Army Discriminates Against Single Career Soldiers Deploying in Support of GWOT

[Marvin.Iavecchia]

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...

[RTK]

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.

[Marvin.Iavecchia]

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.

[RTK]

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.

Is a fourth goal the fact that you stand to "lose" about $1800 in BAH shortly? I only bring this up since this policy has run about 50% of its shelf life. What has happened since April 08 to get this higher on the priority list?

[Marvin.Iavecchia]

No, my fourth goal is NOT "the fact that you stand to lose about $1800 in BAH shortly?" I actually TCSed and will not lose my BAH. I am writing for all the other Single Career NCOs and Officers impacted by this unfair policy.

My experience with bringing up real problems in the Army is that most are inclined to not do it... "don't want to be seen as rocking the boat or trouble maker." More often than not, the person rather than the problem gets all the attention - if you know what I mean. So it's not surprising that Soldiers are not clamoring about it. I am aware of several Soldiers in my MiTT class who are writing the Congressmen, but I will believe that when I see it.

What's happened since April 08 is that "I" personally became aware of the problem and chose to get it fixed.

The policy is MILPER Messages 08-065 and 07-034
Using AKO login, view message at:

http://PERSCOMND04.ARMY.MIL/MILPERms...All+Documents/

[RTK]

Is this a Small Wars issue or something better suited for the AKO message boards?

[Some NCO]

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