Pentagon reneges on National Guard bonuses

[Kragar]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-guard-bonus-20161020-snap-story.html

Quote

Short of troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago, the California National Guard enticed thousands of soldiers with bonuses of $15,000 or more to reenlist and go to war.

Now the Pentagon is demanding the money back.

Nearly 10,000 soldiers, many of whom served multiple combat tours, have been ordered to repay large enlistment bonuses — and slapped with interest charges, wage garnishments and tax liens if they refuse — after audits revealed widespread overpayments by the California Guard at the height of the wars last decade.

Investigations have determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials under pressure to meet enlistment targets.

But soldiers say the military is reneging on 10-year-old agreements and imposing severe financial hardship on veterans whose only mistake was to accept bonuses offered when the Pentagon needed to fill the ranks.

“These bonuses were used to keep people in,” said Christopher Van Meter, a 42-year-old former Army captain and Iraq veteran from Manteca, Calif., who says he refinanced his home mortgage to repay $25,000 in reenlistment bonuses and $21,000 in student loan repayments that the Army says he should not have received. “People like me just got screwed.”

In Iraq, Van Meter was thrown from an armored vehicle turret — and later awarded a Purple Heart for his combat injuries — after the vehicle detonated a buried roadside bomb.

Susan Haley, a Los Angeles native and former Army master sergeant who deployed to Afghanistan in 2008, said she sends the Pentagon $650 a month — a quarter of her family’s income — to pay down $20,500 in bonuses that the Guard says were given to her improperly. 

“I feel totally betrayed,” said Haley, 47, who served 26 years in the Army along with her husband and oldest son, a medic who lost a leg in combat in Afghanistan.

Haley, who now lives in Kempner, Texas, worries they may have to sell their house to repay the bonuses. “They’ll get their money, but I want those years back,” she said, referring to her six-year reenlistment.  

The problem offers a dark perspective on the Pentagon’s use of hefty cash incentives to fill its all-volunteer force during the longest era of warfare in the nation’s history.

Even Guard officials concede that taking back the money from military veterans is distasteful.

“At the end of the day, the soldiers ended up paying the largest price,” said Maj. Gen. Matthew Beevers, deputy commander of the California Guard. “We’d be more than happy to absolve these people of their debts. We just can’t do it. We’d be breaking the law.”

Facing enlistment shortfalls and two major wars with no end in sight, the Pentagon began offering the most generous incentives in its history to retain soldiers in the mid-2000s.

It also began paying the money up front, like the signing bonuses that some businesses pay in the civilian sector.

“It was a real sea change in how business was done,” said Col. Michael S. Piazzoni, a California Guard official in Sacramento who oversaw the audits. “The system paid everybody up front, and then we spent the next five years figuring out if they were eligible.”

The bonuses were supposed to be limited to soldiers in high-demand assignments like intelligence and civil affairs or to noncommissioned officers badly needed in units due to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The National Guard Bureau, the Pentagon agency that oversees state Guard organizations,  has acknowledged that bonus overpayments occurred in every state at the height of the two wars. 

But the money was handed out far more liberally in the California Guard, which has about 17,000 soldiers and is one of the largest state Guard organizations.

In 2010, after reports surfaced of improper payments, a federal investigation found that thousands of bonuses and student loan payments were given to California Guard soldiers who did not qualify for them, or were approved despite paperwork errors.

Army Master Sgt. Toni Jaffe, the California Guard’s incentive manager, pleaded guilty in 2011 to filing false claims of $15.2 million and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Three officers also pleaded guilty to fraud and were put on probation after paying restitution.

Instead of forgiving the improper bonuses, the California Guard assigned 42 auditors to comb through paperwork for bonuses and other incentive payments given to 14,000 soldiers, a process that was finally completed last month. 

Roughly 9,700 current and retired soldiers have been told by the California Guard to repay some or all of their bonuses and the recoupment effort has recovered more than $22 million so far.

This is absolutely disgusting.  It's all well and good that they caught and punished the recruiters that messed with the system, but to go back against people that risked their lives, and often don't make much money to begin with, and take back money paid to them years ago is insane.  If the soldiers did nothing wrong, they shouldn't have to pay back anything.

 

When you consider that this only amounts to $15-20 Million, you would think the Pentagon could do the right thing and absorb it.  But it looks like they won't.

 

There's a new White House petition I found in a follow-up to the LA Times article above.  If any other US citizens are outraged about this, please go to the site and sign the petition to have Congress take care of the problem.

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/help-american-combat-soldiers-forced-pay-back-enlistment-bonusesstudent-loan-payments-decade-later-due-hr-error

 

For the record, I am not aware of knowing anyone in the National Guard. affected by this or not, and do not stand to benefit from this in any way.  I just heard it on the radio this morning and thought it was sickening.

[Lancaster]

You can always tell what type of government you have by the way it treats it vets.  

 

Thousands of soldiers pissed at the government.... no wonder many in positions of power wants to neuter the 2nd amendment.  

[Warhippy]

Hmmm...how ever will Clinton go to war with Iran and Syria and beef up defences in Ukraine against Russia after she wins the election when her government has treated soldiers like this....

 

Here, enlist we need you here's some cash.  Ok...nope wars over give it back.. Heyyyyyy buddy, who loves ya?  We need you for Syria, but you still owe us $20,000 k

 

Man...

