Opinion: BAH Equality

[Unregistered]

This whole bah equality is crap I am married and my wife is civilian, but I'm not gonna sit here and complain that i dont get enough bah or complain about the fact that a military to military marriage gets a hell of a lot more bah than i do. Shouldn't i have the right to complain about that since you single ppl seem to complain that you dont get enough. Whatever. I could care less it is the way it is. Stop wasting your breath and time because like one person earlier on in this thread said it's not like anyone of importance is going to listen to us NCO's about this stuff anyway. By the way could you imagine how much a officer to officer marriage is probably getting in BAH. Most officers I know around where I live have some kick @$$ houses like three to four times the cost of mine. They live in 240,000-250,000+ dollar houses and oh yeah by the way an O-1 Single makes a quite a bit more BAH than me.

Let me correct myself don't want to start any rumors/wars an 0-3 with dependents makes more than me not a 0-1 Single, do they deserve it, I'm not sure? Just cause their an officer?? But like i said earlier they have very nice houses plus their base pay also and very nice cars for the most part. But I really don't care. Like I said it is the way it is an I can't really complain. And I DID NOT get married to get a BAH with dependents allowance!! By the way if I lived on Base I would still get BAH with dependants but it would go to the Housing Contractor and if you think about it thats a waste of money. An E-4 could live in the same type housing as me an pay less BAH, it's a retarded system on bases.

[technomage1]

By the way could you imagine how much a officer to officer marriage is probably getting in BAH. Most officers I know around where I live have some kick @$$ houses like three to four times the cost of mine. They live in 240,000-250,000+ dollar houses and oh yeah by the way an O-1 Single makes a quite a bit more BAH than me.

Well, yes, that is because they are officers (white collar workers). Of course they get more BAH than you or I, that's to be expected.

Most of the Os that I know that are living in houses like that are mortgaged up to their earlobes.

[Unregistered]

Let's asume that in the past all BAH was given based on pay grade. Do you think that married service members would be on this board complaining that they deserve or need more money than single service members? I'm a single SSG that resides off post in an apartment. I'll gladly sacrifice the $100 more that married folks get in BAH to not have the extra expenses incurred with multiple residents in their home. Even at the single rate I bank extra income through BAH. Why? My water bill is low because I shower at work after PT and my electric bill is low because I don't mind my apartment being a little cold in the winter or hot in the summer. A married soldier is going to have higher expenses.

[ScottyJF03]

The view that I see a lot is that because I chose to get married and there are more people in my house, I have to have more rooms, thus the military has to pay us more for that space. Because those singles people chose not to get married, they don't have to pay for those other people than they get to waste their money on booze and partying. Singles say its my money and I should be able to spend it as I see it and if I work as much as someone else to do the same job why shouldn't I get compensated the same. Spouses see the commitment they make and the sacrifices they make to be with the one they chose to marry and be with, and feel the extra BAH is a small compensation for their sacrifice.
May not be the intent but it is how I view the discussions.

Everyone is being selfish and trying to do what is best for them, human nature. Everyone sees things through the lenses that make up their lives.

What is the difference between the service member who Chose to marry and has five kids and thus needs extra bedrooms, to the service member who Chose to take care of a sibling (non dependent) and thus needs and extra bedroom to the service member who Chose to have have a large dog and thus needs a backyard to properly care for the animal, to the service member who Chose to buy a boat who needs a place to store it, to the service member who Chose to live on their own until financially dependent? Everyone feels they're getting screwed, but only the first one gets a larger BAH allowance for the same work.

Did you realize that the govt pays service members for their child support. I am all about taking care of children, but having a child has personal joys and personal consequences.

I agree that many O's live in nice place, many of the O's I know bought their house and are paying a mortgage many times more than they make in BAH, (My DivO on the other hand lives in a shit hole to pay off loans for school). This is their CHOICE. They chose to live in a nicer place than they were allotted based on BAH and are willing to pay out of pocket. I can also say that I overhear officers complaining about equality in BAH.

[Unregistered]

Let's asume that in the past all BAH was given based on pay grade. Do you think that married service members would be on this board complaining that they deserve or need more money than single service members? I'm a single SSG that resides off post in an apartment. I'll gladly sacrifice the $100 more that married folks get in BAH to not have the extra expenses incurred with multiple residents in their home. Even at the single rate I bank extra income through BAH. Why? My water bill is low because I shower at work after PT and my electric bill is low because I don't mind my apartment being a little cold in the winter or hot in the summer. A married soldier is going to have higher expenses.

This is true I have friends that are single an live off base and bank pretty good money through BAH and they don't complain. Most of them rent houses together. I know that probably most of the single ppl in this thread probably bank pretty good and they know it, but some are greedy and just want to complain about a married persons Advantage if you can call it that. At least the guy who i'm quoting above has some common sense about BAH w/dependents an w/o.

[technomage1]

The view that I see a lot is that because I chose to get married and there are more people in my house, I have to have more rooms, thus the military has to pay us more for that space. Because those singles people chose not to get married, they don't have to pay for those other people than they get to waste their money on booze and partying. Singles say its my money and I should be able to spend it as I see it and if I work as much as someone else to do the same job why shouldn't I get compensated the same. Spouses see the commitment they make and the sacrifices they make to be with the one they chose to marry and be with, and feel the extra BAH is a small compensation for their sacrifice.
May not be the intent but it is how I view the discussions.

Everyone is being selfish and trying to do what is best for them, human nature. Everyone sees things through the lenses that make up their lives.

What is the difference between the service member who Chose to marry and has five kids and thus needs extra bedrooms, to the service member who Chose to take care of a sibling (non dependent) and thus needs and extra bedroom to the service member who Chose to have have a large dog and thus needs a backyard to properly care for the animal, to the service member who Chose to buy a boat who needs a place to store it, to the service member who Chose to live on their own until financially dependent? Everyone feels they're getting screwed, but only the first one gets a larger BAH allowance for the same work.

Did you realize that the govt pays service members for their child support. I am all about taking care of children, but having a child has personal joys and personal consequences.

I agree that many O's live in nice place, many of the O's I know bought their house and are paying a mortgage many times more than they make in BAH, (My DivO on the other hand lives in a shit hole to pay off loans for school). This is their CHOICE. They chose to live in a nicer place than they were allotted based on BAH and are willing to pay out of pocket. I can also say that I overhear officers complaining about equality in BAH.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Thanks for adding to the discussion in a calm, non accusatory way.

[Unregistered]

I'm single...I think I did my time by living in a ship for 3 years BECAUSE I WAS SINGLE. Now I reached the rank to be alegible for single BAH, the more BAH I get the better...keep it coming. I rather get a bigger pay check than an "incentive " once a year. In the other hand, I had a supervisor who had 5 kids, a cat and a dog. I dont know how he managed with the amount of BAH he was receiving, very sad.

[Measure Man]

Did you realize that the govt pays service members for their child support. I am all about taking care of children, but having a child has personal joys and personal consequences. .

Good points...BUT, the govt. does not pay servicemembers for child support.

They do pay you with dependent rate BAH though. However, when stationed overseas you get screwed out of that.

Let's say you are a divorced parent who pays child support (do not have primary custody).

In CONUS, you get BAH with dependent. Well, since the child is not living with you, you can rent quarters suitable to being single...presumably at a lower rate than family quarters, and use the difference to pay child support.

Overseas however, you are entitled to with dependent OHA...but OHA works different, you only get paid for the cost of the place you rent. So, if you rent a small apartment suitable for a single person...that's all you get paid. You don't get any difference to help pay child support.

[Unregistered]

Perhaps your narrow mindedness should have single Soldiers neutered so we can fix the "financial burden" married Soldiers bring with them.

[mel44]

Perhaps your narrow mindedness should have single Soldiers neutered so we can fix the "financial burden" married Soldiers bring with them.

Is that an option???:D

[Unregistered]

That's DOD policy, not USMC.


If you worked for AT&T, or GM, or even Wal-Mart, and you walked into your boss' office and said "Boss, I've made a purely personal life-style decision that has no bearing on my terms of employment with this company, so you must now pay me more money." what do you think the reaction would be?

I completely agree. This is probably the one point in the Army Pay System that really gets me fired up. I am a Single LT in Germany. OHA works a bit differently but married people do get more money than Single people for housing, and the story is even worse with COLA. An married E5 with 3 years in service makes at least as much money as I do after calculating the increase in COLA and all of the extra benefits and expenses that they get taken care of. I don't understand how they can make more COLA than I do when it is meant to adjust the buying power of the base pay. Some people argue that the extra increase is to go to family members. Since when do family members get a paycheck and why does the DOD pay family members for marrying a military member? I completely agree that it is a lifestyle decision to get married and the family is your responsibility. No where on the private world do you get a paycheck based upon marital status and the current system helps promote more marriages (which cause more problems part of the time because they aren't ready) and much greater costs.

The military needs to give a paycheck for rank and time in service and make one standard married or single. If married people cannot survive off of the single rate, then everyone should get the married rate but don't differentiate. There shouldn't be a welfare system in place like this. I don't feel like I get paid what I am worth when my peers that are married make significantly more just because they are married. They already get significantly more programs and benefits in their favor. There is no need for the welfare system in place.

I graduated from West Point. Between Graduation and signing into your first duty station completing a PCS, you are TDY for 7-10 months. If you are single, you will not get BAH and be stuck in crummy billeting. If you are married you get stuck in crummy builleting and get BAH for the location where your wife is located because you are "responsible to provide for your spouse" which single servicemembers are not and you also get Family Separation pay and most of the married people have their spouses with them or at home with their families not costing anything extra. Lets do a little calculations. If I married after graduation and I was on TDY for almost 8 months and if she was from Los Angeles with BAH around 1700 dollars a month and FSA of 250 a month, I would have at least an extra $15,000 in my pocket. A contract marriage would have been convenient and I hate feeling that way because it is wrong to be coerced like that.

[Unregistered]

And when you live in the barracks, you forfeit the BAH monies (at least most of them).

I know why they have the differences. But I can understand the complaints of the single folks as well. Just look at the simple fact that in the Air Force, you are forced to live in the dormitories/barracks until you make e-5 (some bases e-4) if you are single......yet if you are married as an Amn or A1c, you "qualify" for base housing or BAH to live off base. No sharing living space or kitchens or bathrooms with 2-10 other people (depending on dorm setup); no dorm inspections; etc.


Absolutely! I have a SSG that has 8 years in and is forced to live in the barracks and an E-1 can be married and have the privacy and comfortability of his own on post APT because he is married. What compensation for increased responsibility and duty?!?

[Unregistered]

It's called incentive. How else are you going to get a service member with a family to stay in? Is your barracks room furnished? Do you pay electricity, water, sewer, trash?

BAH is for anyone living off post that has to pay electricity, water, sewer and trash whether they be married or single. As such the married and single rate should be the same as any additional cost of living due to being married should be assumed by the service member. The married person living off post will be at a disadvantage to the one living on post, but maybe that is something that should change as well? It sounds like the privatization of on-post housing on some Army Posts has helped with that some.

[Unregistered]

You could extrapolate on this point even further - the SFC with five children has further financially burdened the DOD with increased costs due to the need for medical and dental care for all of those dependents. The single servicemember has not. Perhaps single soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors should get a small annual bonus each year they remain single, to reward them for not costing the government so damned much money as those with numerous dependents.

I agree that the ones with more dependents should get more. They give up alot when they are deployed. Or out in the field. The family makes many sacrafices. Wives may have had a good job before the army but they are forced to give up their career for their husbands. I think it is great that the military takes that into consideration. Raising a family these days take two incomes! And when the spouse is forced out of their job due to reloacting then I think it is great that they are still able to feed their kids and take care of their family!

[Unregistered]

The intent of BAH is to provide uniformed service members accurate and equitable housing compensation
based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets. BAH is payable when government quarters are not
provided. BAH is based on geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. Based on the BAH
legislation, members of each grade receiving the median allowance will have zero out-of pocket expense.

Straight from the horses mouth, you can't expect a married with kids or single with kids to live in the same quarters as a single person.

[Measure Man]

I completely agree. This is probably the one point in the Army Pay System that really gets me fired up. I am a Single LT in Germany. OHA works a bit differently but married people do get more money than Single people for housing, and the story is even worse with COLA. An married E5 with 3 years in service makes at least as much money as I do after calculating the increase in COLA and all of the extra benefits and expenses that they get taken care of. I don't understand how they can make more COLA than I do when it is meant to adjust the buying power of the base pay. Some people argue that the extra increase is to go to family members. Since when do family members get a paycheck and why does the DOD pay family members for marrying a military member? I completely agree that it is a lifestyle decision to get married and the family is your responsibility. No where on the private world do you get a paycheck based upon marital status and the current system helps promote more marriages (which cause more problems part of the time because they aren't ready) and much greater costs.

The military needs to give a paycheck for rank and time in service and make one standard married or single. If married people cannot survive off of the single rate, then everyone should get the married rate but don't differentiate. There shouldn't be a welfare system in place like this. I don't feel like I get paid what I am worth when my peers that are married make significantly more just because they are married. They already get significantly more programs and benefits in their favor. There is no need for the welfare system in place.

I graduated from West Point. Between Graduation and signing into your first duty station completing a PCS, you are TDY for 7-10 months. If you are single, you will not get BAH and be stuck in crummy billeting. If you are married you get stuck in crummy builleting and get BAH for the location where your wife is located because you are "responsible to provide for your spouse" which single servicemembers are not and you also get Family Separation pay and most of the married people have their spouses with them or at home with their families not costing anything extra. Lets do a little calculations. If I married after graduation and I was on TDY for almost 8 months and if she was from Los Angeles with BAH around 1700 dollars a month and FSA of 250 a month, I would have at least an extra $15,000 in my pocket. A contract marriage would have been convenient and I hate feeling that way because it is wrong to be coerced like that.

Spot on. Well said, Lt!

[Unregistered]

WOW, I agree with the poster who said these arguments are absured and based on no real foundation whatsoever. First off a spouse is counted as a dependent because she is a sependent. Second it only makes sense to give a bit more money for a person in the military who has finacial obligation to more than one person, i.e dependents. How can a sound minded person even make the argument that two people can live under the same conditions as one person. That's the equivilant of saying you can save enough food for a disaster to support one person and with the same amount of food you can support two or even more people for the exact same amount of time. Let's be logical here people. Staying single or married is not something to be punished or rewarded for, however, getting more BAH is not a reward, it is a requirement, simply because two or more people, can't live under the same housing conditions as one, no matter how you try and spin it. At least not in America, or anywhere on earth for that matter, unless I missed something in economics. Don't even get me started on the whole welfare comparison...OMG!!!! Sometimes, it really saddens me the lack of intelligence shown by some of the members of our service, and the scary thing is those are the ones who seem to sky rocket through the ranks of all the respective services...What has become of our services and our core values and ideals that are the foundation of military life.


This argument is out of whack... A wife is counted as a dependent because she is one... There shouldn't be any counting or consideration of any dependents whatsoever. Give someone more money because of a financial obligation to another person... A financial obligation to another person out of personal choice. With that reasoning I should just go and accrue 50,000 dollars worth in debt to someone. WOW! I have a financial obligation and need more to live and survive and now the Army should pay me more!!!!! What sense does that make? MARRIAGE IS A PERSONAL DECISION AND OBLIGATION THAT SOMEONE TAKES ON THEIR OWN JUST LIKE PERSONAL DEBT. Yes, two people can't live for the same amount of money as 1, although for rent they can, but that is a personal obligation the service member will have to make up the difference for. This is like welfare, government subsidizing and redistributing funds based upon NEED, not about compensation for the work you do and your value as a worker. A single and married person of the same rank and TIS does the same thing and has the same responsibility and should be compensated the same.

So I hear that back in the day the military used to be a bad place for families and they could barely make it financially. I would argue that the pendulum has greatly shifted in their favor now with all the extra programs.

[Unregistered]

I don't hate married people at all. I do resent being treated like a second class citizen by the system sometimes, which I think is fully justified. I do resent covering for the guy/gal with a sick kid, only to be told that I need to take leave to take care of some personal business of my own. Note that I don't mind covering, but I do mind the fact that it's not reciprocated.

If anyone is being greedy or selfish here, it's the folks who think that they are "entitled" to higher compensation due to their personal choices. By that rationale, I could argue that the AF should pay me more to deploy because I chose to have a house with a lawn, and I have to pay a guy $60 a month to mow it while I'm gone. I chose to have a house with a lawn knowing full well that it was very likely that I would deploy - so I don't aruge that I need "lawn separation pay". Interestingly enough, I am expected to mow the lawns of the spouses of deployed members of my unit, but once again the favor is not reciprocated.

Compensation, privledges, and etitlements should be based upon rank. I think that every AF member, regardless of martial status, should be compensated the same; and that we should be getting a living wage commisarate with our skill level (which is equal to rank). How many high school graduates, at 18-20 years old do you know outside of the service that can afford a stand alone house for their spouse and kids? It just doesn't happen. But in the service it does. Then they promptly go broke trying to fill it with furniture, but that's another thread. In the civilian world, you are compensated higher as your skills and experience increase - our high school graduate probably could afford a duplex instead of a cramped apartment by the time that they are in their 30's, and they will, if they work and save hard, be looking at buying a small stand alone in their 40's.

LETS NOT EVEN GET INTO THE IDEA OF PATERNITY LEAVE... GIVING 10 DAYS OFF TO MARRIED SOLDIERS WHO HAVE KIDS. I think it is a great social program to a great benefit of married Soldiers with kids only and the single ones having to make up for it. I would have to think about that more before I supported it although I know if I was married with kids I would love it just as I would love the extra benefits that come with being married.

About the pay... Lets not even mention the tax advantages and more deductions for being married that is a part of the system.

[Unregistered]

you have the same choice to stay single. it goes both ways

[Unregistered]

I agree that the ones with more dependents should get more. They give up alot when they are deployed. Or out in the field. The family makes many sacrafices. Wives may have had a good job before the army but they are forced to give up their career for their husbands. I think it is great that the military takes that into consideration. Raising a family these days take two incomes! And when the spouse is forced out of their job due to reloacting then I think it is great that they are still able to feed their kids and take care of their family!

I can see some argument here, but I feel it is a sacrifice that people make with service and what about the many families who wives do work with a dual income and make out like a bandit. The system doesn't take that into account nor would anyone propose it, although that spouse is not costing them money but then contributing... Since the beginning, at least in Western Society it was the norm for wives to support husbands and husbands to do the inverse and is not abnormal. The military doesn't need to pay for a nanny or live in nanny now do they? A spouse shouldn't get a paycheck from the military. The servicemember should.

In discussing this topic, I think everyone should look at what happens in the private sector because all of the arguments in favor of keeping policy as is would never fly there. In the private sector you have to make many sacrifices as well and people have to move to stay employed and there are jobs where people leave home regularly and your hand isn't held through everything. We are blessed with a lot more stability than people recognize. There are gives and takes. ..

[Unregistered]

you have the same choice to stay single. it goes both ways

Actually, by default we are all born single. We never make the choice to be single unless we get divorced. We do make the choice to get married. By default we are one level and make the conscious decision to get married and take a further obligation.

In my opinion all of these compensation issues are Equal Opportunity/ discrimination issues based upon marital status. Plain and simple. I know that in promotions, marital status is not supposed to be considered. Why should it for pay?

[Unregistered]

I can see some argument here, but I feel it is a sacrifice that people make with service and what about the many families who wives do work with a dual income and make out like a bandit. The system doesn't take that into account nor would anyone propose it, although that spouse is not costing them money but then contributing... Since the beginning, at least in Western Society it was the norm for wives to support husbands and husbands to do the inverse and is not abnormal. The military doesn't need to pay for a nanny or live in nanny now do they? A spouse shouldn't get a paycheck from the military. The servicemember should.

In discussing this topic, I think everyone should look at what happens in the private sector because all of the arguments in favor of keeping policy as is would never fly there. In the private sector you have to make many sacrifices as well and people have to move to stay employed and there are jobs where people leave home regularly and your hand isn't held through everything. We are blessed with a lot more stability than people recognize. There are gives and takes. ..

Unless your in a job were you risk your life, on call 24/7 365 days a year, deploy and work 12+ hrs 7 days a week for a year to protect the freedom and rights, the military should never compare to the private sector that stuff would fly in the military.

[Unregistered]

Unless your in a job were you risk your life, on call 24/7 365 days a year, deploy and work 12+ hrs 7 days a week for a year to protect the freedom and rights, the military should never compare to the private sector that stuff would fly in the military.

sorry, would not fly in the military

[Unregistered]

Actually, by default we are all born single. We never make the choice to be single unless we get divorced. We do make the choice to get married. By default we are one level and make the conscious decision to get married and take a further obligation.

In my opinion all of these compensation issues are Equal Opportunity/ discrimination issues based upon marital status. Plain and simple. I know that in promotions, marital status is not supposed to be considered. Why should it for pay?

you can make the choice to stay single and not get married because getting married to one woman for the rest of your life is no fun but meeting new women for the rest of your life is better.

[Unregistered]

Every single sailor deserves equal BAH ? Married military members do not deserve more?

Let's compare rates
E-6 Wa State Bremerton Without Dep. 1089.00 With Dep. 1425.00 (Difference 336.00)

$336.00 (LOL) Now add the fact that the married member will have increased utilities, food, and other
expenses that a single member would not have. I would say the single member has it pretty damn good.
Did you know that a single military member that is pregnant gets with dep pay starting in her 5th month into her pregnancy.
A married sailor has earned the BAH in the correct and morale way. A single pregnant sailor has not!
Yet you SGT and others have only directed your anger towards married indivdiuals.

[Your_Name_Here]

Every single sailor deserves equal BAH ? Married military members do not deserve more?

Let's compare rates
E-6 Wa State Bremerton Without Dep. 1089.00 With Dep. 1425.00 (Difference 336.00)

$336.00 (LOL) Now add the fact that the married member will have increased utilities, food, and other
expenses that a single member would not have. I would say the single member has it pretty damn good.
Did you know that a single military member that is pregnant gets with dep pay starting in her 5th month into her pregnancy.
A married sailor has earned the BAH in the correct and morale way. A single pregnant sailor has not!
Yet you SGT and others have only directed your anger towards married indivdiuals.

OK, you had me there, kind of, right up until you spat out this nonsense about the "correct and [moral] way."

[Blue Badge]

(Married, with Children, 20+ years service, still Active duty)

As has been said by many prior posters, it's my belief that the current system is off kilter. BAH should be based on paygrade and time of service. Period. As they know well that many married members are stretched thin budget wise, they need to simply raise the Single members to equality.

If Airman Snuffy and Airman Sniffy both came in same day, both work at same base, both in the same squadron doing same job and are the same rank... there is absolutly zero reason why one should get paid more than the other. Same work = Same pay. One gets married? Congratz, here's a card signed by everyone in the office, hope you and your new spouse did up your budget correctly.

Meanwhile, I also believe that the BAH should drop into the Paychecks of EVERY military member. The price of Dorm housing could be easily calculated and then deducted as a line item on the troops' LES's. Dorm values would of course vary... there would be no logical reason why an Army troop in a 30 man bay dorm would pay as much for his housing as an Air Force troop in Single person dorm room would. The Army chap would just end up with a slightly larger paycheck that way (recruiters, you listening?). Meanwhile, many bases have large chunks of their family house areas unoccupied... They could set a reasonable rate to rent a 2 or 3 bedroom house in housing that would be cheaper than offbase apartments, and allow 2-3 troops to pool their e-2/e-3 BAH's to move out of the dorms if they like.

This kind of idea would get rid of quite a few of the Tech school marriages I would think...

[Measure Man]

Every single sailor deserves equal BAH ? Married military members do not deserve more?

Let's compare rates
E-6 Wa State Bremerton Without Dep. 1089.00 With Dep. 1425.00 (Difference 336.00)

$336.00 (LOL) Now add the fact that the married member will have increased utilities, food, and other
expenses that a single member would not have. I would say the single member has it pretty damn good.
Did you know that a single military member that is pregnant gets with dep pay starting in her 5th month into her pregnancy.
A married sailor has earned the BAH in the correct and morale way. A single pregnant sailor has not!
Yet you SGT and others have only directed your anger towards married indivdiuals.

Okay...since you used the word..."deserves"

What has a married soldier done to "DESERVE" more?

...and really? Morals?

[ringjamesa]

Now, now MM, to be fair the individual did say Morale not moral. Maybe the married member had more fun than the single sailor...

[Measure Man]

Now, now MM, to be fair the individual did say Morale not moral. Maybe the married member had more fun than the single sailor...

I have been both married and single...

Single service members definately have more FUN than married members

[kenferster]

That's DOD policy, not USMC.

Why should a personal life-style decision - to get married or have children - entitle a servicemember to more money than a servicemember who stays single with no dependents? Especially when that decision will ultimately burden the DOD with more costs than just the increased BAH?

If you worked for AT&T, or GM, or even Wal-Mart, and you walked into your boss' office and said "Boss, I've made a purely personal life-style decision that has no bearing on my terms of employment with this company, so you must now pay me more money." what do you think the reaction would be?

The answer is simple; one person living in any living quarters uses utilites for one person. However, when another person moves in, then the utilities usage such as, electricity, water and gas, the price of living with two goes up as with the BAH.
KLF

[Unregistered]

The facts are that even though this decision is personal. The organzation you work for forces to live in a certain area BAH is there to suplement your basic pay to allow you the freedom to live off base. If you want absolute equality then I am sad to inform you that you will never find it.

[Unregistered]

Not up to par with other services, but USMC gives 2 brackets. BAH with dependants and BAH without dependants. Seems fair to me.

I would have to say that i agree with this! You choose to stay single and being on your own does't cost you as much as someone who is married with children. You have a right to stay single if you want to and others have a right to get married and have as many kids as they want. I believe that it is very fair that someone with more dependent gets more for BAH then someone who is single. They have more to care for, you just have you.

[Sergeant T]

Are we in America or a communist country?

No other business, not even the Federal Government, employs this antiquated model of compensation where people who breed get more benefits. Does your Mail Man get more money for knocking up his wife? No! Neither does a police officer, fireman, teacher, or any other career...

So why, why should we not simply increase everyone's BAH to the with dependent rate, then get rid of the two tier system and call it a day? Equal pay for equal work, based on pay grade and time in service only.

I'm not advocating taking money away from those with families, just equally compensating their same paygrade peers who chose not to have kids or marry a civilian.

I say all of this as a single parent with two kids. The idea of paying people more based on the expense they incurred of their own free will is retarded.

[Unregistered]

Here's the deal concerning BAH - BAH is not pay, it's an allowance. The difference between pay and allowance is that pay is taxed, allowances are not. Everyone's PAY is equal, based on rank and time in service.

ALLOWANCES are BENEFITS. BENEFITS in the military are for the members and their families. Every job, government and private sector, will distribute BENEFITS as they see fit (99.99% of the time, it's based on the number of dependants you have). That's really all there is to it. Anything contrary to what I stated here is pure Grade A whining.

Although, as I've stated before, I believe that all single people all the way down to E1 should be drawing single BAH. People get married to get out of the barracks or off the ship - when all they wanted was single BAH in the first place.

[Unregistered]

The facts are that even though this decision is personal. The organzation you work for forces to live in a certain area BAH is there to suplement your basic pay to allow you the freedom to live off base. If you want absolute equality then I am sad to inform you that you will never find it.

I agree you will never find it, sue the military for not treating you equal OH YOU CAN'T. Sorry.....

[technomage1]

Here's the deal concerning BAH - BAH is not pay, it's an allowance. The difference between pay and allowance is that pay is taxed, allowances are not. Everyone's PAY is equal, based on rank and time in service.

ALLOWANCES are BENEFITS. BENEFITS in the military are for the members and their families. Every job, government and private sector, will distribute BENEFITS as they see fit (99.99% of the time, it's based on the number of dependants you have). That's really all there is to it. Anything contrary to what I stated here is pure Grade A whining.

Actually, according to defenselink's military compensation page (http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/)

"There are various types of pay. Basic pay is received by all and is the main component of an individual's salary. The other pays, often referred to as special pays, are for specific qualifications or events. For example, there are special pays for aviators and parachutists; special pays are also paid for dangerous or hardship duties. Only basic pay is discussed on this website.

Allowances are the second most important element of military pay. (emphasis added) Allowances are moneys provided for specific needs, such as food or housing. Monetary allowances are provided when the government does not provide for that specific need. For example, the quantity of government housing is not sufficient to house all military members and their families. Those who live in government housing do not receive full housing allowances. Those who do not live in government housing receive allowances to assist them in obtaining commercial housing."

This places BAS and BAH into military pay, not military benefits. Under this definition, not everyone's pay at a specific grade and TIS is equal as married people recieve more BAH than single.

No one is complaining about health care for dependants because this is in line with the civilian sector's benefits offering. But increased pay for being married is not.

