Pentagon demands re-enlistment bonus returns a decade after soldiers went to war

[WolfGate]

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

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.

This is indefensible and there is no tenable argument the Pentagon can make for offering bonuses to tens of thousands of soldiers and then going back after their enlistment is done and claiming the bonuses they offered were too large and not legal. The error is entirely on the part of those offering the bonuses but the soldiers are the ones being punished in reality.

I should say I'm surprised, but I am not. My father, a WWII vet, is on a military pension. Twice in the past year they have come back to him and said they miscalculated what he was due and he owed them money. First it was $3000 he had to return in June. Then earlier this month he got a letter saying they also made an error in their recalculation and he actually owes another few hundred dollars he was overpaid. However, he cannot see the formula they use to calculate his pension, so he has no way of determining what he should be getting. In his case it's really more of a irritation and a pension - for the soldiers in some cases it is financial ruin.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I don't think that will put a dent in that missing trillion dollars that vanished.The guys have zero accountablity with how they spend the billions given to them.

 

[High Fidelity]

I don't think the issue is with the proposed amount to be paid, but that they were paid over the agreed upon amount.

While it's a bit silly, if you're overpaid by a civilian employer, you'd still have to pay it back, no matter how frustrating it is.

 

[WolfGate]

I don't think the issue is with the proposed amount to be paid, but that they were paid over the agreed upon amount.

While it's a bit silly, if you're overpaid by a civilian employer, you'd still have to pay it back, no matter how frustrating it is.

That is not how I read it at all. I read it they were told they were eligible for $X, received $X and then after the fact are told they really were not eligible and have to pay it back. If you see something or have other information that confirms what you are saying, please share.

 

[High Fidelity]

That is not how I read it at all. I read it they were told they were eligible for $X, received $X and then after the fact are told they really were not eligible and have to pay it back. If you see something or have other information that confirms what you are seeing, please share.

It's this part that caught my attention;

after audits revealed widespread overpayments by the California Guard at the height of the wars last decade.

It seems odd that something already agreed upon would retroactively be considered an overpayment; especially this long after the fact.

So I suppose it becomes a matter of what they're considering overpayment; the initial payment itself that was agreed(but shouldn't have been because it was too much) or payments after that agreed upon payment(that was then considered in excess of the agreed amount and consequently an overpayment).

Then again, the following statement could imply that under pressure to meet targets, they knowingly offered too much, paid that agreed amount and left it for someone else to deal with after the fact;

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

 

[WolfGate]

It's this part that caught my attention;



It seems odd that something already agreed upon would retroactively be considered an overpayment; especially this long after the fact.

So I suppose it becomes a matter of what they're considering overpayment; the initial payment itself that was agreed(but shouldn't have been because it was too much) or payments after that agreed upon payment(that was then considered in excess of the agreed amount and consequently an overpayment).

Then again, the following statement could imply that under pressure to meet targets, they knowingly offered too much, paid that agreed amount and left it for someone else to deal with after the fact;

I see your point in the first statement, but I think the only way they could ever ask for it back would be to call it an "overpayment". This article or another I read indicated at least one person was convicted of fraud for offering bonuses, so I think it's really clear that wasn't the fault of the soldiers.

 

[redleghunter]

This is indefensible and there is no tenable argument the Pentagon can make for offering bonuses to tens of thousands of soldiers and then going back after their enlistment is done and claiming the bonuses they offered were too large and not legal. The error is entirely on the part of those offering the bonuses but the soldiers are the ones being punished in reality.

Agree. CA Guard should pay any fines out of the federal portion of their budget.

It's not like Joe Civilian has a retained lawyer to check out these contracts. That is supposed to be done by SJA. So some CA Guard and Pentagon lawyers should be held responsible too.

 

[redleghunter]

First it was $3000 he had to return in June. Then earlier this month he got a letter saying they also made an error in their recalculation and he actually owes another few hundred dollars he was overpaid.

