U.S. Soldiers Told To Repay Thousands In Signing Bonuses From Height Of War Effort

excerpt:

Quote:

---

In most cases, when an employer pays a signing bonus to attract new workers, that payment is understood to be essentially unrecoverable. But the Pentagon has a different understanding — and it's ordering the California National Guard to claw back thousands of dollars paid to soldiers who re-enlisted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And in many cases, an employer would also have a tough time arguing that decade-old lapses in its own oversight should trigger wage garnishments and tax liens against its workers. But again, this is the U.S. military, and its officials say the law requires them to reclaim the overpayments.

That's the gist of a report by The Los Angeles Times, which says nearly 10,000 soldiers are now scrambling to pay back signing bonuses that helped the Pentagon cope with the task of using an all-volunteer service to fight two prolonged international conflicts.

In addition to doling out cash for re-enlistment, the Pentagon offered student loan repayments. The incentives were seen as crucial to the military's effort to keep its ranks flush, but auditors say the rules should have limited the largest payments to certain skill areas — and that in the rush to staff the war effort, the bonuses were given out too liberally, the L.A. Times reports.

---

I was going to make a snarky joke but this is a little too sad.

If a bonus was offered inappropriately then tough damn shit to the Pentagon if its lost the money. Unless the soldier personally committed fraud or was otherwise in breach of an agreement or directly responsible for the mistake.

If the soldier was personally responsible (eg signing on, taking the benefit, then absconding and refusing to serve out time contracted) then that would be different.

Will the Pentagon bring back from the dead, or unwound those injured, who signed on due in part to these benefits that were improperly offered?

I see that the US government has the same indecent definition of fraud as the Dutch government. But at least overhere retroactive actions on benefits are limited to those cases where the recipient reasonably should have known to have no rights to the benefit. Which in the cases I have read about in the nytimes would have precluded the government from asking the money back. Seems to me that this is accountability taken a step or three too far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If a bonus was offered inappropriately then tough damn shit to the Pentagon if its lost the money. Unless the soldier personally committed fraud or was otherwise in breach of an agreement or directly responsible for the mistake.

---

That is absolutely how it should work. Unfortunately, the federal beancounters are too well aware that they have the enforcement power of the government behind them and that government's subsidiary organizations have a strong interest in clawing back as much money as they can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

That is absolutely how it should work. Unfortunately, the federal beancounters are too well aware that they have the enforcement power of the government behind them and that government's subsidiary organizations have a strong interest in clawing back as much money as they can.

---

The 'strong interest' would be that they'd otherwise be accused of misappropriation of tax money.

The US isn't the only first world democracy that doesn't manage its military policy and funding very well....but since we're the largest military force in the world, this sort of thing is absolutely unacceptable.

Maybe there wouldn't have been a need to offer re-enlistment bonuses (to the 1% who volunteer for military service) if we'd had an official, congressional Declaration of War? And maybe a War Tax to go with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

The US isn't the only first world democracy that doesn't manage its military policy and funding very well....but since we're the largest military force in the world, this sort of thing is absolutely unacceptable.

Maybe there wouldn't have been a need to offer re-enlistment bonuses (to the 1% who volunteer for military service) if we'd had an official, congressional Declaration of War? And maybe a War Tax to go with it?

---

I don't see how a formal declaration of war would change anything (plus the major engagements, Iraq and Afghanistan, were declared, no?).

But I do feel that you had a country willing to wage two large conflicts, and supported that, but was not willing to provide proper resources for it. You wage the war, it will cost you.

From memory they were authorised actions but not full on wars. The military expenditure did jump up under Bush due to the wars.

Between 2000 and 2010 the official military budget more than doubled in nominal terms and a lot of Iraq and Afghanistan expenditure was funded separately on top of that through direct supplementaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

I don't see how a formal declaration of war would change anything (plus the major engagements, Iraq and Afghanistan, were declared, no?).

But I do feel that you had a country willing to wage two large conflicts, and supported that, but was not willing to provide proper resources for it. You wage the war, it will cost you.

---

Congress authorized using military force, and everything since is a continuation of AUMF, but they didn't formally declare War. I think that would have made a bigger impact on the American psyche, with higher expectations for progress, time lines, and mandated funding. Instead we have vague, seemingly perpetual military involvement, and the tax-funded part is mostly a black hole.

The real travesty is that some of these bonuses were being taken back almost a decade after the fact... But there is no due process built into our contracts, so we are at the mercy of department of defense who created the mess to begin with their terrible bonus guidelines....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Congress authorized using military force, and everything since is a continuation of AUMF, but they didn't formally declare War. I think that would have made a bigger impact on the American psyche, with higher expectations for progress, time lines, and mandated funding. Instead we have vague, seemingly perpetual military involvement, and the tax-funded part is mostly a black hole.

---

I doubt most Americans even know whether we declared war on Iraq or not.

:( You know things aren't working right when The National Guard is being used to "keep military ranks flush", and it takes bonus incentives to get them to RE-enlist and RE-deploy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

:( You know things aren't working right when The National Guard is being used to "keep military ranks flush", and it takes bonus incentives to get them to RE-enlist and RE-deploy.

---

Bonus incentives are used to retain talent, just like any other civilian job. Again the issue isn't that there were bonuses themselve. Its the fact that they are making soldiers pay them back because government had shoddy accounting and that there is no real legal remedy to appeal such a decision.

Yes, it's wrong for the DoD to claw back promised re-enlistment bonuses, and it's wrong for the Pentagon to claw back promised college subsidies. But Military jobs aren't just like any other civilian job, and the incentives are entirely different, too. The fact that military doesn't have the same legal remedies as civilians explains a lot...unfortunately. So who's supposed to be looking out for the military (and National Guard) in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spenni

The real travesty is that some of these bonuses were being taken back almost a decade after the fact... But there is no due process built into our contracts, so we are at the mercy of department of defense who created the mess to begin with their terrible bonus guidelines....

---

I suppose that protesting it as publicly as possible, get the story out, may do some good.