[Skyhawk]

I completely agree. This is probably the one point in the Army Pay System that really gets me fired up. I am a Single LT in Germany. OHA works a bit differently but married people do get more money than Single people for housing, and the story is even worse with COLA. An married E5 with 3 years in service makes at least as much money as I do after calculating the increase in COLA and all of the extra benefits and expenses that they get taken care of. I don't understand how they can make more COLA than I do when it is meant to adjust the buying power of the base pay. Some people argue that the extra increase is to go to family members. Since when do family members get a paycheck and why does the DOD pay family members for marrying a military member? I completely agree that it is a lifestyle decision to get married and the family is your responsibility. No where on the private world do you get a paycheck based upon marital status and the current system helps promote more marriages (which cause more problems part of the time because they aren't ready) and much greater costs.

The military needs to give a paycheck for rank and time in service and make one standard married or single. If married people cannot survive off of the single rate, then everyone should get the married rate but don't differentiate. There shouldn't be a welfare system in place like this. I don't feel like I get paid what I am worth when my peers that are married make significantly more just because they are married. They already get significantly more programs and benefits in their favor. There is no need for the welfare system in place.

I graduated from West Point. Between Graduation and signing into your first duty station completing a PCS, you are TDY for 7-10 months. If you are single, you will not get BAH and be stuck in crummy billeting. If you are married you get stuck in crummy builleting and get BAH for the location where your wife is located because you are "responsible to provide for your spouse" which single servicemembers are not and you also get Family Separation pay and most of the married people have their spouses with them or at home with their families not costing anything extra. Lets do a little calculations. If I married after graduation and I was on TDY for almost 8 months and if she was from Los Angeles with BAH around 1700 dollars a month and FSA of 250 a month, I would have at least an extra $15,000 in my pocket. A contract marriage would have been convenient and I hate feeling that way because it is wrong to be coerced like that.

Lieutenant, I agree and disagree with your post.

Respective to COLA, I completely agree with you. The COLA is supposed to suppliment your income to adjust for disparity in local costs. The COLA should be indexed by what your base pay is.

However, a married person deployed should continue to receive BAH for the exact same reason why a divorced service member paying child support and/or allimony receives BAH at the with dependent rate. It is also why provision of spouse and children is an area where a commander can make a CDI if evidence indicates a service member is failing to provide for his/her family.

The Family Separation Allowance isn't without merit. You seem to clearly imply it has no merit. FSA reimburses families for additional costs incurred when the service member is absent. What such costs? Well, they run the gammut from additional child care expenses if the spouse works, to additional repair costs to cover household items the service member would normally repair himself. It could also cover lawn maintenance expenses. You can nitpick all of these examples, but the background is as varied as the people in the military!

What I am seeing here is a trend in this thread. Single people questioning the basic structure and financial oblilgations of being a spouse and parent. I find this interesting to say the least! The theme is that married parents in the military are somehow scamming the system. As has been written here early and often, the military senior commanders make a myriad of decisions to maintain a good balance of retention, personnel capability, and recruitment. Among these decisions are BAH and FSA.

Do not underestimate the prime influence a wife or husband has on their military service spouse remaining in uniform. More decisions to separate are made by spousal demands than any other single reason. This is a known and measured statistical fact. BAH for dependants and FSA for families of deployed military sponsors are small financial steps designed to keep military spouses content enough to support their military husband/wife remaining in uniform.

With respects, Lieutenant, as a young single officer, I would urge you to make a more complete study of these issues because soon you will perhaps find yourself filling a command billet and have to face the daily pressures of military spouses and children pressuring some of your most talented NCO's and officers to leave the service. When that starts happening, leaving you with the burden of undertrained personnel, you will arrive at the point of full understanding. You will then start wishing that the military did even more to keep seasoned people in uniform and not less.

[Blue Badge]

What I'd like to know is, WHY is anyone arguing Against equalizing this pay?

The military won't lower w/dep rate, the only solution would be to raise single rate to equal level.

That said, why would anyone (other than the bean counters) oppose this?

Unless some out there think they are special and deserve to get paid more than their peers simply because they get married or have children?

[Unregistered]

FSA reimburses families for additional costs incurred when the service member is absent. What such costs? Well, they run the gammut from additional child care expenses if the spouse works, to additional repair costs to cover household items the service member would normally repair himself. It could also cover lawn maintenance expenses. You can nitpick all of these examples, but the background is as varied as the people in the military!

Child care= financial obligation of the parent for having a child, not the taxpayers job
Repair cost = normal repair cost which should come out of pay, singles with a house have the same cost when deployed, many of which they may have fixed if stateside
Lawn maintenance is another personal cost, singles with laws who deployed also have to pay this because they don't have a spouse at home who can push a lawnmower.
Utility bill may even drop when family service member deploys due to one less person = BAH stays the same

Hey I'm sorry your spouse deployed, that's part of his/her job and you knew that when joining the military family.



What I am seeing here is a trend in this thread. Single people questioning the basic structure and financial oblilgations of being a spouse and parent. I find this interesting to say the least! The theme is that married parents in the military are somehow scamming the system. As has been written here early and often, the military senior commanders make a myriad of decisions to maintain a good balance of retention, personnel capability, and recruitment. Among these decisions are BAH and FSA.

What I am seeing here is a trend in this thread. Married people questioning the the basic structure and financial obligation of CHOOSING to marrying someone and being a parent. I find this interesting to say the least! The theme is that married parents in the military deserve for the govt to pay them for making a personal choice to get married and that singles are just trying to scam the govt for wanting to be compensated the same as those they work with. As has been written here early and often, the military senior commanders make a myriad of decisions to maintain a good balance of retention, personnel capability, and recruitment. Among these decisions are BAH and FSA.

[Sergeant T]

Again, as a single parent with two kids, I say increase the BAH for all members to the with dependents rate, call it simply BAH and then do away with dorms for anyone over the rank of E-3.

Easy to do, cuts down on money spent on dorms (utilities, furniture, wear and tear, construction, etc) and best of all -

ITS FAIR.

I don't think just because I chose to breed I should be compensated any differently then a single member. I already get FREE dependent health care.

We might do a better job retaining single servicemembers if they were treated equally.

[Skyhawk]

What I'd like to know is, WHY is anyone arguing Against equalizing this pay?

The military won't lower w/dep rate, the only solution would be to raise single rate to equal level.

That said, why would anyone (other than the bean counters) oppose this?

Unless some out there think they are special and deserve to get paid more than their peers simply because they get married or have children?

Two reasons.

1. The budget climate is very dire now and for the foreseeable future. To think BAH will be equalized is simply specious thinking.

2. BAH is designed to offset the expenses of getting off-base living accomodations in line with those you are authorized to have on base. The criteria used to deem what on base accomodations you qualify for are rank and family status.

Frankly, single junior enlisted members in the DoD are paid better than their civilian counterparts. This is especially true when one considers their on-base dorms. Junior enlisted have far more disposable income than do other high school graduates aged 18-20.

This is why I have such a hard time sympathizing with this yearly clamour for more money by taking away the dependant BAH by trying to play the "fairness" card. To me, it isn't a fairness issue at all. Frankly, it strikes me as uninformed greed. They just want what isn't their's.

[Unregistered]

What I am seeing here is a trend in this thread. Single people questioning the basic structure and financial oblilgations of being a spouse and parent. I find this interesting to say the least! The theme is that married parents in the military are somehow scamming the system. As has been written here early and often, the military senior commanders make a myriad of decisions to maintain a good balance of retention, personnel capability, and recruitment. Among these decisions are BAH and FSA.



Hey I'm sorry your spouse deployed, that's part of his/her job and you knew that when joining the military family.

What I am seeing here is a trend in this thread. Married people questioning the the basic structure and financial obligation of CHOOSING to marrying someone and being a parent. I find this interesting to say the least! The theme is that married parents in the military deserve for the govt to pay them for making a personal choice to get married and that singles are just trying to scam the govt for wanting to be compensated the same as those they work with. As has been written here early and often, the military senior commanders make a myriad of decisions to maintain a good balance of retention, personnel capability, and recruitment. Among these decisions are BAH and FSA.

Best post ever

[Blue Badge]

This is why I have such a hard time sympathizing with this yearly clamour for more money by taking away the dependant BAH by trying to play the "fairness" card. To me, it isn't a fairness issue at all. Frankly, it strikes me as uninformed greed. They just want what isn't their's.

Again, I didn't say "take away D/BAH"... I said Give all Mil the same pay.

As for Greed and wanting what's not theirs... Again... Sniffy and Snuffy put in EXACTLY the same hours doing EXACTLY the same job.

WHY should Sniffy get paid more because he got married on his off duty time?

Who EXACTLY is it that you think is wanting what isn't theirs?

[mel44]

The housing allowance is for the families. I realize there are many that don't believe the family has any valid reason but they do. The military belongs to all of us not just the soldiers. The BAH is to compensate for the family and the sacrifice we make. We meaning the wife/husband and children. When a soldier separates from his wife/husband he is required to give her/him the base BAH until the court decides how much should be paid in alimony and child support. This is because it belongs to them. It is what the military gives us for the sacrifice we make. you may not agree and it may make you hoppin mad but the military appreciates us and has value in our support and dedication to our military and its successful operation.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE:Frankly, single junior enlisted members in the DoD are paid better than their civilian counterparts. This is especially true when one considers their on-base dorms. Junior enlisted have far more disposable income than do other high school graduates aged 18-20.QUOTE]

Who is saying all junior enlisted are 18-20??? I joined when I was 23 and I'd say that is about the average age of most of the junior enlisted in my BN. Now go tell that 23 year old college grad that he has to go home and live with his parents again until he gets married or gets promoted to junior level management in his civilian job. Sillyness, I tell you!!!

[mel44]

[QUOTE:Frankly, single junior enlisted members in the DoD are paid better than their civilian counterparts. This is especially true when one considers their on-base dorms. Junior enlisted have far more disposable income than do other high school graduates aged 18-20.QUOTE]

Who is saying all junior enlisted are 18-20??? I joined when I was 23 and I'd say that is about the average age of most of the junior enlisted in my BN. Now go tell that 23 year old college grad that he has to go home and live with his parents again until he gets married or gets promoted to junior level management in his civilian job. Sillyness, I tell you!!!

The equilivent of a 23 year old junior enlisted in the civilian world would still be working in Mcdonalds next to the 18 year olds. Why would a 23 year old college graduate be a junior enlisted?

[Unregistered]

The equilivent of a 23 year old junior enlisted in the civilian world would still be working in Mcdonalds next to the 18 year olds. Why would a 23 year old college graduate be a junior enlisted?


Well let's pretend they are a 35 y/o private that grew a wild hair and decided to join. Seen this many times as well. The student loan repayment program is another fine example of the military seeking out college graduates who prefer a particular MOS. BTW, Mcdonalds doesn't hire all the local "Slingblade's", many are mis-stocking the shelves at Walmart.

Let's solve the housing situation by leveling all barracks and rebuilding family housing in their place. I'm sure ALL married soldiers would be clamouring to get into that FREE on-post housing if given the oppurtunity. Or do you think they'd envy the single guy outside the gate financing a nice new home???

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

if it hasnt been mentioned before but the purpose of BAH is to partially reimburse a member for the expense of obtaining (or defray costs for) housing in the United States when housing is not provided to him. Two types - BAH w dependents and without under the DOD. It is an untaxed allowance. Remember that when you making a point. Overseas there is no such thing as BAH. We have over here OHA (you get exactly what your rent is; no more; no less). Anyway :rolleyes: But we do have COLA :) but even some areas that rate BHA get COLA as well.

Nothing to do with families this or that.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7IwiUFMHt0EC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=is+basic+allowance+for+housing+a+family+right%3 F&source=web&ots=6EE38W8RKE&sig=_I6GZOtgggchsPoHP6Qnt48MKVU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Also the last BAH in various regions of the country had changes. It showed a dip for company grade officers and lower/junior enlisted it shot up.

[Blue Badge]

The housing allowance is for the families. I realize there are many that don't believe the family has any valid reason but they do. The military belongs to all of us not just the soldiers. The BAH is to compensate for the family and the sacrifice we make. We meaning the wife/husband and children. When a soldier separates from his wife/husband he is required to give her/him the base BAH until the court decides how much should be paid in alimony and child support. This is because it belongs to them. It is what the military gives us for the sacrifice we make. you may not agree and it may make you hoppin mad but the military appreciates us and has value in our support and dedication to our military and its successful operation.

Mel, First off.. Thanks to you and all the hard work Spouses/Children do in supporting the military members of their families. It's never been an easy road to travel and has gotten harder over the last few years with ever increasing ops tempos.

That all said, I have absolutely zero idea where you got any of the info in your quoted statement above, but it is all wrong. Even under the current system, absolutely ZERO parts of the military member's pay belongs to his spouse. None of it is for her spouse. The military member's pay is EARNED by the military member and is payed to them, into a direct deposit account of their choosing; this can be a joint account with their spouse or into their name only... it's their money.

Current policy provides more money to military members recognized as having dependants. This is in the expectation that they are to properly provide housing for their dependants.

The point under contention here, is WHY should one military member who works 200 hours a month at his job get paid $2000/month while another military member who work 200 hours at the SAME JOB gets paid $3000/month simply because she is married? There is ZERO logic to it! Why would you oppose both getting paid equally for their work?

As for your contention that BAH is to compensate the Family for their sacrifices... Very Wrong. From the Office of the SecDef:

"BAH is an allowance to offset the cost of housing when you do not receive government-provided housing. Your BAH depends upon your location, pay grade and whether you have dependents. "

Nothing in there about families's sacrifices.

Meanwhile, I've heard the stories about at ARMY bases where soldiers are ordered to hand over their BAH to a spouse they are seperated from/divorcing... Heard that it has happened like that. Also heard of SMART soldiers that told their command staff to mind their own freaking business and threatened hiring a civilian lawyer to deal with it... and the command staff tucked their tails and nosed out as they should do. Military members' divorce actions, unless failure to pay bills is raised to the command level, are the MEMBERS' business... Not the military. The very idea that a command staff would meddle in a member's financial affairs prior to the court ruling is offensive. Any member that is dealing with this should contact their local IG office...

Under divorce proceedings, dependant on the state filed in (smart troops file in non-alimony states), a monthly amount of cash is decided on to be payed... be it for Alimony, Child care or both. The military member will STILL be recieving his full pay and will still recieve BAH... Single rate if there were no kids, w/dep rate if joint custody is obtained, Single rate w/part3 (almost dep rate) if not joint custody and the child care paid exceeds the difference between w/dep rate and single rate. In some states the amount owed is then directly removed from the troop's pay and sent to the ex-spouse's account, in other states the troop is ordered by the state to pay the amount owed each month via allotment. Still others simply say it must be paid and leave it to the troop to figure out how, but with the threat of direct pay removal if they fail to pay properly. The troop still recieves BAH, duely listed on their LES every month... even without that spouse "sacrificing" for them any longer...

Basically... the local S&B club is often about as right as your local dorm lawyer...

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

Mel, First off.. Thanks to you and all the hard work Spouses/Children do in supporting the military members of their families. It's never been an easy road to travel and has gotten harder over the last few years with ever increasing ops tempos.

That all said, I have absolutely zero idea where you got any of the info in your quoted statement above, but it is all wrong. Even under the current system, absolutely ZERO parts of the military member's pay belongs to his spouse. None of it is for her spouse. The military member's pay is EARNED by the military member and is payed to them, into a direct deposit account of their choosing; this can be a joint account with their spouse or into their name only... it's their money.

Current policy provides more money to military members recognized as having dependants. This is in the expectation that they are to properly provide housing for their dependants.

The point under contention here, is WHY should one military member who works 200 hours a month at his job get paid $2000/month while another military member who work 200 hours at the SAME JOB gets paid $3000/month simply because she is married? There is ZERO logic to it! Why would you oppose both getting paid equally for their work?

As for your contention that BAH is to compensate the Family for their sacrifices... Very Wrong. From the Office of the SecDef:

"BAH is an allowance to offset the cost of housing when you do not receive government-provided housing. Your BAH depends upon your location, pay grade and whether you have dependents. "

Nothing in there about families's sacrifices.

Meanwhile, I've heard the stories about at ARMY bases where soldiers are ordered to hand over their BAH to a spouse they are seperated from/divorcing... Heard that it has happened like that. Also heard of SMART soldiers that told their command staff to mind their own freaking business and threatened hiring a civilian lawyer to deal with it... and the command staff tucked their tails and nosed out as they should do. Military members' divorce actions, unless failure to pay bills is raised to the command level, are the MEMBERS' business... Not the military. The very idea that a command staff would meddle in a member's financial affairs prior to the court ruling is offensive. Any member that is dealing with this should contact their local IG office...

Under divorce proceedings, dependant on the state filed in (smart troops file in non-alimony states), a monthly amount of cash is decided on to be payed... be it for Alimony, Child care or both. The military member will STILL be recieving his full pay and will still recieve BAH... Single rate if there were no kids, w/dep rate if joint custody is obtained, Single rate w/part3 (almost dep rate) if not joint custody and the child care paid exceeds the difference between w/dep rate and single rate. In some states the amount owed is then directly removed from the troop's pay and sent to the ex-spouse's account, in other states the troop is ordered by the state to pay the amount owed each month via allotment. Still others simply say it must be paid and leave it to the troop to figure out how, but with the threat of direct pay removal if they fail to pay properly. The troop still recieves BAH, duely listed on their LES every month... even without that spouse "sacrificing" for them any longer...

Basically... the local S&B club is often about as right as your local dorm lawyer...


Bingo!! I guess the wrong information was passed during the FRG meeting or Command time experience lol I am totally amazed as well with some people who are in the "KNOW". Heard the same thing when I was in the Marines. A Marine and spouse was separated and he moved back into the barracks and she was living in Dad's house (former retired marine) right by the base (Quantico). She told him that he had to give up the BAH or she was going to inform the command. BS lol. obvious they divorced and she didnt get squat. How's them apples? And this was back in 1989.

now the response - I AGREE BUT MILITARY FAMILY MEMBERS RATE PAY AND ITS AN UNWRITTEN RULE. I KNOW BECAUSE I AM A MENTAL HEALTH THERAPIST/SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELOR THAT KNOWS THE BASE GENERAL AND IT HAPPENED TO ALL MY MILITARY DEPENDENTS. ITS IN THE TEXTBOOK THAT MY PROFESSOR WROTE LMAOF!!
HMM ANY COLLEGE DWEEB KNOWS THAT TEXTBOOKS CHANGE ALL THE TIME AND ITS NOT ALWAYS THE DOING OF THE COLLEGE PROFESSOR. MY BOOKS NOW WONT BE GOOD FOR THE SAME COURSE NEXT SEMESTER. THAT WAS TOLD TO ME BY MY COLLEGE ADVISOR LAST WEEK.

[mel44]

Mel, First off.. Thanks to you and all the hard work Spouses/Children do in supporting the military members of their families. It's never been an easy road to travel and has gotten harder over the last few years with ever increasing ops tempos.

That all said, I have absolutely zero idea where you got any of the info in your quoted statement above, but it is all wrong. Even under the current system, absolutely ZERO parts of the military member's pay belongs to his spouse. None of it is for her spouse. The military member's pay is EARNED by the military member and is payed to them, into a direct deposit account of their choosing; this can be a joint account with their spouse or into their name only... it's their money.

Current policy provides more money to military members recognized as having dependants. This is in the expectation that they are to properly provide housing for their dependants.

The point under contention here, is WHY should one military member who works 200 hours a month at his job get paid $2000/month while another military member who work 200 hours at the SAME JOB gets paid $3000/month simply because she is married? There is ZERO logic to it! Why would you oppose both getting paid equally for their work?

As for your contention that BAH is to compensate the Family for their sacrifices... Very Wrong. From the Office of the SecDef:

"BAH is an allowance to offset the cost of housing when you do not receive government-provided housing. Your BAH depends upon your location, pay grade and whether you have dependents. "

Nothing in there about families sacrifices.

Meanwhile, I've heard the stories about at ARMY bases where soldiers are ordered to hand over their BAH to a spouse they are separated from/divorcing... Heard that it has happened like that. Also heard of SMART soldiers that told their command staff to mind their own freaking business and threatened hiring a civilian lawyer to deal with it... and the command staff tucked their tails and nosed out as they should do. Military members' divorce actions, unless failure to pay bills is raised to the command level, are the MEMBERS' business... Not the military. The very idea that a command staff would meddle in a member's financial affairs prior to the court ruling is offensive. Any member that is dealing with this should contact their local IG office...

Under divorce proceedings, Dependant on the state filed in (smart troops file in non-alimony states), a monthly amount of cash is decided on to be payed... be it for Alimony, Child care or both. The military member will STILL be receiving his full pay and will still receive BAH... Single rate if there were no kids, w/dep rate if joint custody is obtained, Single rate w/part3 (almost dep rate) if not joint custody and the child care paid exceeds the difference between w/dep rate and single rate. In some states the amount owed is then directly removed from the troop's pay and sent to the ex-spouse's account, in other states the troop is ordered by the state to pay the amount owed each month via allotment. Still others simply say it must be paid and leave it to the troop to figure out how, but with the threat of direct pay removal if they fail to pay properly. The troop still receives BAH, duely listed on their LES every month... even without that spouse "sacrificing" for them any longer...

Basically... the local S&B club is often about as right as your local dorm lawyer...

Huuummm looks like it did make you mad!!! Sorry but thats they way we do it!!! BAH is for the families. It is not income so it really doesn't mater how many hours you work a week. If you don't have a family that sacrifices then you don't. The Army in my case has made a allowance for me and my children. Its just that simple. When a soldier doesn't give his base to his family when he is separated he is ordered to. Anyone can get a lawyer and fight any command it doesn't mean he will be successful. The BAH is for the support of the family for housing and so forth. There wouldn't be a need for an order to support your family if you did the right thing whether you were separated or not.

[Blue Badge]

Huuummm looks like it did make you mad!!! Sorry but thats they way we do it!!! BAH is for the families. It is not income so it really doesn't mater how many hours you work a week. If you don't have a family that sacrifices then you don't. The Army in my case has made a allowance for me and my children. Its just that simple. When a soldier doesn't give his base to his family when he is separated he is ordered to. Anyone can get a lawyer and fight any command it doesn't mean he will be successful. The BAH is for the support of the family for housing and so forth. There wouldn't be a need for an order to support your family if you did the right thing whether you were separated or not.

Nope not mad, just amazed at the foolish perpetuation of falsehoods. You continue to state that it is for the family. Please provide sources for your statement.

Sources for my version (It's military pay):
http://www.dfas.mil/army2/militarypay/allowances.html
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) - BAH is paid to uniformed service members to provide housing compensation based on pay grade, zip code, and dependency status. It is payable when government quarters are not provided or when temporarily residing in barracks (i.e. basic training, job school, unaccompanied overseas assignment).

http://www.militarypay.com/Allowances.html
Tax free Housing Allowances are variable, calculated using duty location, number of dependents, military pay grade, and housing costs in the area. The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is based on the assumption that military personnel should not pay out-of-pocket expenses for housing, even in civilian rentals.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/divfinance/a/divorcesupport.htm
Each of the military services have regulations which require members to "provide adequate support" to family members. However, here's the rub: The military has absolutely no authority (without a court order) to *force* an individual to pay such support against his/her will.

Army Regulation 608–99 ( http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r608_99.pdf )
(a) A soldier is not required to provide financial support to a former spouse unless required to do so by court order.

Army DFAS Phone # to talk to a live person clear up your confusion:
Telephone numbers (toll free):
1-888-332-7411 general information

Meanwhile you never anwered my simple question... why should a married person get paid more for doing the same work than an unmarried person?

[mel44]

Nope not mad, just amazed at the foolish perpetuation of falsehoods. You continue to state that it is for the family. Please provide sources for your statement.

Sources for my version (It's military pay):
http://www.dfas.mil/army2/militarypay/allowances.html
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) - BAH is paid to uniformed service members to provide housing compensation based on pay grade, zip code, and dependency status. It is payable when government quarters are not provided or when temporarily residing in barracks (i.e. basic training, job school, unaccompanied overseas assignment).

http://www.militarypay.com/Allowances.html
Tax free Housing Allowances are variable, calculated using duty location, number of dependents, military pay grade, and housing costs in the area. The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is based on the assumption that military personnel should not pay out-of-pocket expenses for housing, even in civilian rentals.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/divfinance/a/divorcesupport.htm
Each of the military services have regulations which require members to "provide adequate support" to family members. However, here's the rub: The military has absolutely no authority (without a court order) to *force* an individual to pay such support against his/her will.

Army Regulation 608–99 ( http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r608_99.pdf )
(a) A soldier is not required to provide financial support to a former spouse unless required to do so by court order.

Army DFAS Phone # to talk to a live person clear up your confusion:
Telephone numbers (toll free):
1-888-332-7411 general information

Meanwhile you never anwered my simple question... why should a married person get paid more for doing the same work than an unmarried person?

He's looking up the answers now - stand by -
BAH is not salary or pay it's allowance. Allowance by definition is monetary gift for needs not for salary.

it is for housing needs for the family. I don't quite understand the argument. If it is not part of salary then why is it debatable who should be allowed to have what. Isn't that up tothe military as a enticement to service. In the civillian sector many varieties of professional positions offer perks and bonus's to entice a higher standard of employee. Cars, homes, charge accounts, all kinds of allowances are given and it is based on the position and individual why would the military be any different? I don't think really have an opinion for the single soldiers except if they aren't happy with their salary, get more education, change jobs, increase your competitiveness. Its what we do in the civilian world.

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

I called this one right again. :rolleyes: Now it will be the BAS debate lol

[mel44]

Nope not mad, just amazed at the foolish perpetuation of falsehoods. You continue to state that it is for the family. Please provide sources for your statement.

Sources for my version (It's military pay):
http://www.dfas.mil/army2/militarypay/allowances.html
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) - BAH is paid to uniformed service members to provide housing compensation based on pay grade, zip code, and dependency status. It is payable when government quarters are not provided or when temporarily residing in barracks (i.e. basic training, job school, unaccompanied overseas assignment).

http://www.militarypay.com/Allowances.html
Tax free Housing Allowances are variable, calculated using duty location, number of dependents, military pay grade, and housing costs in the area. The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is based on the assumption that military personnel should not pay out-of-pocket expenses for housing, even in civilian rentals.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/divfinance/a/divorcesupport.htm
Each of the military services have regulations which require members to "provide adequate support" to family members. However, here's the rub: The military has absolutely no authority (without a court order) to *force* an individual to pay such support against his/her will.

Army Regulation 608–99 ( http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r608_99.pdf )
(a) A soldier is not required to provide financial support to a former spouse unless required to do so by court order.

Army DFAS Phone # to talk to a live person clear up your confusion:
Telephone numbers (toll free):
1-888-332-7411 general information

Meanwhile you never anwered my simple question... why should a married person get paid more for doing the same work than an unmarried person?

Army regulation 608-99
2–6. Financial support required in the absence of a financial support agreement or court order

a. Application. This paragraph applies in the absence of a financial support agreement or a court order containing afinancial support provision and until such an agreement is signed or such an order is issued. Allegations or even proof of desertion, adultery, or other marital misconduct, or criminal acts on the part of a spouse will not excuse a soldiers obligation to comply with the provisions of this regulation unless a battalion commander or a SPCMCA has released the soldier under the provisions of paragraphs 2–14b(4) and (5) or 2–15.

d. Single-family units. (See app B, para B–4.)

(1) Family unit not residing in Government family housing. The soldier will provide financial support in an amount equal to the soldier’s BAH II–WITH to the family unit.

(2) Family unit residing in Government family housing. While the soldier’s family members are residing in
Government family housing, the soldier is not required to provide additional financial support. When the supported family member(s) move(s) out of Government family housing, the soldier will provide BAH II–WITH.



JAMES H. MORSE, JR.
CPT, FA

[Blue Badge]

BAH is not salary or pay it's allowance. Allowance by definition is monetary gift for needs not for salary. it is for housing needs for the family.

Please explain then why Single members get BAH... It's still an allowence, it's still not taxed, it's still used for housing... But strangely there isn't a family in sight....
Single E-5 in Omaha, NE ~$787/M
Married E-5 Omaha, NE ~$1029/M

Difference? $242

Do you really think that $242 is what the Military owes you each month as compensation for being a military spouse? And they happen to pay it to your spouse in the hopes he'll give it to you?

[mel44]

Please explain then why Single members get BAH... It's still an allowence, it's still not taxed, it's still used for housing... But strangely there isn't a family in sight....
Single E-5 in Omaha, NE ~$787/M
Married E-5 Omaha, NE ~$1029/M

Difference? $242

Do you really think that $242 is what the Military owes you each month as compensation for being a military spouse? And they happen to pay it to your spouse in the hopes he'll give it to you?

Well I am not quite clear on what you are asking me. I guess the military likes the single soldier too. He gives him an allowance as well. It's not taxed, it's not salary. There is no hoping about it it is to profide housing according to community standard. I don't know what branch your in but in the army YOU required to take care of your family! It's not a sugestion its an order.

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

wasnt the AR put in blue badges link at first lol

Army Regulation 608–99 ( http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r608_99.pdf )
(a) A soldier is not required to provide financial support to a former spouse unless required to do so by court order.

