SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Pentagon recently asked nearly 10,000 soldiers to repay excessive bonuses they were given for re-enlisting in the California National Guard between 2007 and 2009 amid the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress was notified of the problem in 2014, but representatives failed to pass a provision that would allow the Defense Secretary to waive the repayments.
Some representatives claim that the California National Guard failed to convey the scale of the repayments issue or make it a congressional priority. An outraged and bipartisan group of legislators have called for quick action and full forgiveness of the overpayments (estimated to be around $70 million). On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and President Obama have promised to resolve the issue, even as officials acknowledge that the issue may extend to other states:
President Obama has told the Defense Department to expedite its review of nearly 10,000 California National Guard soldiers who have been ordered to repay enlistment bonuses improperly given a decade ago, but he is not backing growing calls for Congress to waive the debts, the White House said Tuesday. The comments by White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggest the administration is running into legal and policy roadblocks as it struggles to handle a public relations headache for the Pentagon, the National Guard and members of Congress who were caught off guard by the scope of the problem.
[...] California Guard officials say they informed California lawmakers about the scale of the debts in 2014, telling them in a list of legislative priorities sent to each House office and the House Armed Services Committee that "thousands of soldiers have inadvertently incurred debt, through no fault of their own because of faulty Army recruiting or accounting practices."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:36PM
My bank puts an extra $1,000 in my account on their error..... When the error is discovered, I am responsible for the repayment of that $1000 from my account.
Purchase an item with a $1,000 rebate written into the terms of the contract, the seller cuts a $10,000 rebate check to me. When discovered, I am liable for knowing that it was contracted for only $1,000 and I'm on the hook to repay the $9,000.
Hire me on an employment contract of $50,000 with a $5,000 signing bonus. I'm cut a check for $60,000. When audited, guess who is responsible for the extra $5,000?
How should this be *any* different? Because it is the military and they're underpaid?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:51PM
You're wrong on all accounts. You didn't describe what actually happened.
Nope. The bank said they gave you the $1,000 as a bonus for opening up the account and being willing to spend money on your ATM card at least 10 times per month. That's not a banking error, but a proffered gift for coming to the bank in the first place. At no time did you believe receiving the money was the slightest bit improper, and certainly not the same as finding it on the ground.
Again, nope. At all times the purchaser was under the explicit understanding the rebate was $10,000, not $1,000. The numbers and amounts are not in dispute, only whether they were proper. Only ONE party had any ability to determine the correctness of the amounts, and that was the government representative, not the recruited soldier.
Again, nope. That signing bonus was an explicit amount and the soldier received exactly what was promised to them by the recruiter.
There is absolutely zero way you can blame this on the soldier, or reasonably believe that the vast majority of soldiers receiving the money had any hint of impropriety. You forget with the nature of the contract and its implied consequences of possibly going to war, those amounts are actually reasonable when you factor in costs of living and that soldier needs to be able to pay bills, support a family, all while out on duty.
Anybody trying to blame the soldiers here should just be ashamed. They did nothing wrong at all, whatsoever. If they are forced to pay it back, I suggest they march on Washington as an army. Wouldn't be the first time servicemen have had to march on Washington, face friendly fire, and demand their dignity and to be paid correctly.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:30PM
It is said that there were soldiers that knew the amount they were given was not an amount they qualified for. That should need to be proven in each separate case, but in those cases I wold accept the requirement to repay as reasonable. BUT IT SHOULD NEED TO BE PROVEN IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE!
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:55PM
None of those things happened. I'll correct one as an example. You are offered $50k with a $5k signing bonus. You accept and sign on the dotted line and are cut a check for $55k. You work your full term in good faith and move on. Ten years later, they come to you and say "on second thought, we only want to pay you $1k signing bonus. Please repay us the extra $4k promptly. or we'll tear it from your hide!".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:17PM
Your example is much much worse. "They" didn't change their minds years later and decided ex post facto to reduce the original signing bonus, "they" realized years later that they paid them more than they were supposed to, just as the AC's examples were about.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:48PM
No, "they" realized that they offered the soldiers more than they intended to. But nevertheless, it was an offer that was made and accepted.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Type44Q on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:06PM
Is it different, going through life knowing you're a piece-of-shit shill?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:20PM
Is it any worse than going through life as a pompous piece of shit who decides where the lines of morality lie for everyone? (Not to mention setting his morality line wherever his knee-jerk reaction takes him at the time regardless of circumstances).