Injured troops to keep their bonuses

[Guest obby]

Injured troops to keep their bonuses

Posted November 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

Following up on an item from yesterday, news that injured U.S. troops were being asked to return bonus money from the military spread very quickly, putting the Pentagon in a very awkward position. The good news, the practice apparently won’t happen any more.

To briefly recap for those just joining us, a CBS affiliate in Pittsburgh reported this week that the Pentagon is “demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.†Troops get up to $30,000 enlistment bonuses, but in thousands of cases, soldiers seriously wounded during their deployments have been ordered to pay back some of the money.

In particular, the report focused on Iraq war veteran Jordan Fox, who was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle, causing back injuries and blindness in his right eye. He was sent home, unable to complete the final three months of his military commitment. Last week, the Pentagon sent him a bill: Fox owed the government nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus.

This morning, Brigadier General Michael Tucker, deputy commanding general of Walter Reed, appeared on Fox News to discuss the controversy. He acknowledged that this has happened, but assured the audience that it was a mistake that wouldn’t happen again.

This is, to be sure, encouraging. For those who can’t watch clips online, Gen. Tucker said, “We’re not sure what happened, but we’re gonna fix it.†Troops will not be asked for a refund, and those who’ve already given bonus money back will be reimbursed.

But there are a few lingering questions.

Paul Kiel explains that troops will now be able to keep the money they’ve already received, but what about the rest of the money they’re owed?

Tucker said that army policy “is that soldiers who are wounded in combat or have line of duty investigation injuries… we will not go after a recoupment of any bonuses they receive.†Recouping bonuses, he said, “doesn’t pass the common sense test.â€

But notice that phrasing. While that policy, if implemented, would prevent injured soldiers from having to pay back bonuses they’d already received, they might still not receive their full enlistment bonus. That’s because the Army could still withhold parts of the bonus on the basis that the soldiers didn’t complete their full tour due to the injury.

Indeed, Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Penn.), who’s taken the lead on protecting the troops’ bonuses added, “…I am disappointed that the policy does not go further by stating that wounded soldiers will also receive the remaining balance of future bonus payments. It is preposterous for our government to have a policy that says that a soldier who has sustained serious injuries in the field of battle has not fulfilled his or her service obligation.â€

Troops get their full enlistment bonus after they fulfill their contract. Injured troops who can’t serve obviously can’t finish their obligation. Altmire wants to change that, and while I know Republican lawmakers tend to reflexively object to any Democratic legislation regarding the troops, I’d like to think Altmire’s proposals to fix the system would pass Congress unanimously.

[Guest Mattivi]

only after the bad word spread, did they retract their original position, the disconcerting point is the intention was still there. but at any rate glad this isnt going to happen.

[Guest yume]

This is beyond fucked up. More proof that the whole "Support Our Troops" mantra that many in our government spew is a load of bullshit. The fact is troops are just cannon fodder to them.

The VA is a non-working mess, our troops are coming home fucked in the head or the body and our government looks the other way.

Independent contractors get paid twice as much to do the same work our troops do. Why serve your country, when Halliburton pays better and offers better health insurance?

The Pentagon might as well say: "The troops have served their purpose. Let em' go limp around homeless after they give us our money back. We bought their lives fair and square, and they didn't live up to the contract."

The hypocracy is choking me.

[Guest cire]

Nice to see the decision reversed, but it's still sad that the position was different before they changed. Good luck and God bless the troops.

[Guest trancepriest]

Tucker said that army policy “is that soldiers who are wounded in combat or have line of duty investigation injuries… we will not go after a recoupment of any bonuses they receive.†Recouping bonuses, he said, “doesn’t pass the common sense test.â€

But notice that phrasing. While that policy, if implemented, would prevent injured soldiers from having to pay back bonuses they’d already received, they might still not receive their full enlistment bonus. That’s because the Army could still withhold parts of the bonus on the basis that the soldiers didn’t complete their full tour due to the injury.

Indeed, Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Penn.), who’s taken the lead on protecting the troops’ bonuses added, “…I am disappointed that the policy does not go further by stating that wounded soldiers will also receive the remaining balance of future bonus payments. It is preposterous for our government to have a policy that says that a soldier who has sustained serious injuries in the field of battle has not fulfilled his or her service obligation.â€

Guys pay attention to the phrasing... they will not go after any bonuses they have RECEIVED.

[Guest cire]

Hell, I found out last nite, due to the fact my Grandmother is about to pass away, that if she recieves a social security check for the month of December and passes away at the beginning of the month, we have to send the money back. Something about that is disturbing to me, I don't know there is too much, fucked up with the, 'Wording' of all of the shit they make laws, regulations, contracts for in the government.