Anyway Type II BAH is a totally different amount.

BAH II (Reserve Component/Transit)

BAH-II (RC/T) is the housing allowance for members in particular circumstances, for example, reservists on active duty less than 30 days. It also applies when a member is in transit from selected areas where no prior BAH rate existed. It does not vary by geographic location. BAH-II (RC/T) was set based on the old Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ), which was based on the national average for housing. BAH-II is published annually and is determined by increasing the previous year's table by the percentage growth of housing costs.

http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/bah/02_types.html

holy smokes!!

spam attack

Anyway, its excellent that we get those allowances then have it included in our base pay because it puts us in a lower tax bracket. Yes for Social Security purposes, we are shown as making less but its still an awesome benefit.

here is a good read to educate yourself with.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5307/doc30-Entire.pdf

http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/

Pay and Allowances

There are various types of pay. Basic pay is received by all and is the main component of an individual's salary. The other pays, often referred to as special pays, are for specific qualifications or events. For example, there are special pays for aviators and parachutists; special pays are also paid for dangerous or hardship duties. Only basic pay is discussed on this website.

Allowances are the second most important element of military pay. Allowances are moneys provided for specific needs, such as food or housing. Monetary allowances are provided when the government does not provide for that specific need. For example, the quantity of government housing is not sufficient to house all military members and their families. Those who live in government housing do not receive full housing allowances. Those who do not live in government housing receive allowances to assist them in obtaining commercial housing.

The most common allowances are Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) and Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). A majority of the force receives both of these allowances and, in many cases, these allowances comprise a significant portion of the member's total pay.

Most allowances are not taxable, which is an additional imbedded benefit of military pay.

Select one of the following topic areas:

The point is that BAH is not issued due to you having a family and the sacrifices they make. I dont throw the I got shot at sacrifice card for compensation.

[Blue Badge]

Well I am not quite clear on what you are asking me. I guess the military likes the single soldier too. He gives him an allowance as well. It's not taxed, it's not salary. There is no hoping about it it is to profide housing according to community standard. I don't know what branch your in but in the army YOU required to take care of your family! It's not a sugestion its an order.

Since OIF covered the answer to your prior post, I'll just reply to this one...

I'm USAF (See my first post in the thread... USAF, 20+ years, still active duty, Married, living off base)

The USAF also mandates that members care for their families... it, however, keeps it's nose out of Divorce proceedings, as those are civil matters with zero connection to military life, other than you drop to Single rate BAH once it's finalized....

Yet another example of how turning the wrong way at MEPS can dramatically effect your life... :rolleyes:

[Blue Badge]

I dont throw the I got shot at sacrifice card for compensation.

Lemme know when we can start using that card OIF... I'll have a pile coming to me... :))

[mel44]

Since OIF covered the answer to your prior post, I'll just reply to this one...

I'm USAF (See my first post in the thread... USAF, 20+ years, still active duty, Married, living off base)

The USAF also mandates that members care for their families... it, however, keeps it's nose out of Divorce proceedings, as those are civil matters with zero connection to military life, other than you drop to Single rate BAH once it's finalized....

Yet another example of how turning the wrong way at MEPS can dramatically effect your life... :rolleyes:

Blue You are correct the army sticks its nose in and if it didn't we would have some real messes here on post. The BAh is the base BAH and is enforceable. As I stated it is enforceable during the period between separation and court ordered support. If we didn't have this soldiers would leave their family indefinitely without compensation. the military is not any different than the outside world when It comes to relationships.

[USN - Retired]

I don't know what branch your in but in the army YOU required to take care of your family! It's not a sugestion its an order.

Does a military housewife have ANY legal obligation whatsoever to take care of her husband and children? Of course not. Can a military housewife abandon her husband and children at any time that she chooses? Of course she can - and if a military housewife does choose to abandon her husband and children, her husband is still obligated to financially support her.

Military housewives usually have a keen sense of entitlement, and, of course, they always bristle at anyone who dares to ask whether any legal obligations should accompany those entitlements.

A military marriage provides benefits, perks, rights and legal protections for the military wife and places financial burdens, legal obligations, and personal responsibilities on the military service member.

My wife is a civil service employee, and she is not legally obligated to do anything for me. I receive no benefits whatsoever because of her employment with the federal government. She is the one who gets to decide whether I am covered under her health insurance plan. I have no legal right to demand that I be covered under her health insurance plan. She also doesn’t get any extra money for being married.

[mel44]

Does a military housewife have ANY legal obligation whatsoever to take care of her husband and children? Of course not. Can a military housewife abandon her husband and children at any time that she chooses? Of course she can - and if a military housewife does choose to abandon her husband and children, her husband is still obligated to financially support her.

Military housewives usually have a keen sense of entitlement, and, of course, they always bristle at anyone who dares to ask whether any legal obligations should accompany those entitlements.

A military marriage provides benefits, perks, rights and legal protections for the military wife and places financial burdens, legal obligations, and personal responsibilities on the military service member.

My wife is a civil service employee, and she is not legally obligated to do anything for me. I receive no benefits whatsoever because of her employment with the federal government. She is the one who gets to decide whether I am covered under her health insurance plan. I have no legal right to demand that I be covered under her health insurance plan. She also doesn’t get any extra money for being married.

U this is all true so here's the tip - marry carefully! We, James and I, will never have this argument or battle. But we have many young soldiers that drag 17 and 18 year old babies across the country, get pregnant and then decide the grass is greener in Nashville. So they kinda wonder off leaving this mess for the army to clean up. Believe you me we have to clean it up. I have been part of the "get on the plane right now". The "we'll be right there" mad dash to the hospital after overdose, 1 cutter and the all famous please do something she is sleeping with another soldier. let me clarify this one. We actually got pictures e-mailed to the office from a husband (civilian) that returned home to catch his soldier wife in the bed with another soldier. They were naked and asleep. Couldn't make charges stick even with pictures. He didn't catch them in the act. There is a reason for the rules and regs. They don't make sense to everyone but they are there for a reason!

[technomage1]

U this is all true so here's the tip - marry carefully! We, James and I, will never have this argument or battle. But we have many young soldiers that drag 17 and 18 year old babies across the country, get pregnant and then decide the grass is greener in Nashville. So they kinda wonder off leaving this mess for the army to clean up. Believe you me we have to clean it up. I have been part of the "get on the plane right now". The "we'll be right there" mad dash to the hospital after overdose, 1 cutter and the all famous please do something she is sleeping with another soldier. let me clarify this one. We actually got pictures e-mailed to the office from a husband (civilian) that returned home to catch his soldier wife in the bed with another soldier. They were naked and asleep. Couldn't make charges stick even with pictures. He didn't catch them in the act. There is a reason for the rules and regs. They don't make sense to everyone but they are there for a reason!

Wait a sec - didn't someone else just post that singles were the big disciplinary problem and that is why the system is inbalanced towards married folks? Sounds like singles and married have their problems- which brings us right back to why shouldn't everyone be compensated equally for the work that they do?

[USN - Retired]

Mel, First off.. Thanks to you and all the hard work Spouses/Children do in supporting the military members of their families. It's never been an easy road to travel and has gotten harder over the last few years with ever increasing ops tempos.
.

I find it interesting that so many people believe that a military housewife deserves some special thanks for taking care of her own children, yet few people (if any) seem to think that a male military service member deserves any special thanks for all the support (especially financial support) that he provides to his housewife and children. Most people would respond to my thoughts by saying that a man is morally and legally obligated to financially support his family and therefore he deserves no special recognition for doing what he is supposed to be doing. Could it be that we (men and women) still subconsciously view women as the weaker sex and therefore we subconsciously believe that it is harder for a woman to be a military housewife than it is for a man to serve in combat?

[technomage1]

I find it interesting that so many people believe that a military housewife deserves some special thanks for taking care of her own children, yet few people (if any) seem to think that a male military service member deserves any special thanks for all the support (especially financial support) that he provides to his housewife and children. Most people would respond to my thoughts by saying that a man is morally and legally obligated to financially support his family and therefore he deserves no special recognition for doing what he is supposed to be doing. Could it be that we (men and women) still subconsciously view women as the weaker sex and therefore we subconsciously believe that it is harder for a woman to be a housewife than it is for a man to serve in combat?

About the only real argument I can see military spouses as having is the fact that they have to move so much and can find it hard to find and hold a job; especially if they are specialized (nurse, lawyer, etc). This is a legitimate sacrifice. However, they also knew what they were getting into when they married into the military. The hiring preferencesalready in place help to offset this and are the best the military can do to help them out.

[USN - Retired]

About the only real argument I can see military spouses as having is the fact that they have to move so much

Technically speaking, military spouses don’t “have to move” if they don’t want to. The military can not force them to move, and a military service member can not force his military wife to move. If a woman chooses to be a military wife and chooses to follow her husband whenever he is transferred, it seems reasonable that the military wife would choose a mobile career if she really wants a career.


and can find it hard to find and hold a job; especially if they are specialized (nurse, lawyer, etc). .

A lawyer would be a tough mobile career, but I think that nursing would be a great mobile career. Nurses are in high demand everywhere. Computer repair would also be a good mobile job. I’m sure that there are many other good examples of mobile careers.


This is a legitimate sacrifice.

It is only a sacrifice if the military spouse wants a career of her own in the first place. The vast majority of military wives want a full time career about as much as they want a pet rat. If a military spouse really wanted to financially support herself, she probably wouldn’t have married a military service member in the first place. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Most military spouses see their marriages as their career and their profession. Personally, I don’t believe that it is right or good for anyone to look upon a marriage as a career or a profession, but I do understand that my belief is in the minority. Providing a married military service member with a higher BAH than a single military service member of the same rank receives only reinforces the horrible and outdated belief that a wife can and should expect some form of financial compensation for her marital commitment.


The hiring preferences already in place help to offset this and are the best the military can do to help them out.

There is way more that the military could do. I think that homesteading would be the perfect solution for a military service member who is married to someone who has a full time career. Here’s a thread with more thoughts about homesteading:
http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1566670

[Unregistered]

I am an E5 in the Army. My wife and I are getting a divorce and have no children together. My command is ordering me to move to the barracks. When this happens, I will lose over $1500 a month due to BAH and BAS. I pay $500 a month to child support from a previous relationship. Because of all this, I will only be making a little over $1200 a month. I'm going to have to put a 2 bedroom apt into storage. My bills will be adding up close to $1200 a month. Is there something somewhere that authorizes me to receive sinlge rate BAH bue to the large finacial burden?

[Unregistered]

That's DOD policy, not USMC.

Why should a personal life-style decision - to get married or have children - entitle a servicemember to more money than a servicemember who stays single with no dependents? Especially when that decision will ultimately burden the DOD with more costs than just the increased BAH?

If you worked for AT&T, or GM, or even Wal-Mart, and you walked into your boss' office and said "Boss, I've made a purely personal life-style decision that has no bearing on my terms of employment with this company, so you must now pay me more money." what do you think the reaction would be?

To me your arguement has no standing. Being married does cost more than being single, therefore they pay more. All of you are saying that a married couple could live in a one bedroom, which is true... my spouse and I do. I believe that often times military couples live above their means, and then complain that they don't make enough.. But what you haven't said is that two people do cost more. Higher water bill, higher electric bill, more food. There are also usually 2 vehicles which means more bills there. And the military doesn't pay an astronomical difference to someone married. And If you have made the 'personal life decision' as you call it to stay single... than you are making the decision to forfiet bah. Stop complaining.

[Unregistered]

Family also keeps adults in when they get to the point that they want one, instead of losing their investment to the civilian world.

I keep on seeing this/hearing this, BUT i know a heck of a lot more married/family people getting OUT than single cause of the pressure their family puts on them to be around (and that is hard to do with deployments). In addition, i have witnessed many incidences where those with families do less/perform less and get more time off than those singles, simply cause of their family.


Families are also stress relievers, for the most part, and can provide soldiers with motivation, morale, and purpose, making soldiers more productive...iInstead of wasting their money on alcohol and car modifications.


Again, not from my experience. I know more married folks who have had to get counceling for stress than single folk, so it would seem (to my POV from experience) that having a family is not a stress reliever.


Talk about self serving want it all for yourself mentality...what do you call the Highspeeds? They want the rank for themselves, for better pay for themselves, for the power for themselves. /quote]

For some, i would agree. Others i have sene be those "hard chargers" cause of how they were raised. To excell.

[quote]There are also "high speeds" that aren't emotionally ready/mature enough to lead, but because they can max an APFT and score high on a board, which means a physical/technical (testing) proficiency, or are a Type A napoleon power monger, they get the job

Now that i will holeheartedly agree with. I know of my fair share of E5s and 6s who just cause of their hard charging got the better evals/tests but had little to know experience with actual leadership.


pay child support per the state to support the child but only get without dependent BAH rate....meanwhile the spouse who is also military gets dependent rate BAH and the monthly child support payment....fair?

Nope. But that is a discussion for another thread.


You are clueless. What does AT&T, GM and Wal Mart have to do with anything? You are now working for the U.S. Government which gives you great housing, medical, dental, bonuses, tuition assistance, G.I. Bill, Veterans Assistance and more. AT&T GM and Wal -Mart is your past career. Soldier up!

Yuggy, Shrike was trying to make the point that none of the civilian companies pay you more/give you more allowances to offset the cost of a family just cause you are married. And i rarely see those companies hurting for married folk.. So that kind of goes against the "incentive to stay" argument.


the military by no means is paying us to live like rock stars.


True dat.. And that is part of the problem i see. People thinking they should be able to live higher than they are..


And for the record, many private sector employers DO pay more for a married person with children, than for a single person, and for the exact same job

Can you back that up?


Equal pay for equal work. Ever hear of it?

Yup. To me that should be (emphasis on SHOULD) the way it works...


Again, BAH is NOT pay.

Correct, it is not a pay, but an allowance. BUT why lots of people consider it pay is that everything done to compare us to the outside world USES it as a pay when computing what you would need to get in civilian life.


Here's my bottom line on the matter: Keep the BAH rates the same, but make everyone - both married and single - entitled to their respective BAH when they come into the military. No single service member is going to get married for an extra $150/per month in BAH. But they WILL get married to get off the ship or out of the barracks, when single BAH was all they wanted in the first place.

End the end, more people getting single BAH means less people getting married, which saves the military money.


I agree with that suggestion.
In my 17 yrs nin, i have known 40 or so who DID marry just so they could live off base..


Statistics also regulary show that people with families are more dependable workers than their single counterparts.

Sorry but i am going to have to raise the BS flag here. Since i have been in, i have seen more married/with kids people skip out on work, leave early, show up late and generally miss more work than single folk. All cause of their 'families'. AND rarely have they ever had to make up that unfinished job (as it wound up getting done by the single folk)


I cant believe some of the things i have read on this subject. You all do realize that we are in the military. There happen to be quite a few different incentive pays that not everone is entitled to. In fact i happen to receive two different types that i am sure some of you think you should also get so that you can feel equal because we are both the same rank and we both do the same work. Incentive pays are just that, incentives. They are put out there to keep people doing what they are doing and the bottom line is that the military wants to keep everyone doing what they are doing. BAH is an incentive plain and simple. Not everyone is entitled to receive it.


I have no issues with "incentive" pay for skill sets, to keep people in. What some of us are having hardship with is 'paying" (allowance) more cause some decided to get married/have kids.


This has always been my problem...that apartment manager doesn't care one bloody bit that one guy is married and the other isn't, rent is $XXX for either.

Agreed. I have always hated it that the BAH rates are published all over so any joe shmoe can get it, so when you DO go out to rent, your landllords charge you what your rank gets for BAH. I have never liked or agreed with that.. Why should an E6 pay for a 2 bed/1bath 1300 sq ft room more than billy bob does FOR TEH SAME room.

this is already long, so i will cut it now and post again later.

[Unregistered]

Does a military housewife have ANY legal obligation whatsoever to take care of her husband and children? Of course not. Can a military housewife abandon her husband and children at any time that she chooses? Of course she can - and if a military housewife does choose to abandon her husband and children, her husband is still obligated to financially support her.

Military housewives usually have a keen sense of entitlement, and, of course, they always bristle at anyone who dares to ask whether any legal obligations should accompany those entitlements.

A military marriage provides benefits, perks, rights and legal protections for the military wife and places financial burdens, legal obligations, and personal responsibilities on the military service member.

My wife is a civil service employee, and she is not legally obligated to do anything for me. I receive no benefits whatsoever because of her employment with the federal government. She is the one who gets to decide whether I am covered under her health insurance plan. I have no legal right to demand that I be covered under her health insurance plan. She also doesn’t get any extra money for being married.

Military service members make the choice to marry who they do. They should really know that person before racing to the alter. If they don't take the time to get to know them... maybe they should have to pay that persons way for being dumb enough to marry them. And not all military wives are the same.

[Unregistered]

Again, not from my experience. I know more married folks who have had to get counceling for stress than single folk, so it would seem (to my POV from experience) that having a family is not a stress reliever.

Sorry but i am going to have to raise the BS flag here. Since i have been in, i have seen more married/with kids people skip out on work, leave early, show up late and generally miss more work than single folk. All cause of their 'families'. AND rarely have they ever had to make up that unfinished job (as it wound up getting done by the single guy



Relationships do take work and sometimes counceling. However I believe that one or both of the parties is not working to make the marriage all that it could be. But not all marriages are like that. And not all service members use the family to get out of work. The ones who do are shitbags and should be treated as such

[Unregistered]

are many studies that show married people are more reliable and dependable than single..

As said above i keep seeing this, but i ask, how can they be more reliable/dependable when they are constantly getting off work early to go take spouse/kid to hospital, school etc, or show up late / have more days off cause of spouses.. In the 17 yrs i have been in i have so far seen roughly 200 married folk get 2-3 days off in a row without even having to drop a chit to request spec lib, cause they had to take care of the kids while wife;/hubby was ill. But if a single person had to get off (even to take care of issues out in town, like going to immagration for a brother/sister/father/mother) they had to put in for the time off with a chit.

I have seen 17 (so far, with one guy at work it might get to 18) single folk go to mast from being late too often, but NOT A SINGLE married person has even gotten a counceling shit or report chit from showing up late for the same number of times (or even more) cause of having to do something with the family. Now explain to me how that is showing dependability?



If the amount of money you make is not enough to support having a bigger family, then get promoted or get out of the service,


That is an equially worthy statement.


Second it only makes sense to give a bit more money for a person in the military who has finacial obligation to more than one person, i.e dependents.

By that logic MGM, CNN or other companies in the civilian sector should pay you more for having a family.. but they dont.


I don't hate married people at all. I do resent being treated like a second class citizen by the system sometimes, which I think is fully justified. I do resent covering for the guy/gal with a sick kid, only to be told that I need to take leave to take care of some personal business of my own. Note that I don't mind covering, but I do mind the fact that it's not reciprocated.

Well put Technomage1. It does seem like the military as a whole has a "single are second" mentality. With making them wait to hear if their leave is approved UNTIL the married folk have had the chance to request that same time, to revoking simgles time off cause the married has to go take care of kids and a body is needed at work, it does seem like we are treated worse.


Interestingly enough, I am expected to mow the lawns of the spouses of deployed members of my unit, but once again the favor is not reciprocated.

Wow. I have not heard of that happening before..


What if the service had a rule that single people recieved prefence in assignments because they cost less to move? If two people of the same rank were under PCS consideration, the single one would get it

Hmm.. That is an interesting suggestion, but i feel we already have a good enough system for PCS selection.


That is a local leadership/supervisor problem; not a system problem

If it was local, it would not happen at every command you go to (for note i am at my 8th duty station)..


3) Leave Accrual: Ask for 3 days a month vs. 2.5 and ask for the 75 day accrual, initiated for the next two years, to remain permanently

While i rarely get more than 50 on the books with me going to 2 conventions a year (9 days a pop for leave), i would love to be able to keep more than 60 on the books.


Going to complain about married people paying less taxes or less on auto insurance..

I think that is on line for next month's big argument....LOL



IF the extra pay is required because someone has to feed more people or pay more in utilities, why do they get FSA? When deployed to the middle east or aboard a ship, family service members get paid $250 amonth for using less food and utilities.

If i was going to harp on a 'pay', i would harp on FSA more than anything. We all have families we miss, even if it is just our parents.


If you joined the military because you wanted to get rich, you joined for the wrong reasons....my advice, get out now while you still can and try to make a difference in the civilian world.

Well said DD. Too many see the money they get now as poor in comparrison, but they don't know just how much they would have to earn outside to keep things current.


How many times have you seen a single military member go in debt

Surprisingly, not as often as many would think. But more so than married folk i will give you that. BUT i would say, once past 24 yrs and/or E5, it drops off significantly.


If we look at another example (of which so many have already been provided). Let us look at the signing bonus for some areas of the military. Let us take Career Field X and say we get an approximate signing bonus of Y dollars. So if someone joins the military in career field X and they get said bonus of Y dollars, is the government/military going to afford EVERYONE in the career field that same bonus of Y dollars?? I mean, SAME WORK SAME PAY right?

No cause Carrear field X is not doing the same job as Y. And while it is is a linkable analogy it is not a good one.


I would be willing to bet that the single service member actually has more disposable income than the married one even though said single sailor recieves less BAH.

Taking the current cost of child care, dipers etc i will definatly agree with you there.
Take me for instance. Over my 17 yrs, i have saved up 100k (though with the recent stock market plunges it is now worth around 68K), 40k or so in bonds and i have owned my own home for almost 2 years. Compared to several married folik i work with, i am leaps and bounds ahead of them in 'disposable income'..

Well, another long post gone by. At this rate i might as well register to this site...

[Yggdrasil]

Actually, according to defenselink's military compensation page (http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/)

"There are various types of pay. Basic pay is received by all and is the main component of an individual's salary. The other pays, often referred to as special pays, are for specific qualifications or events. For example, there are special pays for aviators and parachutists; special pays are also paid for dangerous or hardship duties. Only basic pay is discussed on this website.

Allowances are the second most important element of military pay. (emphasis added) Allowances are moneys provided for specific needs, such as food or housing. Monetary allowances are provided when the government does not provide for that specific need. For example, the quantity of government housing is not sufficient to house all military members and their families. Those who live in government housing do not receive full housing allowances. Those who do not live in government housing receive allowances to assist them in obtaining commercial housing."

This places BAS and BAH into military pay, not military benefits. Under this definition, not everyone's pay at a specific grade and TIS is equal as married people recieve more BAH than single.

No one is complaining about health care for dependants because this is in line with the civilian sector's benefits offering. But increased pay for being married is not.

Actually, better references would be the DODFMR and DJMS PTG. They define pay and allowances in accord with the post that you were responding to.

[Unregistered]

I'd also like to respond to the folks that think my examples of singles being treated worse than married are just at my duty station. I wish that were the case, but I've been in for 12 years now and have been to multiple duty stations. With 1 exception, at each location the singles were treated worse than married.


This is my 8th since i have been in and it is my experience as well. Which is to my perception one of the reasons a lot of singles have gotten out.


but did you know the AF gives $50 a month for each pet? Now that is just silly, it is one thing to help take care of a child, but owning a dog or cat is certainly something that DoD should not assist.


Waa.. that is news to me.


If they're certainly not responsible enough to adhere to underage drinking policy then what reasoning shows that they are responsible to have a vehicle

If the public transportation systems near bases (and on) was sufficient to cope with those single E1s and such to get places they wish to go, i would be all for that. Though i don't see how it could be enforced.


There used to be rules like this. In fact, decades earlier in the Army and Marines, personnel below the rank of E-3 were required to obtain written permission from their commanders to marry. However, that requirement went away under political pressure. However, as archaic as the rules sounded, honestly they were very much in the interest of the junior enlisted member. I do not recall if the AF had the same policy, but perhaps it was true also. Not at all sure of the Navy.

When i enlisted back in 91, it was still that way, but around 94-95 it just stopped being required.


My suggestion is if the single guy needs more money then start looking at other options of employment. If enough singles leave due to money they will increase it.


Unfortunatly it might come down to that. Like with many things, those in power won't change it proactively so it does not become a sore issue, but wait until the fit hits the shan.


Im sure this happens in all branches and when caught doing this they pay the consequences but they dont always get caught as they have friends draw up fake lease agreements.


That happens with married folk, too. Just not as often or obvious. Like the one married guy i knew in bahrain. Had his landlord charge him the full OHA rate for his paygrade, but kickbacked 400 bucks to the guy. So he looked (on paper) like he was using his full OHA, but in reality was using less...


it happens to be an actuarial fact that married people consume less alcohol and have fewer cases of problematic drinking (Leonard and Rothbard, 1999)

Good point. Of the 100 but heads who got DUIs i have known since i joined up, only 8 have been married.


You have this backwards. Living off base is not a privledge. In fact, living on base is the privledge. If you do not maintain your gov't quarters you can be kicked off base - with no BAH

I know of only one person who has had htat happen.


I want to ask some questions (though I'm not sure I'll get honest answers):


Here are mine.
1. Should military families pay for their own moves (they do anyways if they don't go with the lowest bid, contracted mover)?
No. No military member should pay for their own move. Well that is if they go with who's provided. If they want someone else, then like housing they should pay the diff.

2. Should military spouses (and children) find/pay for their own healthcare provider?
I am torn here. In situations like that army (or was it airforce base) that was mentioned in the 'surrogacy moms' article, then definatly they should fork out and not lap off the govt. But as i was taken care of by mil medical when i was young (retired AF father), i hope it stays the same.

3. Should military families pay for their own housing if they can't get on-base housing?
Since my BAH pays my morgage (well all but 120 or so of it), no. No one allowed to live off base should pay out of their own pocket (assuming they live wthin their means).

4. Should military families pay for their own childcare (oh, they already do or get very little assistance with that beyond the long waitlist for a spot at the Child Development Center)?
Yes. Just like civilians pay, so too should we.

5. If you think that married military members should give up something, what should single military members give up?
Rather than anyone give up anything, if anything the singles should get boosted to equal (or nearly equal) married folk. Though i would like to see FSA go away.

6. Should people wait until after their military career to get married? When is the appropriate age to have a child and/or get married?
Of all the married folk in the mil i know, many get divorced cause of their job. Over half of those i know have gotten divorced. To me that signifies military life is not conducive to being married. So by that i would say yes they should wait. BUT i cannot agree on a 'min age to have a kid'..

7. Should people be penalized for getting married or having children because they're presumed to be drains on the military budget? Even if both spouses work and are trying not to be said drains?
For somethings yes. Like fsa. Child care provided etc.

8. Should BAH be taken away if a military spouse works? Won the lottery?
Yes as to me since it is an alloance to offset, if you already make enough without it, why should you get it.


Free healthcare for all is in everyone's best interests./quote]

Being i was raised in england with the NHS, i can say i do not agree having a national health/free health system is in everyones best interest. Longer waiting times and higher taxes, plys all sorts of absurdities (like sex changes etc) raise it even more. Not to sound disrespectful, but why the heck should i pay for someone elses lifestyle choices.

[quoteI'll say is that, no matter who you are, military or not, you should be able to support a family before you have one.


Damn skippy. Pity more don't practice it.


So I hear that back in the day the military used to be a bad place for families and they could barely make it financially. I would argue that the pendulum has greatly shifted in their favor now with all the extra programs.

It does seem like the way things are, it is now the singles who are 'lesser'///


FSA reimburses families for additional costs incurred when the service member is absent. What such costs? Well, they run the gammut from additional child care expenses if the spouse works, to additional repair costs to cover household items the service member would normally repair himself. It could also cover lawn maintenance expenses. You can nitpick all of these examples, but the background is as varied as the people in the military

The perhaps rather than paying all married folk it up front (since i doubt all have those added expenses), why not make it like travel claims where you claim afterwords.

Well. I am finally done. After this, i am definatly signing up to these boards.

[ringjamesa]

I can't find where you are quoting that from so can't put the statements in context to actually see if someone was actually trying to claim that the AF does pay $50 a month for pets but I would like to emphatically state that this is a fabrication. I have never gotten a dime for having a pet. EVER.

[Unregistered]

Miguel,
Your argument holds no water, so to speak. In almost any duty location you have the opportunity to
live in gov't quarters, or PPV housing to accomodate your family situation. Those of us who are single,
or divorced and have pets, who are essentially like dependents are forced to find commensurate
accomodations for them. Granted, you will forfeit your BAH to live in PPV/Gov't housing, but you can,
no doubt get the appropriate sized home you need for your family, and be in the vacinity of the duty
station. For those of us who have lived both sides of the equation, I've been single, married, and single
again in my 17 years of service, and have experienced both benefit, and loss because of the desparity.
I lived in brand-new housing in Hawaii from 1998-2003, it was really great, and since my divorce I have
been relegated to reduced entitlement, and now as a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy, receiving the same
BAH rate as a married E-4. That is wrong!!!!!! No two ways about it. BAH rates should be based solely
on RANK!!!!!!
CSC(SS)

[technomage1]

Technically speaking, military spouses don’t “have to move” if they don’t want to. The military can not force them to move, and a military service member can not force his military wife to move. If a woman chooses to be a military wife and chooses to follow her husband whenever he is transferred, it seems reasonable that the military wife would choose a mobile career if she really wants a career.

