them to PCS to Kuwait!
How can we honestly justify discriminating against the dozens, possibly hundreds, of single career Soldiers who are or will lose their BAH benefits??? So much for an all-volunteer Army if we keep treating people like this...
Not sure what you're getting at...
MAJ I,
Are you looking at getting a grassroots campaign against this policy or merely using this forum to air out a grievance you perceive as a slight to single Soldiers? Given your current posting, I would think you'd have other avenues to persue this.
BAH is structured to offset the costs of housing, whether through mortgage or rental, while living in a domicile not provided by the military. Are you say, since deployed single Soldiers are provided places to stay while deployed that our single Soldiers living in the barracks are entitled to BAH as well?
Essentially it's the same argument.
I also highly recommend you introduce yourself here.
Re-read My Post Carefully
You have it wrong... just re-read my post and try to understand.
What I am saying is that the Army normally allows the Single Career Soldier on Military Training and Tranistion Teams (MITT) to collect BAH while deployed - BUT, has temporarily suspended that (from APR08 to JUL09). The policy was not staffed thoroughly to identify all the second and third order effects (like the one I am posting).
I have three goals here: 1) correct this interim policy so that the Single Career Soldiers on MITT Teams continue to draw BAH; 2) address the larger "grass-roots" issue here that Single Career Soldiers should be allowed to collect BAH just like married or with-dependant Soldiers regardless of assignment - a Single Soldier doesn't want or need to establish a home?; 3) address the fairness of allowing married or with-dependant Soldiers to "PCS" their families twice in less than a two-year period when deploying to a combat zone.
If a Soldier, regardless of status "chooses" to live in the barracks then he should not be able to draw BAH. BUT, if the Army forces that Soldier to go to Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan or even Korea then he should be able to keep BAH just like the married Soldiers.
I have addressed this to the right folks, but am not getting their full attention yet. I am hoping that by getting the message out, we can all work together to get it fixed. I am assaulting the issues in a variety of ways (this is only one of them).
** Career Soldier - generally an E6 or above (i.e. E6 thru W5 thru O10). E5 and below are not generally considered "career" Soldiers yet.
My only remaining question is this....
Is this a Small Wars issue or something better suited for the AKO message boards?
Its an appropriate issue everywhere
this is an issue that impacts the morale, well-being, and good order and discipline of fighting men and women... therefore an appropriate topic here. anywhere we can get this issue seen and heard will help. I have posted to AKO Knowledge Centers (for transition teams). I will take up you advice and look for a general forum to post as well. thanks!
Ah BAH Rants and fairness
So the Army instituted an approximately year long policy that you fell into. There are many who fall into these, who knows what the bean counters were attempting to acheive when implementing this. We could go round and round about it, but what it really comes down to is that you are in the Army and get caught up in these things. One could argue that no single soldiers should receive BAH and should all have to live in Gov't quarters. Would love to see officers 3-4 men to a room, but guess that'll never happen. Seems I remember a day when there were such things as BOQs, anyone else remember these? If all single soldiers had to live in on base quarters then there would be no BAH issues with regards to single soldiers. I could also make the arguement that why do you deserve BAH at a higher rate than say an E-6 or E-7? Why are you authorized the standard of living of a house yet above enlisted members are only authorized an apartment or townhouse? Point is there are some things that the Army does that are not fair. So it's fair that BAH for my location actually decreased this year? Yet electric went up 20% and everything else increased (inflation)? Figure that one out. Yes in recent years we have been spoiled as a force, money being thrown around for everything, yet once the screws tighten everyone wants to scream no fair. Think it's bad now wait a couple years. Understand you feeling slighted, but I don't particularly feel for you. As a single E-5 and E-6 I remember having to live in the barracks, BAH for me was unheard of, so there I am living 2 to a room and sometimes 3 or 4 to a room, like to see a bunch of Majors and CPTs doing that.
Sorry to rant but BAH and fairness of such is a sore subject, but not one that any of us will be able to change, too many highers reap the benefits of the way it is now. Ask yourself this who needs it more, you or that E-3 with three kids? Yes no one told him to have three kids.
Sorry Schmedlap, I have to respond to 1LT Bailey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bullmoose Bailey
I'm always serious about my work. To quote MAJ Boothroyd, "I never joke about my work".
To quote myself, "I always joke about my work, so I don't go insane."
Quote:
I can think of nothing more ridiculous than waste and for me to be sincere on my detestation of the welfare state means personally opposing all unearned benefits and duplicitous payments, which I ever have.
You are deployed. Are you collecting BAH?
Quote:
As a capitalist I respectfully disagree with all governmental wasteage.
You must be a pretty frustrated guy, then.
Quote:
You might agree if you looked objectively at the issue. Critical thought requires being able to dispassionately judge situations and seperate your own interests from the equation.
Thanks for the lesson on critical thinking. I'm not deployed. I'm not single. I have no interests here.
Quote:
I'm also convinced that that's how good leadership works.
I'm sure you are an outstanding one.
Quote:
It would be a very hypocritical man who thought it okay for him to steal from the taxpayers or derive any largesse, whilst pointing the finger at others who do the same. Communist attitudes infect many otherwise good people within our society and even the nobler subcultures.
All right, guy. Now I'm a communist?
Quote:
Seperately, as a sign of my sincerity & charity, any affected soldier by this particular policy who cannot afford their personal housing whilst deployed can send me an email and I will personally write them a check for as much as their requirement may seem to be or my ability to give will permit.
I can't really tell if you are joking or not.
Based off of your extremely bizarre use of English, I don't think you are.
If that's the case...again, you've left me speechless.
So what I see here is....
Reading the MILPER Messages 07-034 and 08-065 and my knowledge of the Army, here is my $.02…
If government quarters are available to the Soldier, than he/she doesn’t get the additional money. So if government quarters are available in dependent-restricted areas, the Soldiers live in those quarters. If married Soldiers leave their family in government quarters, they don’t receive the BAH. If they obtain a statement of nonavailability, they get additional money for their families to have a roof over their head. The money isn’t about the Soldier, it is about the family!
What I really see is a bigger concern…
There is “a Major in the Active Army temporarily assigned to a Training and Transition Team headed to Iraq for 12 months. I am permanently assigned to the Pentagon, G3 Force Management Office as the Aviation Organizational and Force Integrator” that “actually TCSed and will not lose my BAH.” In direct violation of the MILPER Message…..policy placed by Department of the Army.
Sounds as if someone employed his rank and position to serve himself, not to serve his country and his unit. Utilized his position to obtain pleasure (since he was displeased with the policy) and profit (since he isn’t losing about $1800 in BAH shortly).
The dishonorable acts of one officer diminishes the officer corps; the actions of the officer must always be above reproach.
The complaint should be how does he get to keep his while other Soldiers have to take a loss in this area!
Again, just my $.02
