Injured troops to keep their bonuses

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.”

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.”

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.

You would think the repubs would have no objection to allow the bonuses to injured troops but recall that they blocked the Webb amendment to allow the soldiers rest between deployments and blocked a sufficient wage increase. Don’t be surprised when this gets stalled under the guise that it doesn’t help soldiers in the long run.

  • One wonders what the Army’s position would be if a soldier could not complete a full tour of duty because he or she was killed in combat.

  • Danton @2, that’s easy. Bill next of kin for body transport and burial (fuel surcharge and headstone extra).

  • 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.”

    Well, they’ve got to do something about that. This is what we should fight for now and what Democrats should keep mentioning. Mention how they tried to gyp them out of the whole payment at first, but then backed down when people started noticing.

  • Where did this lunatic set of regs come from? Whose brainchild was it? In other words, who do I need to vilify?

    This will really help the Army make its recruiting goals. Can you hear the recruiter, telling prospective soldiers “you get a 20k bonus and you can keep it if you don’t get shot to rags. If you get hit, you have to kick back the dough.” Yeah, that’s really gonna encourage the troops.

  • Strange, the feedback I read here and on other blogs suggested what happened to Fox was SOP.

    So either BG Tucker isn’t being entirely honest (shocking!) or he’s parsing.

    Can you hear the recruiter, telling prospective soldiers “you get a 20k bonus and you can keep it if you don’t get shot to rags. If you get hit, you have to kick back the dough.”

    I think if a recruiter were that honest he’d find himself in Darkest Afghanistan faster than you can say “9/11 Changed Everything.”

  • If I understand correctly, the guy filing paper in the Green Zone gets to keep his bonus money because he never put his life on the line, while the brave men and women who are out getting injured have to pro-rate if they get hurt? Seems to be stacked against the soldiers who really pay the price. I want to know who’s idea it was to do this.
    This administration needs to come crashing down- LET’S ROLL!

  • How long will it take for these folks to get their money back ? How long until the “Collection Notices” stop arriving in the mail , plus interest ?

  • Gen. Tucker said, “We’re not sure what happened, but we’re gonna fix it.”

    Oh, bullshit. DoD got caught screwing over the grunts. Plain and simple. If this hadn’t made it to the media, and all they had was a couple of soldiers complaining, then nothing would have changed.

    Just a cynical veteran’s opinion.

  • Isn’t anyone minding the money? I mean, does the press have to find these kind of errors of judgment before the military does anything about them? Like substandard hospitals? It does seem as if they won’t do the right thing unless they’re caught.

  • I imagine they are fixing it in the same manner that they are fixing Walter Reed (how come we never hear about that…it’s hardly fixed!)

    I love the American mindset (and no, not everyone, but way too many)…Look! Over there, it’s Paris Hilton. (head swing…veteran affairs poofed out of their little minds)

  • This little snippet from Think Progress:

    ****While serving in Iraq, a roadside bomb knocked Jordan unconscious and blinded him in his right eye. He is now recovering a portion of his eyesight, but continues to have back pain. Jordan had received $10,000 as a signing bonus for enlisting. The Army originally demanded that he return $5,000, but reduced the amount to $3,000 after transferring his unused leave pay.****

    So, let’s do some math…

    His signing bonus had been $10K and his commitment was what? 12 months? 15? 18? 24? My guess would be at least 18, since the current tours of duty seem to be set at 15 months and he probably needed some training before being sent. So, $10K, spread over 18 months, means S555.00 per month. He missed 3 months. It should have come to $1666. Yet, they wanted $5K back to begin with and then, graciously, lowered that to $3K — almost twice what he “owed”. Not only did they engage in the abominable practice of welshing out on their obligation, but applied Lombard terms to the whole thing as well.

    I’ve been wondering for a while now where the Pentagon was getting their money from for the upped signing bonuses ($25K and more) necessary to meet the recruiting quota (just changing the age and issuing “moral waivers” by the truckload has not been enough). Now, I think I know.

    And yes, barrelhse (@8), exactly so. Or would be, if the paper-pushers getting a butt-spread in the (relative) safety of Green Zone were *military*. But I think they’re the 100 000 of civilian contractors that Perino threatened yesterday with furloughs before Christmas, if the Congress doesn’t deliver — no questions asked — as soon as maybe.

  • I think it is unconscionable!

    If left unchecked, would the widow of a G.I. killed in action have been required to return the money paid to her dead husband.

    What kind of a country have we become??

  • Comments are closed.