If she meets the military member soon enough, yes. However, people are getting married later now (I think the median age is 25?) and at that stage in your life you probably are already set up, or well on your way towards a career. That's not saying that they can't change that career, just that it's a sacrifice to do so.


A lawyer would be a tough mobile career, but I think that nursing would be a great mobile career. Nurses are in high demand everywhere. Computer repair would also be a good mobile job. I’m sure that there are many other good examples of mobile careers.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think nurses have to be certified by the state. Overseas they can't find work at all since they have to be certified by the country that they are in - and on a 3 year tour that may not make sense to do. The exception overseas is if they happen to be near a US hospital.


It is only a sacrifice if the military spouse wants a career of her own in the first place. The vast majority of military wives want a full time career about as much as they want a pet rat. If a military spouse really wanted to financially support herself, she probably wouldn’t have married a military service member in the first place. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Most military spouses see their marriages as their career and their profession. Personally, I don’t believe that it is right or good for anyone to look upon a marriage as a career or a profession, but I do understand that my belief is in the minority. Providing a married military service member with a higher BAH than a single military service member of the same rank receives only reinforces the horrible and outdated belief that a wife can and should expect some form of financial compensation for her marital commitment.

I agree the BAH is unfair, and, as I stated before, that the military spouse should know what they're getting into prior to getting married. But I do know military spouses who have had to sacrifice their careers and take lesser jobs or no jobs - not because they've wanted to, but because they've moved so much or gone overseas. That does not mean that I think the military member should be paid more, but I give a nod to those spouses. Thank yous are free.


There is way more that the military could do. I think that homesteading would be the perfect solution for a military service member who is married to someone who has a full time career. Here’s a thread with more thoughts about homesteading:
http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1566670

Perhaps, and I'd be willing to listen to suggestions. I think homesteading is a waste of a career and it also places a greater burden on those who take overseas tours and PCS in place of the homsteader, so I dont' favor that solution at all.

[USN - Retired]

If she meets the military member soon enough, yes. However, people are getting married later now (I think the median age is 25?) and at that stage in your life you probably are already set up, or well on your way towards a career. That's not saying that they can't change that career, just that it's a sacrifice to do so.
.

Very few civilians in our country nowadays stay with the same company or in the same career field for their entire working career. I certainly held many different jobs in the military, and I rarely had the opportunity to choose what job I would do in the military. The military told me what to do, and I did it.



Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think nurses have to be certified by the state.

I believe that they do need to recertify but they don’t have to take the exam again. Recertifying costs a couple of hundred dollars. I am surprised that the military doesn’t compensate military spouses who have to recertify as a nurse due to a military PCS move. That might be a good discussion for another thread.



Overseas they can't find work at all since they have to be certified by the country that they are in - and on a 3 year tour that may not make sense to do. The exception overseas is if they happen to be near a US hospital.


I am sure that US military hospitals overseas can employ US civilian nurses. I believe that some of the nurses at Tripler (military hospital in Hawaii) are civilian nurses.



But I do know military spouses who have had to sacrifice...


I know it probably sounds like I am being trivial with semantics, but military spouses do not HAVE to make any sacrifice that they don’t want to make. Military spouses are not legally obligated to do anything for their husbands or the military. They only make sacrifices that they choose to make. Military spouses always have the freedom to opt out of a PCS move. That is certainly a freedom that I did not have during my 20 years on active duty with the USN or even during the first 18 years of my life (my father was in the military).




Perhaps, and I'd be willing to listen to suggestions. I think homesteading is a waste of a career and it also places a greater burden on those who take overseas tours and PCS in place of the homsteader, so I dont' favor that solution at all.

On the homesteading thread, I have proposed solutions to those valid concerns of yours.

I see many great solutions to the problems that keep military spouses from pursing a career of their own. Unfortunately, I don’t see any significant interest on the part of military spouses or our military leaders to pursue those solutions.

I have a problem with the BAH inequity between married and single service members because I see it as another attempt to put a dollar value on marriage. The institution of marriage in our country is going down the toilet, and I believe one of the main reasons is because we as a society try to define marriage in financial terms. Marriage should be a personal relationship, not a business transaction and certainly not a career or a profession.

The BAH inequity exists because our military leaders view marriage as the career and profession of the military spouse. The extra BAH for married service members is really just one of the many tools used by the military to encourage military spouses to continue to look upon their marriage as their primary career and profession. Until that backward looking viewpoint changes, the BAH inequity will remain.

[technomage1]

I have a problem with the BAH inequity between married and single service members because I see it as another attempt to put a dollar value on marriage. The institution of marriage in our country is going down the toilet, and I believe one of the main reasons is because we as a society try to define marriage in financial terms. Marriage should be a personal relationship, not a business transaction and certainly not a career or a profession.

The BAH inequity exists because our military leaders view marriage as the career and profession of the military spouse. The extra BAH for married service members is really just one of the many tools used by the military to encourage military spouses to continue to look upon their marriage as their primary career and profession. Until that backward looking viewpoint changes, the BAH inequity will remain.

On this, you and I agree.

[technomage1]

Actually, better references would be the DODFMR and DJMS PTG. They define pay and allowances in accord with the post that you were responding to.

Hmm. I looked up the DODFMR, all it said for BAH was that it was transferred to the per diem committee. I couldn't find the DJMS PTG at all - can you provide links to what you are referring to?

[Blue Badge]

Okkies.. been away from cpus for a few days, so after a bit of catch-up reading, I just wanted to chime in on a few things...

The USAF does seem to treat it's folks a bit better... part of that "We're a military branch, trying our darnedest to be a big business, that happens to be a military branch" mentality.

That said, we have NEVER gotten any cash for having pets.... at $50/month, they owe me about $11,400 if anyone can prove me wrong LOL.

We do however treat our people right when it comes to divorce... if someone has been receiving BAH/living off base, and then get divorced/seperated... we do NOT mandate they move back into the dorms. Troops living off base gather more crap than can fit in a dorm room, and if we mandated they move back in, we'd just end up paying for their storage unit anyways. Meanwhile, most bases have rules in place where E-4's and some E-3 can apply for and get BAH anyway to get off base.

That whole idea of "They are adults, who we trust with multi-million dollar equipment, and in some cases high powered weaponry while on duty. We don't need to keep them penned on base like 5 year olds needing babysitting." comes firmly into play in the USAF world.

[VFFSSGT]

We do however treat our people right when it comes to divorce... if someone has been receiving BAH/living off base, and then get divorced/seperated... we do NOT mandate they move back into the dorms. .

Maybe not in your experience, but I have seen many Airmen directed to move back into the dorms after a divorce...

[Blue Badge]

Maybe not in your experience, but I have seen many Airmen directed to move back into the dorms after a divorce...

Seen MANY divorces (gotta love my career field); only seen it once where the troop was HIGHLY recomended to move back into dorms, and it was for his own good... Stupid high alimony state that included BAH and BAS in the alimony payout lottery... troop wouldn't have been able to pay for a place off base anyways... Sooooo the nice/smart 1st Shirt "ordered" the troop back into the dorms... removing his BAH and his BAS from the calculations and ensuring he had a place to rest his head at night and put food in his tummy. The 49er was quite sad to see the much smaller than she thought she was going to be getting court judgement.... :D

[VFFSSGT]

Different career fields, different leadership, different mentality... not to say that I agreed with their decisions (not my place to agree or disagree) to make people move in the dorms, but it does happen...

[Yggdrasil]

Seen MANY divorces (gotta love my career field); only seen it once where the troop was HIGHLY recomended to move back into dorms, and it was for his own good... Stupid high alimony state that included BAH and BAS in the alimony payout lottery... troop wouldn't have been able to pay for a place off base anyways... Sooooo the nice/smart 1st Shirt "ordered" the troop back into the dorms... removing his BAH and his BAS from the calculations and ensuring he had a place to rest his head at night and put food in his tummy. The 49er was quite sad to see the much smaller than she thought she was going to be getting court judgement.... :D

Whatever state that is is pretty nice. In Virginia, if you don't draw BAH, they'll include the "value of the your housing" (which, to me, means the BAH that you would have gotten if you were drawing it).

[Skyhawk]

I am an E5 in the Army. My wife and I are getting a divorce and have no children together. My command is ordering me to move to the barracks. When this happens, I will lose over $1500 a month due to BAH and BAS. I pay $500 a month to child support from a previous relationship. Because of all this, I will only be making a little over $1200 a month. I'm going to have to put a 2 bedroom apt into storage. My bills will be adding up close to $1200 a month. Is there something somewhere that authorizes me to receive sinlge rate BAH bue to the large finacial burden?

If you have a dependant and are providing child support then I believe you have a case that you are providing housing for that child. However, you need to consult with the JAG office for official legal advice on your options. Your situation having to provide for dependants is a prime argument folks are making justifying the need for a dependant-rate BAH. I hope you find out you have options here.

[technomage1]

Your situation having to provide for dependants is a prime argument folks are making justifying the need for a dependant-rate BAH.

Of course, if everyone got the same BAH and on base housing dependant only on rank and location, then it wouldn't be an issue for this individual in the first place. This situation can be used as an example for both arguments.

[cowdog]

I am an E5 in the Army. My wife and I are getting a divorce and have no children together. My command is ordering me to move to the barracks. When this happens, I will lose over $1500 a month due to BAH and BAS. I pay $500 a month to child support from a previous relationship. Because of all this, I will only be making a little over $1200 a month. I'm going to have to put a 2 bedroom apt into storage. My bills will be adding up close to $1200 a month. Is there something somewhere that authorizes me to receive sinlge rate BAH bue to the large finacial burden?

That is an odd one. I am in the Air Force, and would assume that all services handle Dependent Rate BAH and child support the same, but maybe not. I have had two troops that had one child each. One was an E-4 and the other an E-5 at the times that their children were born, both out of wedlock. Both were also in the barracks. Once the child was born, they each received dependent rate BHS and were forced to move off base as they were not allowed to receive BAH and live in the barracks. If they chose to remain in the barracks, they lost their BAH completely and had to pay child support "out of pocket".

From what I understand, if you have a child, that child is a dependent and you should receive dependent rate BAH. It is confusing how the different services handle the same exact pay, allowances and entitlements so different.

[cowdog]

I know it probably sounds like I am being trivial with semantics, but military spouses do not HAVE to make any sacrifice that they don’t want to make. Military spouses are not legally obligated to do anything for their husbands or the military. They only make sacrifices that they choose to make. Military spouses always have the freedom to opt out of a PCS move. That is certainly a freedom that I did not have during my 20 years on active duty with the USN or even during the first 18 years of my life (my father was in the military).

Are you serious?! Spouses do not have to make any sacrifices? Legally obligated or not, they make sacrifices! I don't HAVE to PCS to my next assignment, but then there are consequences for making a decision to turn down orders, however, I make that choice, I don't HAVE to do it. Yes, trivial semantics, and maybe it is different in the Navy. It is absurd to make a statement that spouses do not HAVE to make sacrifices. They make those sacrifices for their families.


I see many great solutions to the problems that keep military spouses from pursing a career of their own. Unfortunately, I don’t see any significant interest on the part of military spouses or our military leaders to pursue those solutions.

We must see this differently. I know it is difficult for a spouse to continue a career when they go to interviews and are turned down because they are married to military. Not that the particular business is against military, but because they know they can't count on keeping that employee around more than 2 or 3 years.

[USN - Retired]

Are you serious?!

Yes! I am very serious.


It is absurd to make a statement that spouses do not HAVE to make sacrifices. They make those sacrifices for their families..

The so-called sacrifices of the average military spouse pale in comparison to the sacrifices of a person (man or woman) on active duty with our military in Iraq or Afghanistan.

If a woman has children, then caring for her children is her personal responsibility, not her sacrifice (Of course, If a man has children, then caring for his children is also his personal responsibility, not his sacrifice). When a male military service member financially supports his wife and children, do we say that he is making a sacrifice for his family or do we say that he is fulfilling his personal responsibility?


We must see this differently.

Yes we do!


I know it is difficult for a spouse to continue a career when they go to interviews and are turned down because they are married to military. Not that the particular business is against military, but because they know they can't count on keeping that employee around more than 2 or 3 years.

If a military spouse is a nurse with a good work record, most hospital administrators would be happy to employ her, even if they knew that she would only be available for a few years. There are other mobile jobs.

Many civilian jobs nowadays are not long term jobs.

Did you even bother to look at the military homesteading thread?

[cowdog]

The so-called sacrifices of the average military spouse pale in comparison to the sacrifices of a person (man or woman) on active duty with our military in Iraq or Afghanistan.

If a woman has children, then caring for her children is her personal responsibility, not her sacrifice (Of course, If a man has children, then caring for his children is also his personal responsibility, not his sacrifice). When a male military service member financially supports his wife and children, do we say that he is making a sacrifice for his family or do we say that he is fulfilling his personal responsibility?

If a military spouse is a nurse with a good work record, most hospital administrators would be happy to employ her, even if they knew that she would only be available for a few years. There are other mobile jobs.

Many civilian jobs nowadays are not long term jobs.

I must have missed something. I never tried to compare the sacrifices that deployed soldiers make and the sacrifices of a non-military spouse. That is not even relevent. Just because a deployed service member makes a bigger sacrifice, in your opinion, should not take anything away from the sacrifices that the spouse at home makes. All military members and their families make sacrifices, while at home, and more significantly while deployed.

I agree that a woman, or man, caring for their children is a responsibility and not a sacrifice. I never eluded to the fact that it was a sacrifice to care for your own children. There are many sacrifices that spouses make, the most important to me being career progression. My wife is not a nurse, and I don't know of any nurses, so I can't speak to how easy it is for nurses to find work.

I am not up on the percentages of spouses that are nurses, but I would guess that most are not, so this example is not very good. You are correct that most civilian jobs are not long term, however, careers are long-term. My spouse happens to be a teacher, and it is not always easy to find a school district that will hire you when you may only be there 2 years. Especially when most cities and states are cutting budgets, starting with education. Many times she has to get her foot in the door by subbing, then hopefully something will fall in line.

Admittedly, I have not checked out the Homesteading deal yet.

Okay, I think we got waaay off topic. There is an opinion I would like to share concerning BAH inequality. Several posts were made stating that single people pick up the slack when a married military member has to take time off for appointments or sicknesses of their dependents. Please keep in mind that when that married military member takes that time off, everyone picks up the slack, not just the single people. Unless you work with one married person and all others are single. Additionally, it has been a very long time since I have been GIVEN time off for such a reason. For at least the last 10 years, I have had to submit a leave form every time I needed time off for a sick dependent, or a dependent medical appointment. Obviously, that can differ from base to base, or unit to unit, hell, even supervisor to supervisor.

[USN - Retired]

I agree that a woman, or man, caring for their children is a responsibility and not a sacrifice. .

I have to admit that I didn’t think that you would say that. I suspect that many young military housewives would disagree with your belief that caring for a child is a personal responsibility of the mother and not a sacrifice.


There are many sacrifices that spouses make, the most important to me being career progression. .

If a man is having trouble finding a job in his chosen profession, most people in our society today would suggest that he look for a different profession that may provide him with better job opportunities, especially if that man is financially supporting a family. Of course, it appears that we would only expect a man to make that kind of change. If a woman can not attain a job in her chosen profession, then most people will say that she is suffering and sacrificing, even if her lack of job opportunities is due to her own personal choices in life. Am I incorrect in that assumption? When it comes to earning money to support the family, do we have higher expectations of men than we do of women?



Okay, I think we got waaay off topic. .

Not really. Many people have attempted to hype up the pseudo-sacrifices of military spouses in an attempt to justify the BAH inequality.


There is an opinion I would like to share concerning BAH inequality. Several posts were made stating that single people pick up the slack when a married military member has to take time off for appointments or sicknesses of their dependents. Please keep in mind that when that married military member takes that time off, everyone picks up the slack, not just the single people. Unless you work with one married person and all others are single. Additionally, it has been a very long time since I have been GIVEN time off for such a reason. For at least the last 10 years, I have had to submit a leave form every time I needed time off for a sick dependent, or a dependent medical appointment. Obviously, that can differ from base to base, or unit to unit, hell, even supervisor to supervisor.

So does that justify the BAH inequality?

[cowdog]

I have to admit that I didn’t think that you would say that. I suspect that many young military housewives would disagree with your belief that caring for a child is a personal responsibility of the mother and not a sacrifice.

I'm sure you are right. I don't want to be misunderstood though. I was not saying that parents do not have to make sacrifices when they have a child. I do understand that in some instances it is financially prudent for one parent to stop working to care for their child as child care is very expensive. That constitutes a sacrifice in my eyes. However, that is not limited to military couples.


If a man is having trouble finding a job in his chosen profession, most people in our society today would suggest that he look for a different profession that may provide him with better job opportunities, especially if that man is financially supporting a family. Of course, it appears that we would only expect a man to make that kind of change. If a woman can not attain a job in her chosen profession, then most people will say that she is suffering and sacrificing, even if her lack of job opportunities is due to her own personal choices in life. Am I incorrect in that assumption? When it comes to earning money to support the family, do we have higher expectations of men than we do of women?

I am of the opinion that society does have higher expectations of men than of women when it comes to supporting a family. That is why men still earn higher wages in the same exact position than women in some professions. Obviously, not the military. I am not too sure about the rest of this statement either. Regardless of whether you are male or female, if you need to make a change in your profession after you PCS with your spouse, you are making a sacrifice.



So does that justify the BAH inequality?

NO! Not in any way, shape or form! The fact that co-workers pick up the slack for other co-workers has absolutely nothing to do with BAH inequality. That was the point I was trying to convey.

[USN - Retired]

I do understand that in some instances it is financially prudent for one parent to stop working to care for their child .

Why does it almost always seem “prudent” for the wife to stay at home and be financially supported by her husband? There are exceptions, but not many. In the famous words of Patrick Henry, “I smell a rat.”


as child care is very expensive. .

Especially for women like Nadya Suleman (mother of the octuplets) who breed like rabbits. Having said that, I do believe that child care on most military installations is definitely inadequate. Military wives are not the only persons on military installations who need good child care. Those military service members who are single parents also need good child care and it should be available for them 24/7. Given the number of single parents in the military, child care very well may now be a readiness issue. Child care shouldn’t be free though. I digress. Child care is probably a subject for a different thread.


That constitutes a sacrifice in my eyes.
.

If a woman allows herself to become financially dependent on her husband and stays at home with her children, then that woman does not appear to be a person who is making a sacrifice in my eyes.

I think that we have all definitely become overly melodramatic in our use of the word “sacrifice”. Using the word “sacrifice” to describe the life of a housewife with healthy children is quite an exaggeration, especially given modern home appliance technology. The word “sacrifice” would probably be appropriate to describe the life of a person who has adopted disabled orphans though.



I am of the opinion that society does have higher expectations of men than of women when it comes to supporting a family. .

Interestingly, feminists never seem to have a problem with that higher expectation that our society has of men. Does anyone know why?



That is why men still earn higher wages in the same exact position than women in some professions.

Hold on! I have to raise the baloney flag.

I don’t want to get too far off topic again, but I do see a need to respond to that statement of yours because you have obviously been severely brainwashed by feminist propaganda. Women in our country do not earn less just because they are women (there may be a few rare exceptions, but not many). Here’s why: if businesses could hire women to do the same job (quantity and quality of work) as men and pay those women less than they pay men, then why would those businesses hire any men at all? If those businesses only hired women, they would make greater profits because they would be paying women a lower salary. Men would never be able to get a job unless there were no women available to be employed. If women in our country did earn less just because they are women, the female unemployment rate would be near zero.

The real reason for the disparity in pay between men and women is because women often opt out of the job market as soon as they find some man to financially support them. Additionally, women usually choose less dangerous or more flexible work.




Regardless of whether you are male or female, if you need to make a change in your profession after you PCS with your spouse, you are making a sacrifice.
.

If the vast majority of military wives were really upset about losing civilian jobs due to military PCS orders, then we would be hearing more complaints from them. The average woman usually has no problem whatsoever communicating her displeasure. Most military wives don’t really complain that much about PCS moves because they need to use the occasional PCS move as an excuse to be a stay at home spouse. If there were a large number of military wives who were really upset about the impact that military PCS orders have on their civilian careers, Congress would certainly take note and force the military to establish a better military homesteading program for them (or do you really think that Congress would ignore all the military spouses?).



NO! Not in any way, shape or form! The fact that co-workers pick up the slack for other co-workers has absolutely nothing to do with BAH inequality. That was the point I was trying to convey.

So why do we have an inequality in the BAH?

[cowdog]

Why does it almost always seem “prudent” for the wife to stay at home and be financially supported by her husband? There are exceptions, but not many. In the famous words of Patrick Henry, “I smell a rat.”

I didn't say that it was prudent for a wife to stay at home and be financially supported by her husband. Let's not forget that not all military spouses are women. I prefer to use the term spouse. You misunderstood the statement. If a couple has a child, or two, or whatever, and the cost of child care is greater than the income of the non-military spouse, it is very common for the non-military spouse to stop working and care for the children at home. I did not say that it was prudent for a "wife" to stay at home and be financially supported by her husband. I did state "financially prudent". However, I do need to modify my comment on that being a "sacrifice". In my opinion, it should be considered a priveledge to have that time at home to care for your own chidren. I understand why some would say otherwise, but if you are not financially sound, or are not ready for a child, than you should have taken other precautions as to not have a child.


Especially for women like Nadya Suleman (mother of the octuplets) who breed like rabbits. Having said that, I do believe that child care on most military installations is definitely inadequate. Military wives are not the only persons on military installations who need good child care. Those military service members who are single parents also need good child care and it should be available for them 24/7. Given the number of single parents in the military, child care very well may now be a readiness issue. Child care shouldn’t be free though. I digress. Child care is probably a subject for a different thread.

That woman is out of her mind, and the clinic that allowed her to be artificially inseminated as a single parent of SIX children should be closed. I was a single parent and I agree that that good child care should be available 24/7. As you said, another thread though.


If a woman allows herself to become financially dependent on her husband and stays at home with her children, then that woman does not appear to be a person who is making a sacrifice in my eyes.

Please refer to my comment above. I don't understand your "financially dependent" comments. They are a couple, a family. I don't see it as making one financially dependent upon another. Let us remove children from the equation. If the military spouse has a career of their own, and has to change that career, of give up the career due to PCS, then that is a sacrifice. As you stated in an earlier post:
It is only a sacrifice if the military spouse wants a career of her own in the first place.[/url]


So why do we have an inequality in the BAH?

And that my friend is the question and the reason this thread was started. As much as people don't like to hear it, it is actually very simple why there are different BAH Rates (Single and With Dependent). First, I don't think the military actually sees an "inequality" in BAH. I think the military feels that the BAH Rates are equal, relative to how the military defines the allowance to begin with. The military doesn't feel a single member requires as much living space as a member with a dependent. Before I get hammered, I am not say there is not an inequality, this is simply my opinion on how the military sees it and why there is "inequality". Also, please remember, one does not need to have a spouse to draw Dependent Rate BAH, they merely need a dependent. I don't feel that BAH is a compensation for "sacrifices" made by military spouses.

[USN - Retired]

I didn't say that it was prudent for a wife to stay at home and be financially supported by her husband.

Yes, I know. But way too many people in our country seem to think that it is prudent for a wife to stay at home and be financially supported by her husband.


Let's not forget that not all military spouses are women. .

Most military spouses are women. The vast majority of stay-at-home parents in military marriages are women. I have only known one female Sailor whose husband was a stay at home dad (and he was retired from the military).


I prefer to use the term spouse. .

Technically, the word “spouse” only means husband or wife. If you are married, then YOU are a spouse. The term housewife is much more descriptive. Many women don’t like the word “housewife”, and we all know why they don’t like that word (and that’s why I use that word).

Would it be appropriate to say that housewives, homemakers and stay at home moms are “professional spouses” since their marriage is their career and their profession? Since marriage is not my career or occupation, does that mean that I am an amateur spouse? Am I way off base? Back in the 1950’s, home economics was a required course for all high school girls because society back then considered marriage to be the primary career and main occupation of a married woman. Has the institution of marriage really changed much since the 1950’s? I’m starting to think that it hasn’t.

On the following thread - http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1574197 ,
We discussed whether the phrases “petty officer” and “non-commissioned officer should be replaced with the phrase “enlisted officer.” Since most of us want to continue using phrases such as “petty officer” and “non-commissioned officer”, it seems reasonable that we should keep using the word “housewife” because that word is part of our heritage. :rolleyes:




I don't understand your "financially dependent" comments. ...
I don't see it as making one financially dependent upon another.

Most housewives would agree with you (until they head into a divorce court and want alimony and child support).



If the military spouse has a career of their own, and has to change that career, of give up the career due to PCS, then that is a sacrifice.


Is it right that we expect a military wife to give up her career whenever her husband receives PCS orders or should our military leaders look at other options (i.e. homesteading)?

How many military housewives REALLY want a full time career?



They are a couple, a family.


Let’s take a look at what “family” means in our society today. If a person in a marriage earns money, then that money legally belongs to the family. The breadwinner (usually a man) for the family is legally obligated to support those members of the family who can not or will not earn money. If a person in a marriage either can not or will not earn money (usually a woman), then that person is not legally obligated to do anything for the family. It seems that women (specifically housewives) want the legal protections of marriage (i.e. co-ownership of money earned by their husbands), but those housewives don’t want to have any legal obligations to accompany those legal protections, specifically they don’t want to be legally obligated to take care of children and husband. When a housewife makes birth control decisions (including whether or not to use the birth control pill and whether or not to get an abortion), it is her body and her choice, and her husband has no legal right to be involved in that decision or even the legal right to know about that decision; however, when a married man uses his mind and body to earn money, then he is part of a family and his housewife is a co-owner of his paycheck. That just doesn’t sound like equality to me.

If a woman chooses to be a housewife, then she should be legally obligated to care for her husband and children and she should be legally obligated to include her husband in her birth control decisions, - OR - she should accept that she has no legal right to the money earned by her husband. Is that unreasonable? If so, why?

[ringjamesa]

It is a problem in the civilian sector:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/worklife/02/23/cb.single.workers/index.html

[WILDJOKER5]

So, this thread is about why does the single person not get as much as the Married person. It is right that i made the personal choice to get married. But I stay in the service b/c of the extra money. I could find a career out of the mil that pays more and can always look for another job if my family needs require more money. But i fealt like still serving my country. Without the extra little bit i get, I deffinetly would get out. I mean very little extra, $100. Are we just looking for something to complain about? Single, you get to spend your money the way you want, married looks out for their family first (most time). If a single person wanted to buy a home, they could. Then get some roommates to pay rent and bank their BAH. Wah Wah Wah.

[ZACHC3506]

I agree. I'm all for giving guys more money, we work way harder than these civilians do. More hours, less pay. Sometimes seems like we get less respect...you don't get degraded, yelled at in the real world. I'm not being a winy little girl, but our lifestyle is a choice, but not an easy one. I lost a marriage in part due to this lifestyle, but I have no regrets. I liked the extra hundred or so bucks, but I love my country more. The few dollars help with retention, my point exactly, so we should all just let it be.

[Sabrina76]

If the military spouse has a career of their own, and has to change that career, of give up the career due to PCS, then that is a sacrifice.

A couple of questions about this one statement.

1a. Prior to getting married, did the spouse know if the person they were marrying was in the military? Yes in some cases the military service starts after marriage, so..
1b. Did the non- military spouse know that their spouse was joining the military?

I do not see how it is even remotely possible that a non-military spouse could claim any form of ignorance on what happens in the military. Yes, there are times when a service member can spend their whole career in one location. But, that doesn't happen as often as we would like.

2a. Did they still get married?
2b. Did they stay married?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes. Then the non-military spouse accepted the fact that they may have to move at some point. Option number two, and I have seen this with many people, is the military member transfers to a different location and the spouse stays put. That is an option they have.

I'm sorry in my sympathy for married servicemembers is rather low. I know many, many, many cases where the non-military spouse makes more than the service member does.

Technically, I'm a single parent. I am single with a dependent child. In order to give my child a stable home environment I made the choice to not have him live with me. I asked for the military life, he didn't. I am the one that spends the money on plane tickets to go see him when I can. I pay his guardian a pretty large sum of money each month in child support. I am in a dependent restricted location (aka, no dependents allowed). Those with families get all the bennies, BAH for their families along with the OHA for themselves, FSA, etc. In several cases the spouse makes more money. So they are making a pretty penny from the government. Those single sailors that don't have custody of our child(ren) do not get the BAH or the FSA. So I feel like I'm being punished for making a decision that I felt was best for my child. As I was told. Bottom Line Up Front: I made the choice to get divorced and not take custody of my child. I have to live with that decision and the tax-payers should not be giving me money to support my child. Well, IMO if you make the choice to get married to someone in the military you need to accept the fact that the military life bites.

