Jump to content
IGNORED

govt demands veterans pay back bonuses, with penalties


ayin jade

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

45 minutes ago, Churchmouse said:

I was in the Army when the Berlin war fell. I remember the government started up The Early Out program to reduce the military, by giving bonuses to get out before your enlistment was to come due.

Only those who were promotable to Sargent and above were to participate. I was a Spec 4 (P) in anti-aircraft artilary and was given the choice of either getting out early with $19,000 or being pushed out with $9,000 in a couple of months. I took the $19,000 and about 6 months after I left, I received a letter in the mail from Uncle Sam saying I was overpaid and they wanted $1,000 back. I never responded to it, but this goes to show you that this incident wasn't unique.

I just wonder if it weren't for it being in the middle of an election years, would we be hearing anything about this at all?

 

I just wonder

Thank you for your service.

Just to illustrate this is not a new thing, let me relate my experience that goes back to the 70s

When I joined the US Navy in 1972, I signed up for a six year hitch.  This was very common in those days - the Navy offered good technical training and advanced rank (E3 after boot camp, then E4 after school).  

For those like myself that enlisted under that program, they (we) had a choice to make at our 4th year:  we could extend by 2 years (making a grand total of 8 years enlisted) and get a $10000 bonus; or not extend (original 6 year enlistment) and get a $4000 bonus.  

Along about 1974, the Navy decided to arbitrarily change things.  Enlistees could still get the $10000 by extending to 8 years; but the original agreement was not going to be honored.  Those of us who signed up for 6 years and decided not to extend would get . . . nothing.

So a class action suit against the Navy was started.  Long story short - the decision went against the Navy in about 1977, so I did get my $4000 before I got out in 1978.

But like I said - this is to just show stuff like this is not new.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
9 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Thank you for your service.

Just to illustrate this is not a new thing, let me relate my experience that goes back to the 70s

When I joined the US Navy in 1972, I signed up for a six year hitch.  This was very common in those days - the Navy offered good technical training and advanced rank (E3 after boot camp, then E4 after school).  

For those like myself that enlisted under that program, they (we) had a choice to make at our 4th year:  we could extend by 2 years (making a grand total of 8 years enlisted) and get a $10000 bonus; or not extend (original 6 year enlistment) and get a $4000 bonus.  

Along about 1974, the Navy decided to arbitrarily change things.  Enlistees could still get the $10000 by extending to 8 years; but the original agreement was not going to be honored.  Those of us who signed up for 6 years and decided not to extend would get . . . nothing.

So a class action suit against the Navy was started.  Long story short - the decision went against the Navy in about 1977, so I did get my $4000 before I got out in 1978.

But like I said - this is to just show stuff like this is not new.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

It's not new, but it is still an outrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

It's not new, but it is still an outrage.

Agreed!

Blessings,

-Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,178
  • Topics Per Day:  0.88
  • Content Count:  43,784
  • Content Per Day:  6.23
  • Reputation:   11,227
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, Churchmouse said:

I just wonder if it weren't for it being in the middle of an election years, would we be hearing anything about this at all?

 

I would hope we would hear about it. This isnt a mere 1000 dollars. This is more significant and causing more damage to folks. Whether or not this is business as usual for the military, it needs to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

39 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

I would hope we would hear about it. This isnt a mere 1000 dollars. This is more significant and causing more damage to folks. Whether or not this is business as usual for the military, it needs to be addressed.

If you look at how the other post on this forum framed this discussion, I have no faith we would have heard about it, we did so because it was politically expedient for it to come out now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...