[Kakanucks]

Ah....the good ol' we'll treat you like king when we need you, and we'll treat you like dirt once you're no longer of use.

[Tre Mac]

Some of the comments make it seem they're demanding all of the enlistment bonuses back.  They only want the money the soldiers weren't entitled to in the first place.  This is no different than a bank or BC Hydro making a error in billing and asking you to pay what is properly owed.  Not defending this by any means but that is life.

 

 

[SabreFan1]

2 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

Some of the comments make it seem they're demanding all of the enlistment bonuses back.  They only want the money the soldiers weren't entitled to in the first place.  This is no different than a bank or BC Hydro making a error in billing and asking you to pay what is properly owed.  Not defending this by any means but that is life.

 

Re-enlistment bonuses were being handed out all over the country back then.  They took the money assuming that it was the same as everywhere else.  The fault and responsibility lies with the military, not the soldiers.

[Kragar]

2 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

Some of the comments make it seem they're demanding all of the enlistment bonuses back.  They only want the money the soldiers weren't entitled to in the first place.  This is no different than a bank or BC Hydro making a error in billing and asking you to pay what is properly owed.  Not defending this by any means but that is life.

 

 

I get where you're coming from, but I disagree.  If Hydro bills you a wrong amount, it is clear to show that you used so much power, and should be billed accordingly.  In this case, it was a bonus to sign a new contract.  The soldiers provided additional work when they were not required to.  They can't get those years back, and anything they suffered while continuing to serve is now a part of their lives.   They sure as hell couldn't decide part way through to change their minds.

 

If the soldiers knew that they weren't entitled, then I would agree with you.  But unless that can be proven, the soldiers performed their part of the contract, and the employer needs to suck it up.  It was their error, not the soldier's.

[HerrDrFunk]

Hmm....the military needs to get it's money back. What would be the best way to go about this? Stop buying M1 tanks that the military doesn't want and has no use for? Nah, let's make the soldiers pay it back. That's much better.

[Canuck_Fan_52]

Slap in the face to those who serve!  This is disgusting.  Leave the soldiers alone! 

[Tortorella's Rant]

you're a sucker to join the U.S. military in this day and age. Further evidence of that. 

[Ryan Strome]

The U.S is terrible in so many ways.

[Ryan Strome]

5 hours ago, Lancaster said:

You can always tell what type of government you have by the way it treats it vets.  

 

Thousands of soldiers pissed at the government.... no wonder many in positions of power wants to neuter the 2nd amendment.  

Your first sentence is the best my man. I tell people this all the time. +1

[Ryan Strome]

4 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

Some of the comments make it seem they're demanding all of the enlistment bonuses back.  They only want the money the soldiers weren't entitled to in the first place.  This is no different than a bank or BC Hydro making a error in billing and asking you to pay what is properly owed.  Not defending this by any means but that is life.

 

 

When even the American disagrees with you I think your goose is cooked. But in fairness you said you aren't defending it.

[nucklehead]

burn it to the ground

[Canuck_Fan_52]

Looks like there is a temproary reprieve for the soldiers as the Pentagon orders a suspension of collecting payments from these men.  Hopefully it becomes permanent .

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/26/carter-suspends-pentagon-s-demand-return-cash-bonuses-to-california-soldiers.html

[Kragar]

5 hours ago, Canuck_Fan_52 said:

Looks like there is a temproary reprieve for the soldiers as the Pentagon orders a suspension of collecting payments from these men.  Hopefully it becomes permanent .

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/26/carter-suspends-pentagon-s-demand-return-cash-bonuses-to-california-soldiers.html

Good news, thanks for posting.  I heard on the radio on the way home last night that McCarthy (House Majority Leader) was also going to step in somehow.  Nice to see some people in charge are listening!

[Angry Goose]

Wrong people to nickle and dime IMO.  Plenty of phat pockets elsewhere.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

On 10/24/2016 at 1:22 PM, Warhippy said:

Hmmm...how ever will Clinton go to war with Iran and Syria and beef up defences in Ukraine against Russia after she wins the election when her government has treated soldiers like this....

 

Here, enlist we need you here's some cash.  Ok...nope wars over give it back.. Heyyyyyy buddy, who loves ya?  We need you for Syria, but you still owe us $20,000 k

 

Man...

She is going to do what Obama has already been doing, which is privatize, privatize, privatize.  US military is too expensive and causes too much exposure when someone gets hurt or dies.  Contracted soldiers will do just as good and the government isn't legally obliged to report any casualties.

[Warhippy]

3 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

She is going to do what Obama has already been doing, which is privatize, privatize, privatize.  US military is too expensive and causes too much exposure when someone gets hurt or dies.  Contracted soldiers will do just as good and the government isn't legally obliged to report any casualties.

Wait....that would mean the US would in effect slowly phase out its own armed forces and as such the US would not have a standing army as per the constitution.

 

Never happen

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Wait....that would mean the US would in effect slowly phase out its own armed forces and as such the US would not have a standing army as per the constitution.

 

Never happen

Standing armies cost money, and clearly the Americans are too cheap to pay their own soldiers.

 

The reality is that USA is paying a lot of private soldiers to fight, and they don't have to deal with this kind of "bonus" crap.