A married servicemember has the option of housing vice living out in town. A married servicemember can have guests at the house pretty much anytime they want. They can have a dog or a cat, pretty mcuh any other kind of pet. A married servicemember has a yard and have nice cook outs with friends when the weather is good. They could even have a garden in their yard. A married servicemember can have high spped internet set up in their home.

A single servicemember has the option of the ship or barracks room. A single servicemember in government quarters has restrictions as to whether or not they can have a friend come hang out at their "home". A single servicemember is lucky if they can have a fish in their barracks room. A single servicemember is lucky if the married guy/gal in their shop invites them to a cook out, is lucky if they have a full size refridgator and a microwave in their room. A single servicemember is lucky if they only have one roommate. On a ship the berthing on some ships hold 100 people. A single servicemember is lucky if the base they are on has an internet cafe that they can get a decent connection in order to email family back home.

I'm sorry if I feel like I am treated as a second class citizen, and after-thought even, since I am single. Would you like to be treated this way?

[Unregistered]

"How many military housewives REALLY want a full time career?"
"Women often opt out of the job market as soon as they find some man to financially support them"

Wow, stuck in the 70's much?

Military spouses actually have more education than their civilian counterparts, often in career fields that can be accomodated almost anywhere, and still suffer greater unemployment rates. More than half of all military spouses are employed and more than 3/4 of enlisted spouses are employed (so perhaps you've spent to much time in the officer community to know that the vast majority of military families--enlisted ones--are dual income).

Teaching and nursing generally require re-certification (i.e. additional formal education) in every state. School hiring decisions are not generally made year round and hospitals like to hire those trained at local schools b/c they're familiar with the kind of talent they'll get. Oh yes, we dumb spouses spend hours cobbling together degrees in night/online classes (while working and caring for kids), transferring from campus to campus in between PCS moves and deployments, and give no thought whatsoever to whether it will make us employable nationwide. And gee, who woulndn't want to extend their student loan repayments into their 40s and 50s or struggle to pay for private school tuition on one salary b/c our duty station has incredibly subpar public schools. Nope, no sacrifice here. My moves are so f-ing voluntary that every state we've lived in has coughed up unemployment bennies until I find a new job too.

Congress hasn't made spouse/family issues or homesteading more of a priority because too many congressMEN (there are less than 10 women) think, like you, that military spouses are mooching women happy/content to live off of their spouse for the rest of their days. It's not a lack of letter-writing, or spouse complaints that keeps affordable childcare so out of reach. It's a lack of empathy and understanding and plain old mysogyny. BTW, exactly which congressional reps are we supposed to write (they change with every move). I've done it but the follow-up is sketchy because they know, as well as I do, that I won't be a constituent very long.

I begrudge NO one, single/married soldiers/sailors and airmen, or marines the opportunity to receive BAH to live in-town. The true travesty is all of this, housing and family support, are the 20th century assumptions that the only people who want/need/deserve to own/have anything of their own are officers and, yeah, military spouses are a perfectly willing source of cheap childcare workers.

So much mysogynistic, stereotypical drivel and so little time. Please oh please, won't you join the 21st century? Do it for your country.

[USN - Retired]

Wow, stuck in the 70's much?

Not really. But most military families appear to be stuck in the 1950’s.


Teaching and nursing generally require re-certification (i.e. additional formal education) in every state.

I don’t believe that nurses need additional education when they recertify in a different state. I believe that they do need additional formal education to maintain their certification regardless of the state they live in.


Oh yes, we dumb spouses

They’re dumb like a fox. Seriously, most military housewives are not dumb, but most are lazy. They are lazy because our laws protect and encourage people, especially women, who are lazy.


we dumb spouses spend hours cobbling together degrees in night/online classes (while working and caring for kids), transferring from campus to campus in between PCS moves and deployments, and give no thought whatsoever to whether it will make us employable nationwide. And gee, who woulndn't want to extend their student loan repayments into their 40s and 50s or struggle to pay for private school tuition on one salary b/c our duty station has incredibly subpar public schools. Nope, no sacrifice here. My moves are so f-ing voluntary that every state we've lived in has coughed up unemployment bennies until I find a new job too.

So are you saying that you are not fully and completely responsible for your lifestyle choices and the life that you have made for yourself?


Congress hasn't made spouse/family issues or homesteading more of a priority because too many congressMEN (there are less than 10 women) think, like you, that military spouses are mooching women happy/content to live off of their spouse for the rest of their days.

If congressmen are so unresponsive to all the lazy military housewives, then why did they pass USFSPA? The many inequities of USFSPA are beyond the scope of this thread, but that act does heavily favor former military spouses, especially lazy military housewives.


because too many congressMEN (there are less than 10 women) think, like you, that military spouses are mooching women happy/content to live off of their spouse for the rest of their days.

I have been associated with the military in one form or another for 45 years. During that time, it has been my observation that the vast majority of military housewives are mooching women who are happy and content to live off of their spouses. Our laws and the military’s system for managing military families practically beg lazy women to become military housewives (and predatory spouses). There are some military spouses who are not looking to use their marriage as a free ride through life, but they are the exception.


. It's not a lack of letter-writing, or spouse complaints that keeps affordable childcare so out of reach.

I disagree completely.


It's a lack of empathy and understanding and plain old mysogyny.

So you’re blaming men again for your lifestyle choices? I get the impression that the only person who you do not blame for your bad decisions in life is you.


BTW, exactly which congressional reps are we supposed to write (they change with every move). I've done it but the follow-up is sketchy because they know, as well as I do, that I won't be a constituent very long.

It looks like misogynistic congressmen are about to rip away one of your excuses. See this article:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/02/military_spouse_residency_022809w/


but the follow-up is sketchy because they know, as well as I do, that I won't be a constituent very long.

Congressmen rarely look beyond the next election.


The true travesty is all of this, housing and family support, are the 20th century assumptions

Our military leaders (i.e. Generals and Admirals) are definitely not forward thinking about the subject of military wives. Those leaders still believe that the good and proper role of the military wife is to be a housewife. Of course, most military housewives have done pathetically little to try to change the minds of our military leaders.


So much mysogynistic, stereotypical drivel and so little time.


If I am a misogynist, then why do I believe that men and women should have equal rights and equal responsibilities? (or is it misogynistic to hold women to the same high standards of responsibility that we hold men to?)


Please oh please, won't you join the 21st century? Do it for your country

Please oh please, won't you take responsibility for yourself and your decisions in life? Do it for your country.

[Unregistered]

I think that everyone should get the same BAH per paygrade per location. It only seems fair that we are compensated for the same work at each paygrade. What one does with their funds in their personal life is up to them, be it have a spouse, go to a bar, invest in college, buy more food or pricier food, etc.

Please do not use a spouse is forced to give up their job because of a PCS. My CO, XO, COTD, & CMC are all geo-bachelors as well as many of my colleges. Everyone knows that the military moves a lot and it should be a consideration when getting married. Many others are able to move with their spouse and many are still able to make more than the service members.

Please do not use the fact that a family needs a bigger house. Look around you can find a house of sufficient size around. I have found many 3br that are cheaper than a 1br in the same zipcode. I agree that families have more expenses, but that comes with getting married and if someone is not financially ready they shouldn't get married or be willing to make certain cuts to make ends meet.

Please do not use that singles just want to spend their money at bars or can get a room mate. many don't and some married folks shares houses or spend all their time downtown.

Everyone is looking out for them selves thinking that because of their situations, they are being treated less fairly. Lets give everyone the same amount and let them live or die on their own accounts.

[mel44]

Not really. But most military families appear to be stuck in the 1950’s.



I don’t believe that nurses need additional education when they recertify in a different state. I believe that they do need additional formal education to maintain their certification regardless of the state they live in.



They’re dumb like a fox. Seriously, most military housewives are not dumb, but most are lazy. They are lazy because our laws protect and encourage people, especially women, who are lazy.



So are you saying that you are not fully and completely responsible for your lifestyle choices and the life that you have made for yourself?



If congressmen are so unresponsive to all the lazy military housewives, then why did they pass USFSPA? The many inequities of USFSPA are beyond the scope of this thread, but that act does heavily favor former military spouses, especially lazy military housewives.



I have been associated with the military in one form or another for 45 years. During that time, it has been my observation that the vast majority of military housewives are mooching women who are happy and content to live off of their spouses. Our laws and the military’s system for managing military families practically beg lazy women to become military housewives (and predatory spouses). There are some military spouses who are not looking to use their marriage as a free ride through life, but they are the exception.



I disagree completely.



So you’re blaming men again for your lifestyle choices? I get the impression that the only person who you do not blame for your bad decisions in life is you.



It looks like misogynistic congressmen are about to rip away one of your excuses. See this article:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/02/military_spouse_residency_022809w/



Congressmen rarely look beyond the next election.



Our military leaders (i.e. Generals and Admirals) are definitely not forward thinking about the subject of military wives. Those leaders still believe that the good and proper role of the military wife is to be a housewife. Of course, most military housewives have done pathetically little to try to change the minds of our military leaders.



If I am a misogynist, then why do I believe that men and women should have equal rights and equal responsibilities? (or is it misogynistic to hold women to the same high standards of responsibility that we hold men to?)



Please oh please, won't you take responsibility for yourself and your decisions in life? Do it for your country.

Paaallleesssssssssse :eek: - I can work circles around my honey! I love him and he works hard but pleaseeee - uuuggggg

[Unregistered]

Why can't i get BAH because I have a dog. She requires bigger house with a backyard and I have to feed her, plus take her to the vet. I promise not to take her to clinic if the govt will hand out more money. I mean its cheaper than having a kid, the base doesn't have to provide child care or worry about her scraping a knee falling out of a tree and going to the hospital for mortrin. Its a win-win situation.

[Unregistered]

Ppl. who think being a 'housewife' with children is a lazy occupation have clearly never been a stay at home spouse or primary care-giver. In one breath ye olde retiree claims mysogyny is an excuse and in the next he says the military practically begs women to stay at home. In the face of widely publicized stats to the contrary (that more than 75% of enlisted spouses work), he claims laziness is rife in the spouse ranks. It's a good thing this one's been put out to pasture. He fits in with the rest of the patties.

[USN - Retired]

Ppl. who think being a 'housewife' with children is a lazy occupation have clearly never been a stay at home spouse or primary care-giver. In one breath ye olde retiree claims mysogyny is an excuse and in the next he says the military practically begs women to stay at home. In the face of widely publicized stats to the contrary (that more than 75% of enlisted spouses work), he claims laziness is rife in the spouse ranks. It's a good thing this one's been put out to pasture. He fits in with the rest of the patties.

I am a stay at home spouse. :D

[Shrike]

To me your arguement has no standing.
And neither does your counter-argument.


Being married does cost more than being single, therefore they pay more.
Don't you mean a totally, 100%, personal lifestyle choice costs more? If someone looks at what it will cost them to get married and decides it's financially unfeasible, yet does it anyway, they are an idiot.


All of you are saying that a married couple could live in a one bedroom, which is true... my spouse and I do. I believe that often times military couples live above their means, and then complain that they don't make enough.
If they live above their means, then it's their own damned problem.


But what you haven't said is that two people do cost more. Higher water bill, higher electric bill, more food.
How is the spouse contributing to the defrayment of these costs? There are things called "jobs" that the spouse can get that earn them "money" which in turn can be exchanged for goods and services.

If the military member knew they couldn't afford these costs, why did they get hitched?


There are also usually 2 vehicles which means more bills there.
Why are there two cars? If they can't afford two cars, why did they buy them? That is just a stupid argument, plain and simple.


And the military doesn't pay an astronomical difference to someone married. And If you have made the 'personal life decision' as you call it to stay single... than you are making the decision to forfiet bah.
Single people forfeit BAH? Really? Is it hard to use a computer without opposable thumbs?


Stop complaining.
Says the person who feels their living outside their means is other people's burden to bear.

[garhkal]

Interestingly, feminists never seem to have a problem with that higher expectation that our society has of men. Does anyone know why?


IMO it is cause of the same reason you don't see the same feminists who rally against single male organisations not having any issues with single women organisations. I bet if you opened your phone book to the Gyms/fitness centers section, you would see on average 35% or more that are listed as WOMEN only. BUt i doubt you would find a single one men only.


Most military spouses are women. The vast majority of stay-at-home parents in military marriages are women. I have only known one female Sailor whose husband was a stay at home dad (and he was retired from the military).


Yup. I would say it is around 85%/15% women stay at home spouses to men spouses.



Most housewives would agree with you (until they head into a divorce court and want alimony and child support).



That is true. From what i see of the divorces i have seen, the spouse (in all but one case it was a women) were all agianst being said to "live off the hubby" as it showed dependency. BUT as soon as it got to divorce court, they were all up in that role as being ht dependent one.


That just doesn’t sound like equality to me.

No it does not. And as i have said elsewhere on other fourms, it seems what women are wanitng is not equality, but power over.


Those single sailors that don't have custody of our child(ren) do not get the BAH or the FSA

WOW that sucks. So you have the same responsibilities as a married service member with kids, but none of the pay.


A single servicemember has the option of the ship or barracks room. A single servicemember in government quarters has restrictions as to whether or not they can have a friend come hang out at their "home". A single servicemember is lucky if they can have a fish in their barracks room. A single servicemember is lucky if the married guy/gal in their shop invites them to a cook out, is lucky if they have a full size refridgator and a microwave in their room. A single servicemember is lucky if they only have one roommate. On a ship the berthing on some ships hold 100 people. A single servicemember is lucky if the base they are on has an internet cafe that they can get a decent connection in order to email family back home.

I'm sorry if I feel like I am treated as a second class citizen, and after-thought even, since I am single. Would you like to be treated this way?


There were a few you left out. A married sailor living in on base housing does not have to worry abuot getting his place inspected, and if it fails loosing his right to wear civilian clothes. A single sailor living in barracks does.



"How many military housewives REALLY want a full time career?"
"Women often opt out of the job market as soon as they find some man to financially support them"

Wow, stuck in the 70's much?


I have the same thought pattern. And it is cause of what i have seen that i have it. Does that make me have an old school mentality? If so, then so be it.


I agree that families have more expenses, but that comes with getting married and if someone is not financially ready they shouldn't get married or be willing to make certain cuts to make ends meet.


And since it is their choice to get married, it should not be their employers responsibility to foot the bill for that choice, which is what BAH/FSA etc wind up being.


Completely agree. Why are some of my coworkers getting paid more money to do the same amount of work just b/c they have spouses/children? (Actually even less work b/c they are always getting off early to pick up kids from day care, etc!?) I am totally for 100% equality in all benefits.

Can't pay to feed/house a spouse and 3 kids on your military salary? Well, sorry: but that's your own fault - not mine.

He** yea. That is the way to say it.

[USMClifestylenotajob]

I have never figured out why there is a difference in this area. As others have stated, BAH should be based upon grade and location. I don't see why my being single warrants a lower compensation than someone who does the same job. I also would not tie it to the number of dependants. I think we led ourselves down a very dangerous path with on base housing when we switched from rank based housing assignments to assignments based upon number of dependants.

To me, on base housing should be assigned by rank only - an E-9 gets a bigger house than an E-1. Period. If the E-1's two kids have to share a room for a few years until they get promoted into a larger house - why is that so horrible?

It's the same with off base housing. It should not be needs driven, but rather rank driven. If a married person feels the "need" for a separate bedroom for each of their children, and are low ranking, then it is their choice to pay out of pocket for that. As a higher ranking single, it may be my choice to get a larger house and put a weight room in. RHIP.

Oh, I see, you're an RHIP guy. So do you actually sleep well at night in your oversized house while your young warriors have their children sharing rooms or sleeping on the couch just because of your rank? I would hope not. I am married and with no children yet. If I did reside on base I would glady give up the 3 bedroom house that I would rate if it meant a better life for one of my younger Marines and .their family. I'm sure others would as well. I guess they don't preach much troop welfare in the AF.

[technomage1]

Oh, I see, you're an RHIP guy. So do you actually sleep well at night in your oversized house while your young warriors have their children sharing rooms or sleeping on the couch just because of your rank? I would hope not. I am married and with no children yet. If I did reside on base I would glady give up the 3 bedroom house that I would rate if it meant a better life for one of my younger Marines and .their family. I'm sure others would as well. I guess they don't preach much troop welfare in the AF.

Like a baby. I enjoy my bigger paycheck, too - you know, the one that I worked hard for, studying my butt off to make rank so that I could enjoy the nicer things in life. I suppose next you'll be saying that I should give up my "extra" pay too, since I don't "need" it and they do?

Like it or not, we are in a capatialistic system, not a socalist one like you describe. I have as much heart as anyone for the welfare of younger troops (single and married) but having children share a room or even sleep on a couch is not a situation of extreme poverty.

I'm a firm believer in living within your means, whatever your situation may be. If not, you will be the one to bear the consequences of your actions.

[kojack]

Oh, I see, you're an RHIP guy. So do you actually sleep well at night in your oversized house while your young warriors have their children sharing rooms or sleeping on the couch just because of your rank? I would hope not. I am married and with no children yet. If I did reside on base I would glady give up the 3 bedroom house that I would rate if it meant a better life for one of my younger Marines and .their family. I'm sure others would as well. I guess they don't preach much troop welfare in the AF.

So, it sounds like you believe that pay and benefits should be based on "need" and not on accomplishment , time in service, etc? Do you think a single platoon sergeant should be crammed in a 12 x 12 room with two other senior NCOs while a married E2 is rewarded with a senior NCO house? What about an NCO who earns a commission? Should a CSM, who really isnt in charge of anything be given better quarters than his company commander? For that matter, a 1SG is in charge of more than a CSM. When does earning a promotion and the ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY that goes with it mean anything? THats what the obama is doing: removing all incentive for performance. Its a marxist culture.

[mel44]

Oh, I see, you're an RHIP guy. So do you actually sleep well at night in your oversized house while your young warriors have their children sharing rooms or sleeping on the couch just because of your rank? I would hope not. I am married and with no children yet. If I did reside on base I would glady give up the 3 bedroom house that I would rate if it meant a better life for one of my younger Marines and .their family. I'm sure others would as well. I guess they don't preach much troop welfare in the AF.

Well I have a son that is in the army and he has had a hard time so since you seem to have a little extra I will PM you his address so you can start support payments as you seem to be a little better off than him. I think since your a single soldier and really don't have a need for much privacy you should share quarters and we'll take your overage and provide for the soldier that is now on his second divorce and all those baby mama's gotta have diapers right :)? As a matter of fact you could probably make the car payment for them now and then they could afford that house you so certainly think they should have. - come on get real. We work for what we have. We make choices concerning marriage and children. If you can't afford a child then DONT HAVE ONE. I can't afford a house in the Hampton's for vacation so I gotta be happy with Holiday Inn express but I dam sure working toward the house in the Hampton's and when I get there I don't want some self sacrificing ass making comments about what he would give when he so conveniently doesn't have it to give in the first place. Our BAH is part of our salary. It is used to determine our childsupport and part of the factor that helps us make a decision as to whether we want to stay in or look at other options, which for us are many. My husband and I are both college grads and have careers, just like any other career field bonuses, perks or additional salary expenses are part of the package, If the military doesn't offer it then we are down the road. its one thing to serve yor time and give but when it becomes yoru career as well ya gotta take everything itto consderation. So if your life goal is to end up in a one room studio with I sign on your door "I gave it all" go ahead but it is not for us!

[cherrypoint9]

I am a single male E-3 living in the barracks. I live in the barracks at Cherry Point. Many of my friends are married, and live off base. While I sometimes enjoy single life in the barracks, I do have many gripes:

I do not get to choose who I live with. I have a roommate who stays up late, is noisy, and is altogether disgusting. He does not shower or clean regularly, leaving my room smelly and dirty.

The Marines in the barracks OFTEN get picked to do things that married Marines simply don't. When someone doesn't show for duty...knock on some barracks doors. No one goes to base housing to get someone for duty. And I can't tell you how many times my Plt Sgt has said "I need a single Marine who lives in the barracks" for a task no one wants to do. It is unfair.

Field day. Once a week we are forced to clean our rooms to an unnecessary level. I understand the reason behind it, but it gets carried away, and no one forces married Marines living on gov't property also, to pass a white glove inspection once a week. And they usually have a spouse that stays home too.

COMRATS/BAS. Our chow hall sucks, and has limited hours. If i have to work late, I don't eat. If I am allergic to the food they are serving, or choose not to eat it for religious/personal reasons, I don't eat. It is unfair and unhealthy. Sure I can go to McDonalds, but married Marines get compensated to buy food, I do not.

I understand that BAH is not a pay, but allowance. That does not explain how many Marines I know make a lot of money on the system. Contract marriages, especcially between Marines, are very common, and a lot of people fill their pockets because they can cheat the system.

I also know many Marines that get married just to move out of the barracks, and get divorced soon after. Is it their fault? Yes, of course. But the military rewards these bad decisions, even at the expense of the Marine's wellbeing.

I would be fine if the Marine Corps would bridge the gap in equality. I don't need BAH, but it would be nice to live in better conditions, perhaps in my own room, with the same ammenities and freedom that married Marines are given.

Someone said it best...we are treated as second class citizens.

[garhkal]

I feel ya pain there cherry point. Through out my 17 yrs in , i have earned many repremands. One of the worst (and which almost got me masted at my 4th yr mark) was when i refused to just walk down into berthing and grab a single guy for duty when it was a married guys watch who was missing. Nothing happened to the married guy even after he was found OFF SHIP and with beer in his system, but i (another single guy) was reamed and was it not for the combat officer, i would have more than likely hit captains mast for not getting a single guy to cover for that married dude.

[dyater]

I'm just going to pop this question in here. I'm sure this question has been raised before but I'm having trouble getting others opinion on this.

So lets say SSgt Snuffy is married with 4 dependants and he gets BAH w/dependant rate which at his duty location is $1,160.00 per month. Then SSgt Droopy who is single gets Single Rate BAH which is $883.00 per month at that same base. So far all looks right. Now SSgt Droopy marries SSgt Mary and now they both live in the same house with no kids or other dependants and they BOTH get paid Single Rate BAH of $883.00 which now totals up to $1,766.00 per month. Nice right? Well SSgt Snuffy now gets paid $606.00 less than the married couple that have no dependants and are both active duty living at the same base. It doesn't add up right in my head but that is the way it is right now in the military. To top it off, currently it doesn't matter if SSgt Snuffy had 1 depentant or if he had 5 dependants. He will still get $1,160.00 per month.

Can anyone help me make sense of this?

:cool:

[Shrike]

I'm just going to pop this question in here. I'm sure this question has been raised before but I'm having trouble getting others opinion on this.

So lets say SSgt Snuffy is married with 4 dependants and he gets BAH w/dependant rate which at his duty location is $1,160.00 per month. Then SSgt Droopy who is single gets Single Rate BAH which is $883.00 per month at that same base. So far all looks right. Now SSgt Droopy marries SSgt Mary and now they both live in the same house with no kids or other dependants and they BOTH get paid Single Rate BAH of $883.00 which now totals up to $1,766.00 per month. Nice right? Well SSgt Snuffy now gets paid $606.00 less than the married couple that have no dependants and are both active duty living at the same base. It doesn't add up right in my head but that is the way it is right now in the military. To top it off, currently it doesn't matter if SSgt Snuffy had 1 depentant or if he had 5 dependants. He will still get $1,160.00 per month.

Can anyone help me make sense of this?

:cool:
If SSgt Droopy and SSgt Mary had no romantic involvement and were simply roomates, they would both be entitled to single rate BAH. In your mind, is this fair?

Once they're married, this does not change. And why should it? Both members have a job and qualify for the entitlement.

Now, here's the question that people don't like to get asked - what is SSgt Snuffy's spouse doing to help pay for the house? SSgt Droopy's spouse has a job and contributes to paying the bills. SSgt Snuffy's spouse can do the exact same thing. It doesn't have to be in the military but the spouse can get a job and help pay.

That's the bottom line of the situation:
SSgt Droopy and SSgt Mary both have jobs for which they get paid. If SSgt Snuffy's spouse doesn't work, then that is the Snuffy Family's burden to bear, not the US taxpayer's.

[Thoughtful]

Question for you shrike. I Agree with alot of your standpoints but tell me if you would agree to a system similiar to this.

BAH for ALL soldiers would have to go through the Housing Department of said post, be it onpost or off post, ALL housing/util's would be paid by the gov instead of handing out cash. Housing itself would be judged by dependant amount NOT including spouse. IE 1 bedroom for Soldier with or without spouse fully paid, 2 BR for Soldier with Child in custody W/ or W/O spouse. At bill time Said Soldier would handle Utility Bills and Housing Payment due to Housing department fort payment.

I am a Married Specialist with a Duplex and yes this would shrink what I have, but I also Agree with what you say as well. My wife is perm disabled and has not worked in 5 years. I take care of us both.

Now what you said about housing being dependant on rank, Im not sure I quite agree with that, Why not make a Taxable Bracket Incentive for Increased Rank or Just a Flat increase in pay for current grade -make the difference that much more noticable.

I definitely think people abuse the system now. But It could easily be fixed and watched.

I also agree with out about the "fringe bene's to not living in the barracks, and I will tell you if my house was inspected I would still be wearing my civvys with full priviliges I run a tight ship at home- But if you inspect 1 all should be inspected. So you do have another point there.

In this day in age I do believe all members of all services should be allowed a minimum of a single bedroom. If they CHOOSE the barracks then they should get a higher rate. same with BAS. It should be a choice not forced. UCMJ is our Law but it should also be a law of Equality.


SPC Craft

[cowdog]

A couple of questions about this one statement.

1a. Prior to getting married, did the spouse know if the person they were marrying was in the military? Yes in some cases the military service starts after marriage, so..
1b. Did the non- military spouse know that their spouse was joining the military?

I do not see how it is even remotely possible that a non-military spouse could claim any form of ignorance on what happens in the military. Yes, there are times when a service member can spend their whole career in one location. But, that doesn't happen as often as we would like.

2a. Did they still get married?
2b. Did they stay married?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes. Then the non-military spouse accepted the fact that they may have to move at some point. Option number two, and I have seen this with many people, is the military member transfers to a different location and the spouse stays put. That is an option they have.[/QUOTE]

You are correct with all you have said above. I completely agree. However, just because someone is aware of the impending outcome of a choice they have to make does not mean they do not sacrifice. You made the choice to not have custody of your child, and that is a sacrifice you made for your child.


A married servicemember has the option of housing vice living out in town. A married servicemember can have guests at the house pretty much anytime they want. They can have a dog or a cat, pretty mcuh any other kind of pet. A married servicemember has a yard and have nice cook outs with friends when the weather is good. They could even have a garden in their yard. A married servicemember can have high spped internet set up in their home.

A single servicemember has the option of the ship or barracks room. A single servicemember in government quarters has restrictions as to whether or not they can have a friend come hang out at their "home". A single servicemember is lucky if they can have a fish in their barracks room. A single servicemember is lucky if the married guy/gal in their shop invites them to a cook out, is lucky if they have a full size refridgator and a microwave in their room. A single servicemember is lucky if they only have one roommate. On a ship the berthing on some ships hold 100 people. A single servicemember is lucky if the base they are on has an internet cafe that they can get a decent connection in order to email family back home.

Go back to your earlier argument about knowing ahead of time what you are getting your self into. Everyone, married and single knew how life was going to be for them in the military and still chose to join so I have no sympathy because you live in the barracks. Did you think the DOD was going to put you up in a nice apartment? No, you didn't. If you did, you are a moron.

Oh, and in my humble opinion, you are WRONG! Single folks have the BEST cook outs in all types of weather. In my experience the married folks would wind up at the barracks partying with the single people during their cookouts. Maybe it is different in other services, but this has been true at every Air Force Base I have been stationed. Also, high speed internet was always available in the dorms, at least within the last 8-9 years, depending on the base.

If you don't like the berthing on a ship that holds 100 people, you should have joined the Army or Air Force. You knew what you were getting in to before you signed your name.

[garhkal]

If SSgt Droopy and SSgt Mary had no romantic involvement and were simply roomates, they would both be entitled to single rate BAH. In your mind, is this fair?

Once they're married, this does not change. And why should it? Both members have a job and qualify for the entitlement.

Now, here's the question that people don't like to get asked - what is SSgt Snuffy's spouse doing to help pay for the house? SSgt Droopy's spouse has a job and contributes to paying the bills. SSgt Snuffy's spouse can do the exact same thing. It doesn't have to be in the military but the spouse can get a job and help pay.

That's the bottom line of the situation:
SSgt Droopy and SSgt Mary both have jobs for which they get paid. If SSgt Snuffy's spouse doesn't work, then that is the Snuffy Family's burden to bear, not the US taxpayer's.

Well said. Though i can see the argument for dual mil living together (even as roomies) being held back to match the same pay level as a married with dependents rate). I may not agree with it, but i can see the argument for it.


I also agree with out about the "fringe bene's to not living in the barracks, and I will tell you if my house was inspected I would still be wearing my civvys with full priviliges I run a tight ship at home- But if you inspect 1 all should be inspected. So you do have another point there.