VA did something similar to my dad (a WWII and Korea Veteran). It was back in the early 2000s, the VA put out one of those notices to wartime veterans asking them to visit the VA and find out if they had unused benefits. My dad found out that wartime veterans qualified for certain prescription drug benefits. He signed up for them offering all the information they required. Three years later the VA sent a notice and said my father actually did not qualify for the RX coverage given he made over $36,000 a year. They wanted roughly $2K back. He had since passed away, so as the executor I sent them a formal note back nicely telling them to take a hike that they would not be getting their money 'back' and if I were to do so I would be creating a financial burden on a Veteran's widow (my mother). Never heard back from them.

 

[Hank77]

Well the money is taxpayer money and this taxpayer does not want them to have to pay it back.
Someone was writing those checks, so someone knew about it and no one investigated it at the time. Was that because they wanted the soldiers to fulfill those contracts first?

 

[redleghunter]

Well the money is taxpayer money and this taxpayer does not want them to have to pay it back.
Someone was writing those checks, so someone knew about it and no one investigated it at the time. Was that because they wanted the soldiers to fulfill those contracts first?

I think the "laborer is due his wages" applies here. Especially when the lord of the manor set the wages beforehand.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

VA did something similar to my dad (a WWII and Korea Veteran). It was back in the early 2000s, the VA put out one of those notices to wartime veterans asking them to visit the VA and find out if they had unused benefits. My dad found out that wartime veterans qualified for certain prescription drug benefits. He signed up for them offering all the information they required. Three years later the VA sent a notice and said my father actually did not qualify for the RX coverage given he made over $36,000 a year. They wanted roughly $2K back. He had since passed away, so as the executor I sent them a formal note back nicely telling them to take a hike that they would not be getting their money 'back' and if I were to do so I would be creating a financial burden on a Veteran's widow (my mother). Never heard back from them.

I was told in ACAP that veterans 65+ are entitled to a pension by the VA. I am not sure how true that is, but I guess either that is not true, or they decided to not inform your dad of that. I try to tell many older vets around that age because some might be living purely off of SS and we all know how much of a pittance that is. Maybe it has some weird or stupid stipulations that disqualify most of those 65+. I wouldn't b surprised. They have already challenged my disabilities twice and I've only been out 3 years.

 

[Arcangl86]

I hate how the soldiers are being punished for the government's screwup. If the soldier in good faith thought that they were qualified for the payment, they shouldn't be punished for spending it.

 

[redleghunter]

I was told in ACAP that veterans 65+ are entitled to a pension by the VA. I am not sure how true that is, but I guess either that is not true, or they decided to not inform your dad of that. I try to tell many older vets around that age because some might be living purely off of SS and we all know how much of a pittance that is. Maybe it has some weird or stupid stipulations that disqualify most of those 65+. I wouldn't b surprised. They have already challenged my disabilities twice and I've only been out 3 years.

I believe the over 65 pension is for retired Veterans (20 or more years of service) or medically retired Veterans, if they are below the poverty line.

I do know Veterans and widows/widowers of Veterans are eligible for eldercare home care or assisted living facility benefits based on income. It's not much but might help to get a family member in a better assisted living facility. The paperwork was cumbersome and there are so many "if this, then that" stipulations. In my mother's case, my dad passed away and she needed assisted living care. I moved her to a semi-assisted living facility where they have 3 meals a day in a dining room and the apartments are nice and activities. What they did not provide we paid for people to come in (she lived in FL, I was way out of state). To qualify for the VA benefit I would have to move her to a full assist facility and the ones we looked at were not so great. Plus she wanted to be with her friends. We tried twice to get her to come live with us, but she again wanted be with friends and all the great memories she had with dad in the area. So we paid out of pocket and the Lord blessed us with a bounty we used to take care of her. Now some of that bounty awaits my mother-in-law.

 

[redleghunter]

I hate how the soldiers are being punished for the government's screwup. If the soldier in good faith thought that they were qualified for the payment, they shouldn't be punished for spending it.

Agree. Some if not many of them probably paid off debt or as a down payment on a house.

 

[Arcangl86]

Agree. Some if not many of them probably paid off debt or as a down payment on a house.

I don't know if it is the article listed, but I remember reading how several people actually sold off their houses or refinanced their homes to pay these monies back.