I love making 1:35th scale models, including painting them before i assemble them. Twice while living in the barracks, even with me keeping it all neat and tidy, i was told they were an 'undue mess of clutter' and had them tossed out (not asking me to remove them, just forcably removed). NO recompence, no come back. I would rather pay out of pocket than have to put up with crap like that.

[USN - Retired]

However, just because someone is aware of the impending outcome of a choice they have to make does not mean they do not sacrifice. .

It also doesn't mean that they do sacrifice.




You made the choice to not have custody of your child, and that is a sacrifice you made for your child. .

Was that a sacrifice or a lifestyle choice?

[Baileykm]

Ok heres my argument and history. Im 5 years in and getting ready to get out. I would consider re-enlisting if I had BAH. Probably would not, but i would consider it. I have been an E-5 for 18 months. I am a production NCO for a shop of 30 Marines. The only person I talk to that is above me in my shop is my E7. The most bit of trouble I ever got in was a page 11 due to drama in the barracks. that resulted in my 3.8/3.8 pro con marks. My average was 4.5/4.4 after that since that incident. those 3.8s completly screwed me over for promotion for a good year to average out. all because I refused to take my furniture out to the basketball court to clean it from teh 4th floor where I was living.

Being stationed in San Diego single Marines get 1680 vs the 2018 for the with dependents. Now what people do with that money is up to them. But being single and getting off base is the hardest damned thing ever. The only way you get off base being single is to pick up SSgt. So here I am maxed out in my pay scale 4-5 year E5 making 960 a month afer taxes with nothing being taken out, not even state tax (PA).

I wake up on a weekend, I take a shower. I pray I have hot water in the morning before the boiler runs out of hot water. Good I have hot water. Let me go to the chow hall now. its the weekend and its only open twice. I have to eat there before they close. Shit I must back track now there is a First Sgt correcting people for not wearing proper civilian attire and not shaving on teh weekends. ok im back in the chow hall. I will have some bagged scrambled eggs for breakfast, that is a safe bet. It beats the microwaved scrambled eggs they serve. Let me go back to my room and do laundry. Shit I just woke up my 2 room mates in my 14x14(??) room. O yes, one is a PFC the other is Lcpl. Dont worry though, im sure the rank structure somewhere in the marine corps allows for pfcs and lcpls to see their supervisors jerk off talk to the girl friends and just be people. I cant be friends with them though, because im their boss and I can get hit with fraternization charges. I dont want to be like the 2 other sgts that got hit with that this year.

Ok back to laundry. wonderful cockroaches underneath my hamper again.... I know there is a reason im giving up the 1600 a month for this wonderful 1 room 3 bed 1 window 1 shower room... its all for the cock roaches... they increase land value i hear.... so ill walk outside of my room and im glad its sunny out. I hate the yellow flickering lights they have in the barracks every 25 feet. reminds me of section 8 housing in philadelphia where I was jumped when I was a little kid. Ok more roaches in the washers... I just lost my appetite for dinner when it finaly comes time. Thank god its not a holiday weekend, or else the chow halls would be closed down completly like they do for EVERY GOD DAMNED HOLIDAY!!! Coming back from the laundry room I have people give me the proper greeting of the day because im a sgt. Where is MY life at and where does my job end? Cant anyone just call me kevin, or even just bailey. I dont need to be reminded im a sgt 30 different times walking back to my room. Yes I understand you got your ass chewed out when you were walking around before and didnt give proper greeting. But I am at my HOUSE! So let me make it back to my room. More greetings from the room mates because they just graduated bootcamp less then 18 months ago.... Im going to just sit in my room. Oh look a staff NCO came in to do random room inspection make sure there was no hard liquor in teh rooms. Let me stop what im doing and answer his questions now. What are you doing? im sitting here playing video games trying to escape from this life I have where I was told with rank comes privledges. I found out too late it was with marriage comes privledges.

Its night time now... Im going to go to the PX and go to sleep after that. shaved? check. appropriate civi attire? check. anything else? alright im good. O boy theres the 21-22 year old neighbor of mine that is buying liquor for the 18 year old neighbors again. tonights going to be a long night. those neighbors get loud. im in my mid 20s. I have done my partying in highschool, little bit of college, and the first few years in teh marines. I am tired of staying up until 3am listenng to people become shit house drunk and start shit then vomit. Beer pong is fun, but not every night.

So now lets compare that lifestyle to my best friend Sgt Barnhart. I picked up before him. He picked shortly after. He was married. He was given an extra 118 dollars a month for higher standard of living as a sgt. understandable. Where is my higher quality of living? I got a E2 straight from boot camp as a room mate when I picked up. I have had my BAH package in since I first picked up. It has been lost twice and denied once. I gave up on BAH 4 months ago when I realised I was getting out in 5 months. He spends 890 for a single apartment right outside of the base. not the nicest place. But its all military renting there and its cheap. utilities blah blah blah, whats that? lets HIGH ball it and say 400. that brings him up to 1200 a month
thats over 800 dollars a month in his pocket. good for him. he is living within his means and him and his wife are happy. they have nice stuff. they are pocketing almost what I make in a paycheck. They made choices that are allowing them to make live the life they want.

So my question, Where are my choices? Where is my higher standard of living? Where is my privledges with rank? I have done everything the Marine Corps has asked of me. I was brainwashed, I was a Motard, but let down after let down made me realise I am single and forgotton about. I am single and just a number. Wives are not numbers though, have to take care of the wives, they have voices and didnt sign the paper.

This is my story of a Sgt in the Marine Corps. I have 2 meritorious promotions and 1 page 11, 2 deployments and 4 years 11 months and 2 weeks in. 2 weeks remain in my contract. The military was fun, but I have no incentive to stay in.

[Measure Man]

Ok heres my argument and history. Im 5 years in and getting ready to get out. I would consider re-enlisting if I had BAH. Probably would not, but i would consider it. I have been an E-5 for 18 months. I am a production NCO for a shop of 30 Marines. The only person I talk to that is above me in my shop is my E7. The most bit of trouble I ever got in was a page 11 due to drama in the barracks. that resulted in my 3.8/3.8 pro con marks. My average was 4.5/4.4 after that since that incident. those 3.8s completly screwed me over for promotion for a good year to average out. all because I refused to take my furniture out to the basketball court to clean it from teh 4th floor where I was living.

Being stationed in San Diego single Marines get 1680 vs the 2018 for the with dependents. Now what people do with that money is up to them. But being single and getting off base is the hardest damned thing ever. The only way you get off base being single is to pick up SSgt. So here I am maxed out in my pay scale 4-5 year E5 making 960 a month afer taxes with nothing being taken out, not even state tax (PA).

I wake up on a weekend, I take a shower. I pray I have hot water in the morning before the boiler runs out of hot water. Good I have hot water. Let me go to the chow hall now. its the weekend and its only open twice. I have to eat there before they close. Shit I must back track now there is a First Sgt correcting people for not wearing proper civilian attire and not shaving on teh weekends. ok im back in the chow hall. I will have some bagged scrambled eggs for breakfast, that is a safe bet. It beats the microwaved scrambled eggs they serve. Let me go back to my room and do laundry. Shit I just woke up my 2 room mates in my 14x14(??) room. O yes, one is a PFC the other is Lcpl. Dont worry though, im sure the rank structure somewhere in the marine corps allows for pfcs and lcpls to see their supervisors jerk off talk to the girl friends and just be people. I cant be friends with them though, because im their boss and I can get hit with fraternization charges. I dont want to be like the 2 other sgts that got hit with that this year.

Ok back to laundry. wonderful cockroaches underneath my hamper again.... I know there is a reason im giving up the 1600 a month for this wonderful 1 room 3 bed 1 window 1 shower room... its all for the cock roaches... they increase land value i hear.... so ill walk outside of my room and im glad its sunny out. I hate the yellow flickering lights they have in the barracks every 25 feet. reminds me of section 8 housing in philadelphia where I was jumped when I was a little kid. Ok more roaches in the washers... I just lost my appetite for dinner when it finaly comes time. Thank god its not a holiday weekend, or else the chow halls would be closed down completly like they do for EVERY GOD DAMNED HOLIDAY!!! Coming back from the laundry room I have people give me the proper greeting of the day because im a sgt. Where is MY life at and where does my job end? Cant anyone just call me kevin, or even just bailey. I dont need to be reminded im a sgt 30 different times walking back to my room. Yes I understand you got your ass chewed out when you were walking around before and didnt give proper greeting. But I am at my HOUSE! So let me make it back to my room. More greetings from the room mates because they just graduated bootcamp less then 18 months ago.... Im going to just sit in my room. Oh look a staff NCO came in to do random room inspection make sure there was no hard liquor in teh rooms. Let me stop what im doing and answer his questions now. What are you doing? im sitting here playing video games trying to escape from this life I have where I was told with rank comes privledges. I found out too late it was with marriage comes privledges.

Its night time now... Im going to go to the PX and go to sleep after that. shaved? check. appropriate civi attire? check. anything else? alright im good. O boy theres the 21-22 year old neighbor of mine that is buying liquor for the 18 year old neighbors again. tonights going to be a long night. those neighbors get loud. im in my mid 20s. I have done my partying in highschool, little bit of college, and the first few years in teh marines. I am tired of staying up until 3am listenng to people become shit house drunk and start shit then vomit. Beer pong is fun, but not every night.

So now lets compare that lifestyle to my best friend Sgt Barnhart. I picked up before him. He picked shortly after. He was married. He was given an extra 118 dollars a month for higher standard of living as a sgt. understandable. Where is my higher quality of living? I got a E2 straight from boot camp as a room mate when I picked up. I have had my BAH package in since I first picked up. It has been lost twice and denied once. I gave up on BAH 4 months ago when I realised I was getting out in 5 months. He spends 890 for a single apartment right outside of the base. not the nicest place. But its all military renting there and its cheap. utilities blah blah blah, whats that? lets HIGH ball it and say 400. that brings him up to 1200 a month
thats over 800 dollars a month in his pocket. good for him. he is living within his means and him and his wife are happy. they have nice stuff. they are pocketing almost what I make in a paycheck. They made choices that are allowing them to make live the life they want.

So my question, Where are my choices? Where is my higher standard of living? Where is my privledges with rank? I have done everything the Marine Corps has asked of me. I was brainwashed, I was a Motard, but let down after let down made me realise I am single and forgotton about. I am single and just a number. Wives are not numbers though, have to take care of the wives, they have voices and didnt sign the paper.

This is my story of a Sgt in the Marine Corps. I have 2 meritorious promotions and 1 page 11, 2 deployments and 4 years 11 months and 2 weeks in. 2 weeks remain in my contract. The military was fun, but I have no incentive to stay in.

Very well put.

[Baileykm]

Why thank you. I have many years of professional bitching. I proposed an idea to get window tint for our barracks and I was begining to collect money to help keep our barracks cool then the station sgtmaj found out about and I was told I wasnt doing things the proper way. it was 10,000 dollars to get every window in teh barracks tinted and keep the socal sun out of our rooms. It was a good idea considering we have 1 window and no AC or fans or anything. It was roughly 60 bucks a room, 20 per person. i pitched it to the barracks and people loved me.... the station sgtmaj got wind of it and said he was going to work on the idea. the tint company called me 3 weeks ago asking what ever happened to their contract so i had to explain to them once higher ups get involved nothing gets done. my buddy has a thermometer in his room. its high 80s when we get off work. not terrible... but not fun either.

[USMClifestylenotajob]

Wow, what a bitch session. To some it up it's probably a good thing you're getting out, basically for the simple fact that you seem to not have grasped the concept of being an NCO, even with your 4 years and 11months time in service. I honestly have never heard a Sgt bitch so much. If you can't even put on appropriate attire and shave in the morning without bitching about it then you definitely don't have much of a future in the Corps. And to think, your next rank would be serving as a SNCO. To tell you the truth I wouldn't want someone like you polluting our SNCO ranks. You don't even possess enough backbone to correct the under age drinkers, wow, you're amazing. You should be more worried about dereliction rather than fraternization. If you spent as much time being a leader to the Marines around you as you did typing up this bitch session you may have some potential. In a nut shell, good luck to your civilian future, the Corps may be a better place without you.

[Measure Man]

...just a minor point.

Enlisted people can't be charged with fraternization...that is an officer-only crime.

[technomage1]

Ok heres my argument and history. Im 5 years in and getting ready to get out. I would consider re-enlisting if I had BAH. Probably would not, but i would consider it. I have been an E-5 for 18 months. I am a production NCO for a shop of 30 Marines. The only person I talk to that is above me in my shop is my E7. The most bit of trouble I ever got in was a page 11 due to drama in the barracks. that resulted in my 3.8/3.8 pro con marks. My average was 4.5/4.4 after that since that incident. those 3.8s completly screwed me over for promotion for a good year to average out. all because I refused to take my furniture out to the basketball court to clean it from teh 4th floor where I was living.

Being stationed in San Diego single Marines get 1680 vs the 2018 for the with dependents. Now what people do with that money is up to them. But being single and getting off base is the hardest damned thing ever. The only way you get off base being single is to pick up SSgt. So here I am maxed out in my pay scale 4-5 year E5 making 960 a month afer taxes with nothing being taken out, not even state tax (PA).

I wake up on a weekend, I take a shower. I pray I have hot water in the morning before the boiler runs out of hot water. Good I have hot water. Let me go to the chow hall now. its the weekend and its only open twice. I have to eat there before they close. Shit I must back track now there is a First Sgt correcting people for not wearing proper civilian attire and not shaving on teh weekends. ok im back in the chow hall. I will have some bagged scrambled eggs for breakfast, that is a safe bet. It beats the microwaved scrambled eggs they serve. Let me go back to my room and do laundry. Shit I just woke up my 2 room mates in my 14x14(??) room. O yes, one is a PFC the other is Lcpl. Dont worry though, im sure the rank structure somewhere in the marine corps allows for pfcs and lcpls to see their supervisors jerk off talk to the girl friends and just be people. I cant be friends with them though, because im their boss and I can get hit with fraternization charges. I dont want to be like the 2 other sgts that got hit with that this year.

Ok back to laundry. wonderful cockroaches underneath my hamper again.... I know there is a reason im giving up the 1600 a month for this wonderful 1 room 3 bed 1 window 1 shower room... its all for the cock roaches... they increase land value i hear.... so ill walk outside of my room and im glad its sunny out. I hate the yellow flickering lights they have in the barracks every 25 feet. reminds me of section 8 housing in philadelphia where I was jumped when I was a little kid. Ok more roaches in the washers... I just lost my appetite for dinner when it finaly comes time. Thank god its not a holiday weekend, or else the chow halls would be closed down completly like they do for EVERY GOD DAMNED HOLIDAY!!! Coming back from the laundry room I have people give me the proper greeting of the day because im a sgt. Where is MY life at and where does my job end? Cant anyone just call me kevin, or even just bailey. I dont need to be reminded im a sgt 30 different times walking back to my room. Yes I understand you got your ass chewed out when you were walking around before and didnt give proper greeting. But I am at my HOUSE! So let me make it back to my room. More greetings from the room mates because they just graduated bootcamp less then 18 months ago.... Im going to just sit in my room. Oh look a staff NCO came in to do random room inspection make sure there was no hard liquor in teh rooms. Let me stop what im doing and answer his questions now. What are you doing? im sitting here playing video games trying to escape from this life I have where I was told with rank comes privledges. I found out too late it was with marriage comes privledges.

Its night time now... Im going to go to the PX and go to sleep after that. shaved? check. appropriate civi attire? check. anything else? alright im good. O boy theres the 21-22 year old neighbor of mine that is buying liquor for the 18 year old neighbors again. tonights going to be a long night. those neighbors get loud. im in my mid 20s. I have done my partying in highschool, little bit of college, and the first few years in teh marines. I am tired of staying up until 3am listenng to people become shit house drunk and start shit then vomit. Beer pong is fun, but not every night.

So now lets compare that lifestyle to my best friend Sgt Barnhart. I picked up before him. He picked shortly after. He was married. He was given an extra 118 dollars a month for higher standard of living as a sgt. understandable. Where is my higher quality of living? I got a E2 straight from boot camp as a room mate when I picked up. I have had my BAH package in since I first picked up. It has been lost twice and denied once. I gave up on BAH 4 months ago when I realised I was getting out in 5 months. He spends 890 for a single apartment right outside of the base. not the nicest place. But its all military renting there and its cheap. utilities blah blah blah, whats that? lets HIGH ball it and say 400. that brings him up to 1200 a month
thats over 800 dollars a month in his pocket. good for him. he is living within his means and him and his wife are happy. they have nice stuff. they are pocketing almost what I make in a paycheck. They made choices that are allowing them to make live the life they want.

So my question, Where are my choices? Where is my higher standard of living? Where is my privledges with rank? I have done everything the Marine Corps has asked of me. I was brainwashed, I was a Motard, but let down after let down made me realise I am single and forgotton about. I am single and just a number. Wives are not numbers though, have to take care of the wives, they have voices and didnt sign the paper.

This is my story of a Sgt in the Marine Corps. I have 2 meritorious promotions and 1 page 11, 2 deployments and 4 years 11 months and 2 weeks in. 2 weeks remain in my contract. The military was fun, but I have no incentive to stay in.

I'm AF, thank goodness our dorms are usually better quality than described here - but a lot of the issues raised here apply to every service, such as the money and noise. I'm an E6, have been in for 13 years. I was allowed to move on the economy at 3 years since I got a line number for SSgt. I can honestly say that if that hadn't happened, I would not have re-enlisted.

I wish, I wish that the people making these decisions could hear this type of testimony.

[technomage1]

Wow, what a bitch session. To some it up it's probably a good thing you're getting out, basically for the simple fact that you seem to not have grasped the concept of being an NCO, even with your 4 years and 11months time in service. I honestly have never heard a Sgt bitch so much. If you can't even put on appropriate attire and shave in the morning without bitching about it then you definitely don't have much of a future in the Corps. And to think, your next rank would be serving as a SNCO. To tell you the truth I wouldn't want someone like you polluting our SNCO ranks. You don't even possess enough backbone to correct the under age drinkers, wow, you're amazing. You should be more worried about dereliction rather than fraternization. If you spent as much time being a leader to the Marines around you as you did typing up this bitch session you may have some potential. In a nut shell, good luck to your civilian future, the Corps may be a better place without you.

And you, sir, seem have forgotten a basic principle of leadership - take care of your people, and they will take care of you. That applies on the battlefield and off.

[Baileykm]

...just a minor point.

Enlisted people can't be charged with fraternization...that is an officer-only crime.

true it does say that. However there is a marine corps order that states fraternization between the enlisted ranks as well. you dont really get hit with that unless if your doing something ridiculously stupid and giving that person privledges, however its not worth the headache to associate for anyone to even bring up the question.

And as far as me being a SNCO for my next rank? How can I be a SNCO when my friends are all junior ranks because I have not been given the oppritunity to break the connection with the junior guys on the personal level. I would be friends with all the e-1 to e-5. I would have to change commands to be effective. Id be put in a position to NJP my former room mates? No thanks, I have a heart. As far as underage drinking goes? you sir must be a pussy if you never did it. There is no way to beat around the bush, anyone claiming to have the integrity to follow simple, lame duck rules like that I dont trust. You would be the first one to point a finger and get a fellow marine in trouble. You sir, are the comradere I dont want. You sir are a Blue Falcon! So I will take my 40 days of terminal leave that I have aquired, I will take the plaques I was given, I will take the kegger I was thrown, and I am going to drive knowing that with each mile I drive, I am that much further from ignorance of people like you. Have fun in your, house or apartment which you rent or mortgage, and do not have ANY of the problems I have listed. When you live in the barracks for 5 years then you can come talk to me.

Better yet, spend a month, a MONTH in a barracks. Take duty there for 1 month to watch over it. You can say you are understanding the troops, building unit integrity what ever the excuse is. Multiply those feelings by 60 and you have mine. You wont do that however. You have the better life and why would you want to take 5 steps backwards. There is a reason contract marriages are so damn common and suicide among barracks marines are more common. once more, just my 2 cents.

[technomage1]

Baileykm, one thing that I would ask of you is to make sure that you list why you are leaving the Marines on your discharge paperwork. One thing the AF does, and I think it's DoD wide (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), is to find out why people don't re-enlist when they leave service.

Please, for the same of everyone you are leaving behind, put down your reasons. If enough boots go out the door, it tends to wake leadership up a bit and can lead to change - I have seen it.

[Measure Man]

true it does say that. However there is a marine corps order that states fraternization between the enlisted ranks as well. you dont really get hit with that unless if your doing something ridiculously stupid and giving that person privledges, however its not worth the headache to associate for anyone to even bring up the question.

ok...


And as far as me being a SNCO for my next rank? How can I be a SNCO when my friends are all junior ranks because I have not been given the oppritunity to break the connection with the junior guys on the personal level. I would be friends with all the e-1 to e-5. I would have to change commands to be effective. Id be put in a position to NJP my former room mates? No thanks, I have a heart. As far as underage drinking goes? you sir must be a pussy if you never did it. There is no way to beat around the bush, anyone claiming to have the integrity to follow simple, lame duck rules like that I dont trust. You would be the first one to point a finger and get a fellow marine in trouble. You sir, are the comradere I dont want. You sir are a Blue Falcon! So I will take my 40 days of terminal leave that I have aquired, I will take the plaques I was given, I will take the kegger I was thrown, and I am going to drive knowing that with each mile I drive, I am that much further from ignorance of people like you. Have fun in your, house or apartment which you rent or mortgage, and do not have ANY of the problems I have listed. When you live in the barracks for 5 years then you can come talk to me.

Better yet, spend a month, a MONTH in a barracks. Take duty there for 1 month to watch over it. You can say you are understanding the troops, building unit integrity what ever the excuse is. Multiply those feelings by 60 and you have mine. You wont do that however. You have the better life and why would you want to take 5 steps backwards. There is a reason contract marriages are so damn common and suicide among barracks marines are more common. once more, just my 2 cents.

You are barking up the wrong tree...I was the one that complimented you.

[vette88]

This subject goes along with married people getting more money while on a deployment. That is wrong. What, is their life all of a sudden more important/valueable than a single's life? I know it's for the hardship of being separated, but that doesn't make it right. This money is just a recruitement thing by attracting/keeping people in the military.

[USMClifestylenotajob]

And you, sir, seem have forgotten a basic principle of leadership - take care of your people, and they will take care of you. That applies on the battlefield and off.

Taking care a of Marine is far from babying them. Today too many Marines are coddled vice lead with a little tough love. One minute this Marine is bitching about the barracks and then the net he's bitching because he hasn't grasped the little things like shaving or proper civilian attire. Let me guess, if the First Sergeant caught him without a shave and gave him a little EMI then he would bitch about that too. But guess what he brought it upon himself. Troop welfare is very important, don't get me wrong but many seem to think that troop welfare means giving things out without earning them. The best form of troop welfare is proper training, and last time I checked shaving was some every Marine was taught or "trained" on in boot camp. It seems this Marine may need some added "training". As for him living with 2 junior Marines I totally disagree. NCO's should live with NCO's.

[USMClifestylenotajob]

true it does say that. However there is a marine corps order that states fraternization between the enlisted ranks as well. you dont really get hit with that unless if your doing something ridiculously stupid and giving that person privledges, however its not worth the headache to associate for anyone to even bring up the question.

And as far as me being a SNCO for my next rank? How can I be a SNCO when my friends are all junior ranks because I have not been given the oppritunity to break the connection with the junior guys on the personal level. I would be friends with all the e-1 to e-5. I would have to change commands to be effective. Id be put in a position to NJP my former room mates? No thanks, I have a heart. As far as underage drinking goes? you sir must be a pussy if you never did it. There is no way to beat around the bush, anyone claiming to have the integrity to follow simple, lame duck rules like that I dont trust. You would be the first one to point a finger and get a fellow marine in trouble. You sir, are the comradere I dont want. You sir are a Blue Falcon! So I will take my 40 days of terminal leave that I have aquired, I will take the plaques I was given, I will take the kegger I was thrown, and I am going to drive knowing that with each mile I drive, I am that much further from ignorance of people like you. Have fun in your, house or apartment which you rent or mortgage, and do not have ANY of the problems I have listed. When you live in the barracks for 5 years then you can come talk to me.

Better yet, spend a month, a MONTH in a barracks. Take duty there for 1 month to watch over it. You can say you are understanding the troops, building unit integrity what ever the excuse is. Multiply those feelings by 60 and you have mine. You wont do that however. You have the better life and why would you want to take 5 steps backwards. There is a reason contract marriages are so damn common and suicide among barracks marines are more common. once more, just my 2 cents.


I did live in the barracks for the better part of 5 years until I then married. So I lived under the same roof and walked the same path as you. Did I drink under age, no, did I want to of course. It's called discipline. There were alot of things I wanted to do but rules are in place for a reason. You're right, you wouldn't be an effective leader if you haven't broken the tie between you and the junior ranks. And yes you should not be roomed up with junior troops. I see to it that my Sergeants have their own room and the Cpl's live with other Cpl's. And if one of them was buying alcohol for one of my underage Marines then they would quickly find out what it feels like to be a Lcpl again. Am I a dick for that, you may think so, but my job as a SNCO is to protect the institution and lead Marines down the CORRECT path. My Marines completely understand that and respect me for that. Am I blind to the reality that they never do any wrong, of course not. I know they are still going to bend the rules here and there, but they also know what will happen if caught and know that I have a job to do. And with that said our 72 Marine Div. hasn't had an NJP in over a year. Why, because they are tight and they protect each other from bad choices. You may have forgotten that you as a Sgt also have a job to do. And that's not to influence or allow your junior Marines to make poor decision. If you knowingly allowed one of your junior Marines to drink under age or violate any other rules without correcting them and they got caught and NJP'ed, then you are the blue falcon for not keeping them out of trouble by stopping it. You could have saved that Marine alot of headache by simply stepping in instead of collecting a paycheck and turning your head the other way. From what I've read from you so far, you have no clue what it means to lead, just my 2 cents. Now go shave, put on proper civilian attire and enjoy your weekend.

[technomage1]

Taking care a of Marine is far from babying them. Today too many Marines are coddled vice lead with a little tough love. One minute this Marine is bitching about the barracks and then the net he's bitching because he hasn't grasped the little things like shaving or proper civilian attire. Let me guess, if the First Sergeant caught him without a shave and gave him a little EMI then he would bitch about that too. But guess what he brought it upon himself. Troop welfare is very important, don't get me wrong but many seem to think that troop welfare means giving things out without earning them. The best form of troop welfare is proper training, and last time I checked shaving was some every Marine was taught or "trained" on in boot camp. It seems this Marine may need some added "training". As for him living with 2 junior Marines I totally disagree. NCO's should live with NCO's.

I take your point and I agree. I read his posting a bit differently than you did. To me, it tied together with the barracks. I don't know your circumstances, if you've ever lived downtown or what, but one of the big advantages of being able to do so is that you leave the military behind a bit when you drive out the gate. I'm not talking about a total relaxing of standards here, and it's a bit hard to compare because our two services have different standards. But, to give a common example, what if you wanted to laze around a bit one weekend and not mow the lawn or clean your quarters. Note I'm not talking wild kingdom here or total mess. On post/base - not an option. Off post/base - not a problem. Probably the number 1 complaint of people (married and single) about living on base is that they feel like they are always on duty. It's a bit worse for singles, as they are the ones having their quarters inspected, and they are the ones who are the first to have their doors knocked on when something goes down.

Again, I'm not saying disregard the rules - but the rules for living downtown are different in many respects for the rules living on base/post. Again, it's a bit hard to compare as the rules between the services vary (ex. pretty much the only rule we have regarding civilian clothing is not to wear piercings on base).

[garhkal]

I am single and just a number. Wives are not numbers though, have to take care of the wives, they have voices and didnt sign the paper..

Of all your rambling (sorry you should use a little more punctuation to help out dude), this is the only part i liked. And i wholefully agree, it does seem that singles are seen as just numbers, while married folks get a lot of bennies...


Why thank you. I have many years of professional bitching. I proposed an idea to get window tint for our barracks and I was begining to collect money to help keep our barracks cool then the station sgtmaj found out about and I was told I wasnt doing things the proper way. it was 10,000 dollars to get every window in teh barracks tinted and keep the socal sun out of our rooms. It was a good idea considering we have 1 window and no AC or fans or anything. It was roughly 60 bucks a room, 20 per person. i pitched it to the barracks and people loved me.... the station sgtmaj got wind of it and said he was going to work on the idea. the tint company called me 3 weeks ago asking what ever happened to their contract so i had to explain to them once higher ups get involved nothing gets done. my buddy has a thermometer in his room. its high 80s when we get off work. not terrible... but not fun either.

Thats frakked up. I would talk with whom ever runs the base about this, and see what can be done. OR better yet, get the cash together, and do the tinting yourselves.


Enlisted people can't be charged with fraternization...that is an officer-only crime.

Measure man that is wrong. I already know several enlisted who have been to captains mast for fraternization, 2 were E6 hooking up with E3s and one was a E4 hooking up with a E7.

1 pay grade up or down is the rule for allowable relationships, even man to man friends (like golfing buddies) if they work together, UNLESS the offer is always put out to everyone.

And even then, if there is any perception of impropriety between the 2 then someone can drop a dime for fraternization.


O boy theres the 21-22 year old neighbor of mine that is buying liquor for the 18 year old neighbors again

ANd one other thing Baileykm. If you KNOW this 22 yr old is buying liquor for underage people why are you not doing the right thing and reporting it?


Baileykm, one thing that I would ask of you is to make sure that you list why you are leaving the Marines on your discharge paperwork. One thing the AF does, and I think it's DoD wide (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), is to find out why people don't re-enlist when they leave service.

Please, for the same of everyone you are leaving behind, put down your reasons. If enough boots go out the door, it tends to wake leadership up a bit and can lead to change - I have seen it.

I have yet to see anything like that in the Navy. And iknow many who would have loved something like that.


This subject goes along with married people getting more money while on a deployment. That is wrong. What, is their life all of a sudden more important/valueable than a single's life? I know it's for the hardship of being separated, but that doesn't make it right. This money is just a recruitement thing by attracting/keeping people in the military.

Agreed. I have never understood why family seperation pay is there. YES i know it is supposedly for extra hardships that married folks have when one is away, but what exactly are they? Don't single parents have that? IIRC THEY don't get it.

[technomage1]

ANd one other thing Baileykm. If you KNOW this 22 yr old is buying liquor for underage people why are you not doing the right thing and reporting it?


Personally, I would not report the 22 year old - but I would talk to his supervisor and make sure he was too busy on weekends to buy alcohol for folks underage for a while. There are many ways to correct behavior, it depends on the circumstances and the person what is effective. But this is the first thing that I would try.

[garhkal]

Why would you not report him for violating 2 laws? 3 if you include the lawful order of not drinkin in the barraks (which is what it seemed he was mentioning).

[technomage1]

Why would you not report him for violating 2 laws? 3 if you include the lawful order of not drinkin in the barraks (which is what it seemed he was mentioning).

Why would you report him? No NCO worth his or her salt should be reporting to the authorities behavior that is in their sphere of influence to correct. Handling things at the lowest level is a part of our job.

What is the purpose of discipline? To prevent and correct bad behavior, yes? Now, I could report this guy to the cops for violating the underage drinking law. This would lead to a conviction, possible large fine and or jail time. Plus his career would be finished. Or I could ensure that he's (and his buddies that recieved the alcohol underage) kept so busy over the next couple of months doing every awful job that needs to be done that he doesn't have time to buy alcohol for his buddies - and I can make sure he knows exactly why this is happening. Hopefully, he'd learn his lesson after that and no further action would be required. But let's say he didn't. Then you get with the chain and the punishment gets progressively more severe as required (direct order, article 15, etc), up to involving the civilian authorities. But the cops are not my first choice in this situation.

I'm not saying progressive discipline works in every situation - for example if someone robs a bank, then yes, they're getting reported to the cops. But there are situations where it works well.

Incidently, on my base (overseas) the guy would be breaking no laws as the drinking age is 18, and we are allowed to drink in the barracks/dorms, etc.

[garhkal]

Ah. Did not know that 18 is ok for drinking where you are..

[kmed]

You are correct. Having more than 1 dependent doesn't get you more money, although you require more services than someone who is not married (ie you cost the military more as Shrike mentions). But you DO get more money JUST because you are married. This is the difference between BAH with and without dependent rates.

The point is: you chose to get married/have kids. Why should you get more money (BAH) because of a choice you made? You may REQUIRE a larger house because of the choice you made, but why should the gov't pay you more for that choice than someone who isn't married.

That is the point of the original argument. There should simply be 1 type of BAH. The same amount for everyone regardless (still rank based of course).

(oh and for the record: I am currently married to a military member as well as being retired myself).

Plus, in my single household, I am the only one paying ALL of the bills...with people that are married, you have two possible bread winners that can split the bills..I know the argument will be "my spouse stays home"-that is a personal choice for them to do so...equal pay for equal work...not more for personal choices..

[usmc19812000]

I'm a single Sgt and I have to agree that you should not get more money for being married and or having children period. I was lucky enough, that when I came back in, I came to a unit in which I rate BAH own-right. This alone is a deciding factor in my re-enlistment, I'll be 30 , possibly a SSgt and have accumulated a decades worth of household goods, I will not by any means accept orders and re-enlist into a unit in which I'm forced to live in the barracks. Just my opinion.

[NoCo83]

Something to consider. Everyone is making a big deal out of the $100-$200 extra a married member receives compared to a single member. However, ask any married member/member with children how much extra they spend on things like food and utilities (especially with children) and I guarantee you it is more than the additional BAH money they receive. I agree that getting married/having children is a choice. But the DoD sees giving members a small increase in BAH as a way to retain members. Ultimately a single member of the same rank has more money to spend on "fun/discretionary" things then a married member. Ask any member with dependents and I can almost guarantee you that is true. Just something to think about.

[SailorDave]

Look, this is easy. A married member doesn't deserve more than a single member. It's a retention tool. If you want to keep people in, you have to make their compensation worth their while. It's a natural thing for people to want a family. The government knows this. As people get older, those who choose to have a family have to make the choice to stay in/get out. If the government doesn't provide them the benefits they need, they'll get out. Simple fact. However, the government has also spent quadrillions of dollars to train these people and need to make their money back. So they provide a little extra compensation to give them enough money to afford a reasonable residence payment. No married member is getting rich from this, I assure you. And if you occupy government quarters, you get NONE of your BAH. It all goes back to either the government or PPV housing contractor.

Yes, there are very junior members getting BAH w/dependents because they married early in their life. Personally, I think they shouldn't be allowed to marry before a certain age or rank, but I'm not going to tell someone how to live their life. Sometimes, that extra BAH they get is one of the biggest reasons they re-enlist. Otherwise, they'd be gone and you lose the money you've spent to give them their initial training. That money isn't a return on investment with one duty station. I think they should be REQUIRED to do a minimum contract length in exchange for receiving their BAH at the w/dependents rate or move into housing, so we can get our money's worth out of them.

[Xtreme]

No married member is getting rich from this, I assure you..
The most intelligent thing said on this topic.

But yeah, I'm torn from both fronts. I'm single, who will wind up rightfully married in the near future, bless.


But I have a deep concern over the BAH issue that the military has. You have soldiers out of basic training and AIT who get married far too quick all because they know they'll make more money that way. While I understand that the dependent having service member will have more expenses, the single Soldier only views the military as a system that caters towards the married or dependent having Soldier. This is a huge problem that should be addressed.

[bordeniuk]

Something to consider. Everyone is making a big deal out of the $100-$200 extra a married member receives compared to a single member. However, ask any married member/member with children how much extra they spend on things like food and utilities (especially with children) and I guarantee you it is more than the additional BAH money they receive. I agree that getting married/having children is a choice. But the DoD sees giving members a small increase in BAH as a way to retain members. Ultimately a single member of the same rank has more money to spend on "fun/discretionary" things then a married member. Ask any member with dependents and I can almost guarantee you that is true. Just something to think about.

Agreed. Have you single folk considered that kids cost more? Like home utilities? I bet a a member w/ dependants water and electric are more costly than a member w/o dependants .

[oih82w8]

I am not going to sort through 40 pages of this thread to give my two cents. I believe it has to do with square footage of the residence. A single person requires less square footage than a married couple requires. If that married couple decides to have children...it's on them. :rolleyes:

[Shrike]

I am not going to sort through 40 pages of this thread to give my two cents. I believe it has to do with square footage of the residence. A single person requires less square footage than a married couple requires. If that married couple decides to have children...it's on them. :rolleyes:

But you can be married and not be getting dependent rate BAH. If it was solely based on square footage due to single vs. married space requirements, wouldn't a married member automatically receive w/dep. rate?

[ArtyMSG]

If you worked for AT&T, or GM, or even Wal-Mart, and you walked into your boss' office and said "Boss, I've made a purely personal life-style decision that has no bearing on my terms of employment with this company, so you must now pay me more money." what do you think the reaction would be?

If when you got hired at GM, Wal Mart, or AT&T that was the policy of that organization then your boss should say Congrats! fill out this form and we will get the extra pay started!

If you are in the Military then you signed on the dotted line to accept the pay that you are entitled to based on the DFAS/DOD standard, which says that if you are married with dependents then you receive BAH based on that fact. If you dont like it, then move on to a new company that does not base their policies on this standard.

The thread is a misguided one,based soley on the title "BAH Equality" BAH is not designed to be equal. It is designed to compensate people of different ranks, in different places, with different housing requirements.

[Measure Man]

If when you got hired at GM, Wal Mart, or AT&T that was the policy of that organization then your boss should say Congrats! fill out this form and we will get the extra pay started!

If you are in the Military then you signed on the dotted line to accept the pay that you are entitled to based on the DFAS/DOD standard, which says that if you are married with dependents then you receive BAH based on that fact. If you dont like it, then move on to a new company that does not base their policies on this standard.

The thread is a misguided one,based soley on the title "BAH Equality" BAH is not designed to be equal. It is designed to compensate people of different ranks, in different places, with different housing requirements.

Brilliant...

I think we all know that it is the rule and what it does...the point is it is an unfair rule.

Certainly not worth separating for...especially for me, I'm married...there are other unfair rules too...just cuz they were unfair when I signed up doesn't mean they have to stay unfair.

[Shrike]

If when you got hired at GM, Wal Mart, or AT&T that was the policy of that organization then your boss should say Congrats! fill out this form and we will get the extra pay started!

If you are in the Military then you signed on the dotted line to accept the pay that you are entitled to based on the DFAS/DOD standard, which says that if you are married with dependents then you receive BAH based on that fact. If you dont like it, then move on to a new company that does not base their policies on this standard.

The thread is a misguided one,based soley on the title "BAH Equality" BAH is not designed to be equal. It is designed to compensate people of different ranks, in different places, with different housing requirements.

To paraphrase: "Blah, blah, blah, bunch of stuff everyone already knows, blah, blah, get out if you don't like it, blah, blah, blah."

Thanks for the contribution.

:rolleyes:

[AD mother and wife]

You are correct. Having more than 1 dependent doesn't get you more money, although you require more services than someone who is not married (ie you cost the military more as Shrike mentions). But you DO get more money JUST because you are married. This is the difference between BAH with and without dependent rates.

The point is: you chose to get married/have kids. Why should you get more money (BAH) because of a choice you made? You may REQUIRE a larger house because of the choice you made, but why should the gov't pay you more for that choice than someone who isn't married.

That is the point of the original argument. There should simply be 1 type of BAH. The same amount for everyone regardless (still rank based of course).

(oh and for the record: I am currently married to a military member as well as being retired myself).

Like it was stated before, Bah is based on the cost of living for the service member. A single service member requires a dorm or a one bedroom apartment, a service member with dependents requires more living space. If you want more money maybe you should get married and start having kids and stop complaining. Trust me it is not extra money, people with dependants use the money to pay for cost of living. A single person has the option to get a roommate and save half their BAH if their smart. Someone with a wife and kids actually uses every dime towards there home and depending on there rank it might not cover everything. Anyone wanting more money than they "NEED" is just being greedy, but im sure you'll understand if you ever start a family. Lonely people

[ad mother and wife]

Like it was stated before, Bah is based on the cost of living for the service member. A single service member requires a dorm or a one bedroom apartment, a service member with dependents requires more living space. If you want more money maybe you should get married and start having kids and stop complaining. Trust me it is not extra money, people with dependants use the money to pay for cost of living. A single person has the option to get a roommate and save half their BAH if their smart. Someone with a wife and kids actually uses every dime towards there home and depending on there rank it might not cover everything. Anyone wanting more money than they "NEED" is just being greedy, but im sure you'll understand if you ever start a family. Lonely people

Also regarding your "choice" statement. Single people chose to get into the military which had these rules about BAH. So maybe they should have "chose" to get a job that pays them to be single if they have a problem with other people getting paid what they need to live.

[Measure Man]

Anyone wanting more money than they "NEED" is just being greedy, but im sure you'll understand if you ever start a family. Lonely people

Call me greedy I guess...and I'd be willing to bet you are too. Unless of course you're living in a one-room studio with no TV or radio...driving a $1,000 car and don't have a cell phone and get your clothes at the Salvation Army.

I don't know anyone that doesn't want more than they NEED...

So...if my spouse is a doctor and makes 3X what I do...do I still get my BAH?

See, the thing is, we are capitalist economy...we generally get paid a fair worth for a fair day's work. Yet, we have two people of identical rank and position that get different pays simply based on need...that's more along the lines of what Karl Marx would want.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need; the proletariat has nothing to lose but it's chains" Communist Manifesto

[Shrike]

Like it was stated before, Bah is based on the cost of living for the service member. A single service member requires a dorm or a one bedroom apartment, a service member with dependents requires more living space. If you want more money maybe you should get married and start having kids and stop complaining. Trust me it is not extra money, people with dependants use the money to pay for cost of living. A single person has the option to get a roommate and save half their BAH if their smart. Someone with a wife and kids actually uses every dime towards there home and depending on there rank it might not cover everything. Anyone wanting more money than they "NEED" is just being greedy, but im sure you'll understand if you ever start a family. Lonely people

What is the spouse doing to earn money? You say the single person has the option to get a roomate. Well, the people with dependents can both get a job.

[ringjamesa]

Like it was stated before, Bah is based on the cost of living for the service member. A single service member requires a dorm or a one bedroom apartment, a service member with dependents requires more living space. If you want more money maybe you should get married and start having kids and stop complaining. Trust me it is not extra money, people with dependants use the money to pay for cost of living. A single person has the option to get a roommate and save half their BAH if their smart. Someone with a wife and kids actually uses every dime towards there home and depending on there rank it might not cover everything. Anyone wanting more money than they "NEED" is just being greedy, but im sure you'll understand if you ever start a family. Lonely people

Would like to point out that what you said makes no logical sense. If it is strictly for cost of living for the service member, why would a married servicemember require more space? Are you saying married servicemembers are fatter? Of are you saying their DEPENDANTS need space too? Can't have it both ways. Either it is $ to pay for living quarters for the member AND dependants or strictly for the servicemember and if it is strictly for the servicemember...married or not they both require the same space...

[Measure Man]

Would like to point out that what you said makes no logical sense. If it is strictly for cost of living for the service member, why would a married servicemember require more space? Are you saying married servicemembers are fatter? Of are you saying their DEPENDANTS need space too? Can't have it both ways. Either it is $ to pay for living quarters for the member AND dependants or strictly for the servicemember and if it is strictly for the servicemember...married or not they both require the same space...

Quite right...let's give the married a folks a dorm room to share with their spouses...that's all they really NEED anyway.

[ringjamesa]

Quite right...let's give the married a folks a dorm room to share with their spouses...that's all they really NEED anyway.

Who said anything about sharing? Unless it is with a roomate of the same gender as allowed by dorn guidelines, they should have to move out and get the same as what single serrvicemembers get when they move off base. The assertation was made that BAH is based on the cost of living for the service member only...if that is the case, just give them single rate BAH and call it a day.,..or the option most of us woulde prefer, raise the single rate BAH to the w/deps rate then everyone would be happy...never happen but fair is fair.

[Measure Man]

Who said anything about sharing? Unless it is with a roomate of the same gender as allowed by dorn guidelines, they should have to move out and get the same as what single serrvicemembers get when they move off base. The assertation was made that BAH is based on the cost of living for the service member only...if that is the case, just give them single rate BAH and call it a day.,..or the option most of us woulde prefer, raise the single rate BAH to the w/deps rate then everyone would be happy...never happen but fair is fair.

I agree with you...was just being a little passive aggressive :-)

[ncattackpilot]

I wonder what the ages are of the people here complaining about fairness. Generally speaking, during the course of a soldier's life, he/she will start out pretty young and single. Eventually, just as most people do, he/she may choose to marry and/or have children. That is normal for most people. During this course, the military has paid thousands and thousands of dollars to train this one soldier and make him/her prepared for the purpose of the military. There has to be something encouraging these people who have followed, what to them may be, the 'normal' course of life to stay in the military in spite of the constant upheaval and uncertainty. Otherwise, the turnover would be too expensive to maintain the numbers the US needs. These medical benefits and BAH benefits are what is going to do that. These benefits are what keeps the US military ready for whatever is necessary. These benefits are what keeps soldiers from quitting in spite of constant PCS'ing and constant trips to the 'field' and constant deployments which take them away from their families. This is just one of the benefits attracting people to join the military, or to stay in. I just don't think fairness is the issue, although the single people may feel that way. It may just cost the military alot less to help maintain families than it would cost to constantly retrain new recruits if the military was not an attractive career for those with families.

[Shrike]

I wonder what the ages are of the people here complaining about fairness. Generally speaking, during the course of a soldier's life, he/she will start out pretty young and single. Eventually, just as most people do, he/she may choose to marry and/or have children. That is normal for most people. During this course, the military has paid thousands and thousands of dollars to train this one soldier and make him/her prepared for the purpose of the military. There has to be something encouraging these people who have followed, what to them may be, the 'normal' course of life to stay in the military in spite of the constant upheaval and uncertainty. Otherwise, the turnover would be too expensive to maintain the numbers the US needs. These medical benefits and BAH benefits are what is going to do that. These benefits are what keeps the US military ready for whatever is necessary. These benefits are what keeps soldiers from quitting in spite of constant PCS'ing and constant trips to the 'field' and constant deployments which take them away from their families. This is just one of the benefits attracting people to join the military, or to stay in. I just don't think fairness is the issue, although the single people may feel that way. It may just cost the military alot less to help maintain families than it would cost to constantly retrain new recruits if the military was not an attractive career for those with families.

I've been in the military for over 21 years. If I remember correctly, Measure Man has been in for over 25.

[technomage1]

I wonder what the ages are of the people here complaining about fairness. Generally speaking, during the course of a soldier's life, he/she will start out pretty young and single. Eventually, just as most people do, he/she may choose to marry and/or have children. That is normal for most people. During this course, the military has paid thousands and thousands of dollars to train this one soldier and make him/her prepared for the purpose of the military. There has to be something encouraging these people who have followed, what to them may be, the 'normal' course of life to stay in the military in spite of the constant upheaval and uncertainty. Otherwise, the turnover would be too expensive to maintain the numbers the US needs. These medical benefits and BAH benefits are what is going to do that. These benefits are what keeps the US military ready for whatever is necessary. These benefits are what keeps soldiers from quitting in spite of constant PCS'ing and constant trips to the 'field' and constant deployments which take them away from their families. This is just one of the benefits attracting people to join the military, or to stay in. I just don't think fairness is the issue, although the single people may feel that way. It may just cost the military alot less to help maintain families than it would cost to constantly retrain new recruits if the military was not an attractive career for those with families.


I've been in for 13 years and have completed PCS and TDYs all over the planet in that time. It costs the military a lot less to do that to me, since they don't have to worry about dependants, and it would cost just as much to train someone to replace me should I chose to leave. So, using your logic, the military should make itself an attractive career for those without families since we're cheaper.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that - but rather pointing out that your argument can be used both ways.

[ringjamesa]

I wonder what the ages are of the people here complaining about fairness. Generally speaking, during the course of a soldier's life, he/she will start out pretty young and single. Eventually, just as most people do, he/she may choose to marry and/or have children. That is normal for most people. During this course, the military has paid thousands and thousands of dollars to train this one soldier and make him/her prepared for the purpose of the military. There has to be something encouraging these people who have followed, what to them may be, the 'normal' course of life to stay in the military in spite of the constant upheaval and uncertainty. Otherwise, the turnover would be too expensive to maintain the numbers the US needs. These medical benefits and BAH benefits are what is going to do that. These benefits are what keeps the US military ready for whatever is necessary. These benefits are what keeps soldiers from quitting in spite of constant PCS'ing and constant trips to the 'field' and constant deployments which take them away from their families. This is just one of the benefits attracting people to join the military, or to stay in. I just don't think fairness is the issue, although the single people may feel that way. It may just cost the military alot less to help maintain families than it would cost to constantly retrain new recruits if the military was not an attractive career for those with families.

14 years. Using your logic, single people and married folks should be paid the same. It should be based of $ spent for training and time served. That would be even more convoluded than the current systems but whatever...:rolleyes:
Using your logic, there is no reason to pay someone that just joined and is marred BAH with Deps, because the military hasn't invested jack in them. The reverse would also be true. There is no reason to shortchange an unmarried military member that has been in 15 years on BAH because you have invested a lot into them...What was your argument again?

[ringjamesa]

I've been in for 13 years and have completed PCS and TDYs all over the planet in that time. It costs the military a lot less to do that to me, since they don't have to worry about dependants, and it would cost just as much to train someone to replace me should I chose to leave. So, using your logic, the military should make itself an attractive career for those without families since we're cheaper.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that - but rather pointing out that your argument can be used both ways.

yah beat me to it...:D

[pawn65]

has further financially burdened the DOD with increased costs due to the need for medical and dental care for all of those dependents.

Seeing how the medical and dental comes out of his pay check each pay period, i do not see how that could burden the DoD at all.

[Shrike]

Seeing how the medical and dental comes out of his pay check each pay period, i do not see how that could burden the DoD at all.

I had to look back to see what you were responding to. If only you'd waited a couple of more months, you could have made this post on the two year anniversary of my comment.

Compare what that soldier with five dependents would pay as a civilian in any average corporate healthcare plan, and he's making out pretty well. One of the people in these BAH threads mentioned that upon getting out, he paid $1200 a month for his healthcare plan. That's for him, a wife, and one child.

[Measure Man]

I've been in the military for over 21 years. If I remember correctly, Measure Man has been in for over 25.

26.5...but who's counting?

[ringjamesa]

Old people are cool!!!!

[Shrike]

Old people are cool!!!!

Cool and dry. Never store combustibles with your old people.


:tongue:

[Measure Man]

Cool and dry. Never store combustibles with your old people.


:tongue:

RIP Grandfather...

[garhkal]

I had to look back to see what you were responding to. If only you'd waited a couple of more months, you could have made this post on the two year anniversary of my comment.

Compare what that soldier with five dependents would pay as a civilian in any average corporate healthcare plan, and he's making out pretty well. One of the people in these BAH threads mentioned that upon getting out, he paid $1200 a month for his healthcare plan. That's for him, a wife, and one child.

Agreed. Which is one reason i feel a lot of the elective stuff they allow dependents to get should not be covered... 2 of the guys i worked with at my prior command had lasic for them and their wives, one had lipo for his wife, followed by the lapband, and another one's wife was going through ivf so she could try and become a surrogate. IMO not one of those should be paid for by the mil.

[ChiefB]

What pisses me off is that I never got one red cent of BAH for my dog..Major, Major, Major!
He was definitely a dependant and a family member and...an Officer!:D

ChiefB

[ChicknIsGud]

What pisses me off is that I never got one red cent of BAH for my dog..Major, Major, Major!
He was definitely a dependant and a family member and...an Officer!:D

ChiefB

Major Major Major is a strange name...

[Shrike]

What pisses me off is that I never got one red cent of BAH for my dog..Major, Major, Major!
He was definitely a dependant and a family member and...an Officer!:D

ChiefB


Major Major Major is a strange name...

It's missing one "Major".

If you're going for that literary thing, that is.

[ChiefB]

It's missing one "Major".

If you're going for that literary thing, that is.

See http://uvumi.com/#majormajormajor/songs (Dog born in Apr/09)

My Cat's name is Major Major Major Major:tongue:

See Catch 22. by Joseph Heller

ChiefB

[AJBIGJ]

This is a tough issue and has HR written all over it.
Believe it or not, a lot of civilian organizations do basically the same type of thing.

The goal, of course, is better retention of a valued asset, which I do agree with as a fundamental goal, as it's cheaper not to retrain individuals to replace the trained ones who wouldn't stay on.

Even with the current BAH situation you rarely see too many w/ Dependents cases where they feel they have excess money to burn and go splurging on every impulse. The only place you really do see that is on the singles side, who as we all know are paid a bit less.

The logic is sound from an input-output standpoint.

If (as a taxpayer) you cut money expenses by reducing w/ dependents BAH to w/o dependents levels. Retention will go down among married military servicemembers as those already feeling constrained will no longer see the military as a viable means of sustaining their current standards of living. Like has been stated before, the military lifestyle puts a lot of strain on family life as it is without keeping the husband/wife and children fed being a serious issue.

Whereas if you increase the single to /w dependents rates of course the process will be costly, but will probably have relatively neglible effect on retention of single servicemembers. Retention of single sailors is not hugely an issue solely based on whether they're paid enough to maintain their lifestyles.

It's kind of one of those unwritten rules that you get paid to the level you're under contract to be paid for. Single and Married servicemembers both voluntarily sign their contracts. Both have the option to not sign another once the original expires and are expected to operate under the terms of the contract until it does.

Fair and equitable, not really, it's just a balance. It's one of those things where you offer an individual the lowest amount possible that they will continue to work at when achievable. That puts a lot less strain on our limited taxpayer dollars.

The current policies tend to suggest there is not a strong drive to make the military a "singles only" business. I think there's some value in that from a diversity-of-experience perspective. It's based heavily on unquantifiable intangibles of what is the "Overall Value" of having all of the associated life experiences a married individual with dependents can bring, coupled with the perceived loss value from a lack of retention of that asset. Am I saying that a a married individual's "overall worth" is greater than a single individual? Not really, but I do think the contribution is one worth having a certain amount of and the fundamental idea is to pay them precisely what it will take to keep them with the organization.

You could compare this to being a more minor scale of what happens with professional athletes or hollywood actors. Their industries pay them absolutely ludicrous amounts of money to perform what some may perceive as relatively simple tasks. Yet, that industry overall receives benefit and profit from employing that individual nonetheless so they're willing to foot the costs regardless. The other athletes or actors who are paid less may provide similar levels of contribution, but under their current contract they are willing to accept what they receive for services rendered.

It's basically capitalism at work for you.

[garhkal]

but will probably have relatively neglible effect on retention of single servicemembers. Retention of single sailors is not hugely an issue solely based on whether they're paid enough to maintain their lifestyles.

Not from where i have been.. Every place BAH or OHA went up for w/dependents over w/o, and stayed that way for 2 yrs or more, single retention went down at LEAST 10-15%.


Fair and equitable, not really, it's just a balance. It's one of those things where you offer an individual the lowest amount possible that they will continue to work at when achievable. That puts a lot less strain on our limited taxpayer dollars.

So its cheeper to pay the married folk, but not the singe one, rather than retraining someone else.. And singles don't do the same if not MORE work than the married... That is definitely not any form of 'balance'..

[AJBIGJ]

Not from where i have been.. Every place BAH or OHA went up for w/dependents over w/o, and stayed that way for 2 yrs or more, single retention went down at LEAST 10-15%.



So its cheeper to pay the married folk, but not the singe one, rather than retraining someone else.. And singles don't do the same if not MORE work than the married... That is definitely not any form of 'balance'..

Honestly I'd have to better understand where you're getting your data to determine whether I agree or disagree with you on your percentages. All I know is from taking an active role in talking with other servicemembers and determining what factors affect their retention more than others. 9 times out of 10 single servicemembers never even mention equitable BAH rates as a contributing factor in whether they stick with the service or not. The vast majority of married servicemembers, however, always appreciate the medical benefits and their ability to use their benefits to support their families. I also get the impression we'd lose more than a few if there was ever a perception that these benefits would be taken away. It's hard to justify staying out on long deployments when you're familiy is strugglling to survive.

The balance I spoke of refers to a diverse environment. The military likes to dispel any myths that it is completely untenable for married people with dependents, so to keep these individuals on the team, they take it out of hide. Like I said, fair and equitable is really an aside issue here. The military has made it a goal to keep those military members in the service, to enable that they're willing to pay for it.

When single people complain about equitable treatment, I often sarcastically recommend they go ahead, try getting married, pop out a few kids, and cash in on the big bucks. Realistically that is never the case. You generally never see those individuals living frivolously, whereas among single individuals it is actually quite frequent.

Simply put, if the military makes it a goal to continue to employ married servicemembers with families, they have to guarantee that those servicemembers can adequately support those families or they're going to lose those servicemembers. Disrupted famliy lives has a 100% effective detrimental impact on a servicemember's performance. Similarly, IF single servicemembers without dependents cannot sustain their own standards of living with their military paychecks, they are not going to make the military a career. The problem is, while they do make less, it generally tends to be sufficient to sustain their standards of living and keep them with the service.

It's simply a question of "How much money do I have to pay you to stay in?" The numbers are simply higher for married individuals with dependents than they are for single individuals. So if you wish to retain those individuals, of course you offer them at least that amount to keep them around.

It's not even a question whether there's more value received and money saved from retaining experienced individuals than putting new boots back through the process and having them learn to replace the individuals. The differentials between BAH rates are tiny relative to the costs of sending an individual through months or years of training, not to mention the additional OJT required to work up to that proficiency level of the individual being replaced. That even disregards the extra work required for other individuals who not only have to fill the void from the person lost but also invest their own time in training the new individual. Annual total government costs for even the most inexpensive servicemembers are greater than $50K, which is basically what comes out of pocket when their only contribution is to learn what they're going to be doing in the future. It takes over half a career of receiving that extra BAH to even approach that. Once they've completed the training and become proficient, the military gets genuine returns on those investments, but of course that value is not as quantifiable or as tangible because the military is by nature a not-for-profit organization. Essentially we're operating under the assumption that the level of benefit meets and/or exceeds their level of cost to the government, otherwise there is no point in keeping them with the service and employing that position at all.

The basic idea is you make a contract that people will sign. If they're not signing than you revisit the terms of contract and make the revisions necessary to ensure that they will. That's good business, it's not perfect but it's necessary to sustain this organization for the foreseeable future.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

I could not possibly disagree with Sgt. 1st Class Harold K. Lewis more [“Raising single soldiers’ BAH may leave married ones behind,” Back Talk, May 5].

Why does a married person deserve more? Sgt. 1st Class Lewis made a choice to get married and have five children. I, on the other hand, have made a choice to be single. I should not be penalized for that choice, and Sgt. 1st Class Lewis should not be rewarded for his. Your basic allowance for housing rate should reflect your rank and nothing else.

The argument that BAH should somehow be tied to time-in-service is way off the mark. They do that with our base pay, and that is how we end up with a high-speed E-5 with three years in service being in charge of — but getting paid less than — a low speed E-4 with eight years in service.

The military is not a social welfare system in which you get paid more the more kids you have. We need to move to performance-based pay that does not allow subordinates to make more than their superiors, and a single BAH rate for each rank, regardless of marital status, which is only dependent on location.

Staff Sgt. Mathew Carson
Manhattan, Kan.


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/community/opinion/army_opinion_bah_052608/

BAH is not supposed to be the same for everyone at every location. The Military – across the board – expects single troops to live in Government Quarters, OKA “The Barracks”.


To quote the Regulation:



“The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is based on geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. The intent of BAH is to provide uniformed service members with permanent duty within the 50 United States accurate and equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets, and is payable when government quarters are not provided. A uniformed service member stationed overseas, including U.S. protectorates, who is not furnished government housing, is eligible for Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) (http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/perdiem/ohaform.html).”


What this means is that Uncle Sam will pay to put you up in civilian quarters commensurate to your Rank and Marital Status, as prescribed by Regulation, at the prevailing rate for that level of quarters in the Zip Code of your assigned location, when prescribed Government Quarters are not available.


That said, not everyone is eligible for BAH, and – when you are – the rate you receive will be based on what the Regulation says a person of your Rank and Marital Standing is entitled to in the way of quarters, in the Zip Code of your assigned location, on Uncle Sam’s Dime. You are expected to find quarters that rents for not more than the BAH Allotment, and may have to move if the Landlord raises the rent above your BAH Allowance.


As to the issue of entitlement, BAH is one of the longest-standing allowances available, and was established precisely when the US Government stopped requiring its personnel to live exclusively in Government Quarters, and was structured to reflect the type of quarters you would be assigned if you were living on the Post.


As to the issue of out-of-pocket expenses, Yes, some members at a Post may have out-of-pocket expenses. BAH rates are set at the median for each grade and housing profile. For a given individual, an out-of-pocket expense may be incurred based on the actual housing choice. If a member rents above the median rate for the grade/profile, that member incurs out-of-pocket expenses. For example, if a member lives in a 3-bedroom townhouse with lease and utilities that cost $1,200, and the median cost for that dwelling in the area is $1,100 that member has out-of-pocket expenses of $100. The opposite is true for an individual who chooses to occupy a less expensive residence. Only a member whose housing costs are exactly at or below the median will have no out-of-pocket expenses.


So, BAH won’t work as expected for everyone, but it will if you plan to live within its limitations, or else take them into account when you figure out your living expenses.

[Shrike]

BAH is not supposed to be the same for everyone at every location. The Military – across the board – expects single troops to live in Government Quarters, OKA “The Barracks”.


To quote the Regulation:



“The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is based on geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. The intent of BAH is to provide uniformed service members with permanent duty within the 50 United States accurate and equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets, and is payable when government quarters are not provided. A uniformed service member stationed overseas, including U.S. protectorates, who is not furnished government housing, is eligible for Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) (http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/perdiem/ohaform.html).”


What this means is that Uncle Sam will pay to put you up in civilian quarters commensurate to your Rank and Marital Status, as prescribed by Regulation, at the prevailing rate for that level of quarters in the Zip Code of your assigned location, when prescribed Government Quarters are not available.


That said, not everyone is eligible for BAH, and – when you are – the rate you receive will be based on what the Regulation says a person of your Rank and Marital Standing is entitled to in the way of quarters, in the Zip Code of your assigned location, on Uncle Sam’s Dime. You are expected to find quarters that rents for not more than the BAH Allotment, and may have to move if the Landlord raises the rent above your BAH Allowance.


As to the issue of entitlement, BAH is one of the longest-standing allowances available, and was established precisely when the US Government stopped requiring its personnel to live exclusively in Government Quarters, and was structured to reflect the type of quarters you would be assigned if you were living on the Post.


As to the issue of out-of-pocket expenses, Yes, some members at a Post may have out-of-pocket expenses. BAH rates are set at the median for each grade and housing profile. For a given individual, an out-of-pocket expense may be incurred based on the actual housing choice. If a member rents above the median rate for the grade/profile, that member incurs out-of-pocket expenses. For example, if a member lives in a 3-bedroom townhouse with lease and utilities that cost $1,200, and the median cost for that dwelling in the area is $1,100 that member has out-of-pocket expenses of $100. The opposite is true for an individual who chooses to occupy a less expensive residence. Only a member whose housing costs are exactly at or below the median will have no out-of-pocket expenses.


So, BAH won’t work as expected for everyone, but it will if you plan to live within its limitations, or else take them into account when you figure out your living expenses.

Everything in red is wrong. Dependent status is what counts, not marital status. It's right there in the section you quoted. To quote one of the forum members:

You need to slow down and read EVERYTHING to avoid missing something important.

Oh, and thanks for making a huge post pointing out the obvious.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Everything in red is wrong. Dependent status is what counts, not marital status. It's right there in the section you quoted. To quote one of the forum members:


Oh, and thanks for making a huge post pointing out the obvious.

Who is a Dependent?
For enlistment purposes, a "dependent" is defined as:
a. A spouse, to include a common law spouse if the state recognizes such [Marital Status: Married]; or
b. Any natural child (legitimate or illegitimate) or child adopted by the applicant, if the child is under 18 years of age and unmarried, regardless of whether or not the applicant has custody of the child. The term natural child includes any illegitimate child when: the applicant claims the child as theirs, or the applicant's name is listed on the birth certificate as the parent, or a court order establishes paternity; or if any person makes an allegation of paternity that has not been finally adjudicated by a court [Marital Status: Single Parent]; or
c. A stepchild of the applicant who resides with the applicant if the stepchild is under 18 years of age [Marital Status: Single Parent]; or
d. Any parent or other person(s) who is/are, in fact, dependent on the applicant for more than one-half of their support. [Marital Status: Single Care Giver].


For all other purposes, the Service Member’s Marital Status is considered Single.

[Shrike]

Who is a Dependent?
For enlistment purposes, a "dependent" is defined as:
a. A spouse, to include a common law spouse if the state recognizes such [Marital Status: Married]; or
b. Any natural child (legitimate or illegitimate) or child adopted by the applicant, if the child is under 18 years of age and unmarried, regardless of whether or not the applicant has custody of the child. The term natural child includes any illegitimate child when: the applicant claims the child as theirs, or the applicant's name is listed on the birth certificate as the parent, or a court order establishes paternity; or if any person makes an allegation of paternity that has not been finally adjudicated by a court [Marital Status: Single Parent]; or
c. A stepchild of the applicant who resides with the applicant if the stepchild is under 18 years of age [Marital Status: Single Parent]; or
d. Any parent or other person(s) who is/are, in fact, dependent on the applicant for more than one-half of their support. [Marital Status: Single Care Giver].


For all other purposes, the Service Member’s Marital Status is considered Single.

Thank you SO much! I bet a friend $10 that you would either not respond, or respond without admitting that you were WRONG!

Post a ton of stuff, get called on a factual error, and NEVER cop to it. That's the Corny way!


You are as predictable as the sunrise.

[Measure Man]

Thank you SO much! I bet a friend $10 that you would either not respond, or respond without admitting that you were WRONG!

Post a ton of stuff, get called on a factual error, and NEVER cop to it. That's the Corny way!


You are as predictable as the sunrise.

That's easy money there...

That's not even gambling...you're just a two-bit hustler at that point.

[Shrike]

That's easy money there...

That's not even gambling...you're just a two-bit hustler at that point.
Well, I expect a bunch of <ctrl> <C>, <ctrl> <v> from JFTR, or maybe even 37 USC 401 to try and prove his point. However, the fact of the matter is that marital status does not mean you get dependent rate BAH. And it amuses me to no end that his quote actually said dependent status, but HE changed that to marital status.

[AJBIGJ]

Interesting choice of Freudian slip aside, the fundamental information is there. I'm thinking that making BAH "equitable" is really a misunderstanding of what it's intended for. It's just a benefit intended to take care of servicemembers. Like Healthcare and some others, the value fluctuates to meet what dependents need in addition, and will continue to do so. While it does have a tangible numerical value attached that appears on your LES, the fact is it's not really pay by the conventional understanding but rather like he said, an allowance.

Another argument is why not increase all BAH to California or Washington D.C. w/ dependents values? I know a lot of people who wouldn't complain but not necessarily practical. Is it fair that a married guy in Norfolk gets substantially less BAH than a married guy four hours North? Well, I don't have to pay D.C. rates to live out there, so I understand the distinction.

Like he stated very nicely, the military has made a decision to provide housing for its servicemembers. When it can't do that it provides a basic allowance to help servicemembers accomodate off-base living cost appropriate to the living conditions and sizing requirements corresponding to the area. A single individual may sit quite comfortably in a 700 sq. ft. single bedroom apartment and not having a desperate need to expand. Try doing that with a wife and four kids? Good Luck!

If the military ever decides to make BAH rates truly "equitable", it either had better grow very deep pockets suddenly or be prepared to make the conscious decision that married servicemembers retention won't hold. We could make things "less expensive" by removing dependent-care benefits and other factors as well, or maybe put a cap on it. Wouldn't that be "equitable". If you did that though, well, guess what, the military is now basically a "singles-only club" and while some married servicemembers might figure out how to make it work, most would probably take the nearest exit ramp. Those who were considering making that transition in their lives would probably have to consider it as well or put that decision on hold until they get the next (or next few) promotion and can afford to support a family. In those situations where "oops, there's a baby on the way" you'd see a lot of servicemembers getting hardship processing. Having equitable BAH rates just really isn't practical in a military already focused on how to stretch a taxpayer dollar.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Thank you SO much! I bet a friend $10 that you would either not respond, or respond without admitting that you were WRONG!

Post a ton of stuff, get called on a factual error, and NEVER cop to it. That's the Corny way!


You are as predictable as the sunrise.

You are the dumb one here, because you let it bother you so much. I knew that you would react in just this manner, but I really couldn't resist pushing your buttons over what seemed like a semantics issue. You left yourself so open. Actually, I really don't care about your inability to let others exist as they see fit in your time and space, but then I realized that you just revel at pointing out what you see as someone else's personal errors.

I don’t normally quote scripture because I’m not really a religious person, but you have given me a perfect opportunity:


Luke 6:41-42 (New International Version)

41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[Shrike]

You are the dumb one here, because you let it bother you so much. I knew that you would react in just this manner, but I really couldn't resist pushing your buttons over what seemed like a semantics issue. You left yourself so open. Actually, I really don't care about your inability to let others exist as they see fit in your time and space, but then I realized that you just revel at pointing out what you see as someone else's personal errors.

I don’t normally quote scripture because I’m not really a religious person, but you have given me a perfect opportunity:


Luke 6:41-42 (New International Version)

41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

It's simple, really. Because you can never, NEVER, EVER admit that you maybe, possibly, just might have made a mistake. And in so arrogantly doing so, you try and cloak yourself in erudition by copying/pasting as much BS as you can in as short a period of time.


Yep, it's that simple. I'm one of the most arrogant know-it-alls on this forum, and even I cop to mistakes when I make them.

Let me throw a quote back at you: To make no mistake is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future - Plutarch.

[Measure Man]

Luke 6:41-42 (New International Version)

41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.



Luke 6:41-42 New FAA Version

41"Why do you look at the oxygen mask in your brother's lap and pay no attention to the mask in your own? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me place your mask over your mouth and nose,' when you yourself fail to place the mask over your own mouth and nose? You hypocrite, first place the mask over your own mouth and nose, and then you will breath easily to place the mask on your brother's mouth and nose."

[CORNELIUSSEON]

It's simple, really. Because you can never, NEVER, EVER admit that you maybe, possibly, just might have made a mistake. And in so arrogantly doing so, you try and cloak yourself in erudition by copying/pasting as much BS as you can in as short a period of time.


Yep, it's that simple. I'm one of the most arrogant know-it-alls on this forum, and even I cop to mistakes when I make them.

Let me throw a quote back at you: To make no mistake is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future - Plutarch.

Thank you for proving my case. It was SO easy!! I really don't care about your arrogance, I am willing to let you be as arrogant as you wish, and will never ask you to change. When I see myself as wrong, I will admit it, but rubbing my nose in it is the wrong way to get me to do it. All you accomplish by doing that is for me to reciprocate. Like I told you a long time ago, you are nothing more than a run of the mill bully, and I've never given in to a bully.

[Shrike]

Thank you for proving my case. It was SO easy!! I really don't care about your arrogance, I am willing to let you be as arrogant as you wish, and will never ask you to change. When I see myself as wrong, I will admit it, but rubbing my nose in it is the wrong way to get me to do it. All you accomplish by doing that is for me to reciprocate. Like I told you a long time ago, you are nothing more than a run of the mill bully, and I've never given in to a bully.

Yep, just more Corny BS to cover up the fact that you're WRONG and can't admit it.



Your arrogance is that you cannot admit when you are proven wrong, not - as you say - "When I see myself as wrong". And the fact that you are so incredibly arrogant as to be completely blinded to this when people (not just me, but many, many others on this forum) point it out to you is a testament to how monstrous your ego must truly be. Oh, and to how little credibility you actually have here.

[garhkal]

Honestly I'd have to better understand where you're getting your data to determine whether I agree or disagree with you on your percentages. All I know is from taking an active role in talking with other servicemembers and determining what factors affect their retention more than others. 9 times out of 10 single servicemembers never even mention equitable BAH rates as a contributing factor in whether they stick with the service or not.

Most of my numbers come from working with people many of which were admin types who had all that data...


The military likes to dispel any myths that it is completely untenable for married people with dependents, so to keep these individuals on the team, they take it out of hide. Like I said, fair and equitable is really an aside issue here. The military has made it a goal to keep those military members in the service, to enable that they're willing to pay for it.

When single people complain about equitable treatment, I often sarcastically recommend they go ahead, try getting married, pop out a few kids, and cash in on the big bucks. Realistically that is never the case. You generally never see those individuals living frivolously, whereas among single individuals it is actually quite frequent.

But there is an unequitable level of treatment when the single folk are paid effectively LESS than the married for doing the same work, having the same time in/rate etc.. PLUS most places i have been, single people wind up doing MORE work, to cover all the times those marred folk are off (kid sick, take wife to dentist etc), or cause those married folk got preferental treatment for leave.


We could make things "less expensive" by removing dependent-care benefits and other factors as well, or maybe put a cap on it. Wouldn't that be "equitable". If you did that though, well, guess what, the military is now basically a "singles-only clu
As it is though, it (to many people i know's perception including mine) a "married only club".. If you are single, you get the shit jobs. if married, don't expect to get many of those jobs. if you ar married with kids, only expect to get those IF the command is in serious need of it getting done now.
Yes we have all these 'single sailor programs'. BUT not one of them disallows married folk to also go on, so they are not really just for us single folk.

[AJBIGJ]

I'll admit to having been out of the single scene for some time, so I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where that "married only" perception is based on. I've never noticed any difference in what jobs are assigned specific to the marital status but that might be because I haven't been looking. To me that seems like an individual leadership issue rather than a cultural norm. The only real difference I have noticed is when an individual does have dependents, they will eventually require medical care for those dependents and so forth so they're going to occasionally have to be let go during some workdays to resolve the issues on occasion. Much like the BAH though, if leaders fail to allow that when necessary they won't be retaining those servicemembers, we can count on it.

Let's just suffice it to say that BAH really isn't "pay" for your work, hence why if someone lives aboard ship without having a place outside they generally do not receive it. It is purely and largely a benefit of the "perk" variety that scales (somewhat) to the level of anticipated cost associated with that particular benefit, in this case the cost is referring to your residence. Like geographic locational constraints and such it was never designed to be equitable because keeping necessary housing for a single individual rarely even becomes remotely comparable to a person with medium-to-large family to support. If the government made it "equitable" it would either become exhorbitantly expensive for the DOD to support every servicemember receiving the highest level achievable or people who are in a position to receive the maximum level of benefit currently would see massive cuts in their BAH, for some this would put them in a position of extremis where they could no longer support their current standard of living. That's a headache I'd never want to see. If we think those servicemembers with families get distracted with issues at home already I'd hate to see what it'd be like when more are not paying their power and water bills on time and having those services shut off at home.

I think the only reason people are concerning themselves with this at all is because there is an obvious number that appears on your LES every month and posted in other locations. If the government (could support) just covering the civilian cost of living arrangements (say rent/mortage and home insurance) and certain associated utilities and no servicemember ever saw the actual cost we'd probably just simply accept that the government provides quarters for servicemembers and leave it at that, knowing implicitly the cost would fluctuate somewhat due to size of residence and location. Of course this is impractical because there'd probably be a lot of military mansion owners if there wasn't some sort of cap or constraints involved. So at least we'd require some sort of inspection to ensure the quarters being paid for are not disproportionate to the requirements of the servicemember.

BAH wasn't designed as "pay" nor was it intended for that purpose. To your bank account "money is money" but the source and reasoning behind how it got there differs substantially from base pay. It's a fuzzy logic I know, and like I've mentioned, the military is hardly the only one doing things like this. Do people think that civilian businesses that include free onsite daycare for their employees really seem that necessary to the single ones? Those facilities cost money that could otherwise apply towards payraises and such and the single individuals receive no benefit from them. Again it was designed to reassure servicemembers that if they wish to start families and have children there are benefits in place to ensure they can do their work and still ensure their famiies can be taken care of. BAH is just the tip of the iceberg of those benefits, few of which have some sort of equivalent in place that provide any tangible benefit to single individuals.

There is nothing stopping any particular single servicemember from starting families (DADT policy being an exception) and likewise receiving these benefits. It's really not discrimination in that sense. Fortunately most people are pragmatic enough to realize that there's much more going into a decision to start a family than just getting these benefits. I promise you anyone with a family doesn't feel any richer than the single ones do. If we make that equitable as a cost saving strategy we might as well go after the whole gamut of benefits because then every servicemember will receive exactly the same benefits and no one can complain they were being treated unfairly. The retention of married individuals by that point would probably be negligible since their families are already living at home in the dark without running water.

[garhkal]

I'll admit to having been out of the single scene for some time, so I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where that "married only" perception is based on. I've never noticed any difference in what jobs are assigned specific to the marital status but that might be because I haven't been looking. To me that seems like an individual leadership issue rather than a cultural norm.

So far i have been stationed at 9 separate duty sites, ad at ALL married (or single parents) were given priority for leave, even if you (a single person) already had it in, approved and ticket in hand. Come holiday periods, same, especially xmas.. though i WILL admit most also gave singles priority for new years.



The only real difference I have noticed is when an individual does have dependents, they will eventually require medical care for those dependents and so forth so they're going to occasionally have to be let go during some workdays to resolve the issues on occasion

Just looking at my past 3 commands... AS-40 Frank Cable.. Shop had 8 people for a while. 5 married, 3 single. Any given week one two 2 of those married were ALWAYS off early or in some cases did not even show up to work 'cause of the kids or wife'... One of the singles came in 20 min late after having to hit the pharmacy to pick up med refills and got major shit. NOT one of those married even got an ass chewing. EVEN those who did not bother calling in/showing up.
NCTAMS det london. 9 people, 5 married, 3 single, 1 single parent. The latter, had several (what to me and some of the married folk considered) UA inciences (not even showing up to appointments, getting off to go to non existant appointments. Nothing happened. 1 of the married was just as bad. Not one of the single folk even had a late... I had leave in, so did 1 of the other singles.. Had ticket in hand and was 4 hrs away from signing out on leave when one of the married just "had to take leave to attend his brother's wedding"... if it was not for the convention i was attending being my 7th straight, and i was already down (and in their books) for officiating 8 events i would have gotten bumped... i had already gotten bumped twice before cause a married had to 'take off leave to care for the kids whille wify recuperated...
22nd NCR. started at 7 people, was up to 12 when i left. started 4/3, ended 8/4 married/single. With the leave issue, and no 'skcaters off' from appointments, it was almost the same. Heck, had 3 weeks time where one marrie guy did not EVEN COME IN or have paperwork in, so he could care for his wife who just had surgery. I HAD to take my mother to 3 medical appointments over 2 days, and was told to put in a 72 hr spec lib request.......

See a trend.. Married - get away with being ua or late, and just put it down to 'taking care of wife/kids. Single, even if you HAVE a reason, better have paperwork in...

[AJBIGJ]

Honestly I can't tell you. To me that still seems more of an issue of the individual leaderships in those small shops than necessarily representative of the entire service. Truth is though I'm not in those individual leader's shoes and I cannot make accurate value-judgements towards whether that command culture made decisions for the betterment of those sailors or was just flat-out biased. You'd know better than I because you were there but I'll submit to you that there's also your own individual biases to keep in consideration. No harm, no foul, everyone has them, the key is recognizing them and how they may color your perceptions of issues. Similarly, on my end I never really noticed those trends being unviersal at any of my commands and for sailors I've led made it only a real priority to support their individual needs to the fullest extent capable while still supporting the mission. I know that's rather vague and may even seem like a cop out. That may in fact sometimes be the case, I haven't done everything perfect. Leadership in the military puts even the most ethical leaders in the uneviable position of having to try to determine whether servicemembers undestand what they really do "need" when they make personal requests because for instance they can't afford to lose the work-value for an individual who "needs" time off to "even out their tan at the tanning salon".

Ideally of course we all act like adults and thus servicemembers only ask for the things they really do need. Simple reality is there is a large abundance of youth in the service and those youth do 'youthful" things on occasion. Leadership has to approach every one and consider all the facts involved before they make decisions. Not knowing all the facts myself I'd submit to you that MAYBE those individuals who got off early had daycare constraints for young children (quite common). MAYBE the married individuals got pre-approval from their chain of command to arrive a bit late because they had a personal obligation they needed to fulfill that could only be accomplished then. Of course I don't have all the facts presented but there could very well be some rationale behind those perceived biases you're stating. Just food for thought, nothing more.

I'd submit to you, if you perceive an issue, approach your leadership and attempt to address it respectfully. If that fails to have effect then continue the process under approved Equal Opportunity procedures (CMEO for Navy, not certain towards other service equivalents.) I can comfortably say that at least in the Navy equitable treatment towards helping sailors meet their individual needs is a priority. The means by which to accomplish that are based on the individual and cannot be covered by a single all-encompassing approach. If you approach the right people with the issues you're having, they'll probably listen. Hopefully some will at least give the courtesy to explain the rationale behind their own decision making and explain what you can do different to approach similar situations to get more "equitable" treatement.

[garhkal]

Honestly I can't tell you. To me that still seems more of an issue of the individual leaderships in those small shops than necessarily representative of the entire service

To me when it is 6 of 7, or 8 of 9 commands i have been at that things like that happen, not once, but continual, it is evidence of a 'culture'. Had it only been say 2 or 3 of 9 commands, then i could see your point.



Not knowing all the facts myself I'd submit to you that MAYBE those individuals who got off early had daycare constraints for young children (quite common).

In those situations, A) why can't the other spouse pick the kids up? B) most day cares can work around your hours, why not this one? and C) why can't they make the time up elsewhere.. like a less long lunch break, or come in early..


MAYBE the married individuals got pre-approval from their chain of command to arrive a bit late because they had a personal obligation they needed to fulfill that could only be accomplished then.

Again, why is it the 'married folk' get preapproved to do this, while a single person who needs to do the same thing has to have a chit in for time off? Seems like a definite double standard.


I'd submit to you, if you perceive an issue, approach your leadership and attempt to address it respectfully. If that fails to have effect then continue the process under approved Equal Opportunity procedures

The 2 times i have spoken to CMEOs about it, both said since single/married is not a 'protected' group unlike male/female, blakc/white etc, then it would not go anywhere. Sucks don't it..

[AJBIGJ]

Like I said, I don't know all the facts because I wasn't at those commands knowing the actual situations involved. In some circumstances the daycares are not as flexible (or extremely expensive) so it becomes a constraint. And it's hard to determine a spouse's situation because that spouse may work more hours or they could also be a single parent with dependents. As far as the extra time is concerned, no reason in my mind that they couldn't, I don't see why that type of deal couldn't be made.

No reason pre-approval for 'married folk' should only apply to them. If a single individual has a legitimate constraint then there's no reason they should not be able to present it to the chain of command and be able to take care of their personal business.

As far as those CMEO's are concerned, that sounds to me like they are using the lazy-man's approach. Frankly it's a cop-out. They have the ability to speak to CMC's and even CO's regarding issues they feel to be legitimate and make sure the issues are heard, regardless of a sailor's "protected" status. However, if the chain of command of the individual was never involved in the first place that may just make the person with the complaint appear as a "whiner". Maybe those individuals would determine the circumstances are not an issue of fair treatment but rather a lack of perspective. It's really hard to say.

From the perspective of one who's been asked for that time off to take care of personal business. I can never recall a situation where any individual was denied unless the request was for a reason that was absolutely frivolous by nature or the mission constraints were just that severe. Truth is, I didn't have to send the single ones for these personal errands very frequently because they rarely asked.

Like I hope was clear before, I cannot speak for individuals at your chain of commands, and at least in some circles there may be a cultural deficiency at stake here. I'm really not in a place to say because it's entirely possible it was happening around me as well and I failed to notice because I was personally unaffected. It's really tough to say. I will venture that I personally will try to be more sensitive of that if it's going on around me but that's one person in a command that probably has nothing to do with yours.

Do keep in mind though, people in positions of leadership can become busy people and they may not always be able to let their subordinates get that time off exactly when planned and may have to ask them to be flexible to needs of the mission, this applies to both parties.

[garhkal]

And as said, people do get busy, but 9/10 it only is 'busy enough to stop you going' if you are single. if married.. sure go take care of wify..

[AJBIGJ]

Like I said, I wasn't seeing the world through your eyes so I am perfectly willing to try to look at it from that standpoint. In the sense you describe, NO leaders should not allow privileges to one subset for something as intangible and frivolous by nature. If there were other issues involved and those leaders were to hop on here and key me in on their rationale, I may tend to agree with their position if it really was catered towards helping a sailor's "Needs" (A word that in and of itself should be defined, as perceptions of a sense of entitlement in recent years seems to broaden the term more than it should be). If the rationale truly is "sure you've got family, you should be allowed to leave at 1400 everyday!" then absolutely there is something wrong. We do get paid to work here and that applies at all levels.

The trick is making it a goal to helping your subordinates meet their personal needs in life. There's simply no "One size fits all" solution to that. It's why your leaders get paid the big bucks.

[Sgt HULK]

45 pages of arguing lol

the only bah inequality in the military is the difference between an officer and an enlisted those variations are ridiculous

the married single argument is laughable at best

[AJBIGJ]

45 pages of arguing lol

the only bah inequality in the military is the difference between an officer and an enlisted those variations are ridiculous

the married single argument is laughable at best

Fair enough assessment I suppose. Looking at Hampton Roads Area rates E-5 is just a little less than O-1, O-2 between E-7 and E-8. and E-9 coming in slightly below O-3. Not entirely surprising from a historical perspective (if anything the distinction between officer and enlisted is less substantial nowadays.) but I can hardly justify that an E-3 who has a family of 4 has less "needs" than an O-1 who's newly married to a full-time employed civilian, both receiving their respective "With Dependents" BAH. That's a hard one to sell because there will always be the "RHIP" crowd and they have the direct attention of many of the big cost-decision makers in our government.

[Shrike]

45 pages of arguing lol

the only bah inequality in the military is the difference between an officer and an enlisted those variations are ridiculous

the married single argument is laughable at best
1) Get your facts straight - it's not a "married vs. single issue", it's a "with dependents vs. single issue".

2) When I was an E-4, I worked with and lived in the same apartment complex as an E-4 who loved strippers. One night, in an absolute drunken stupor, he and his stripper du jour neglected to put a cap on before having their drunken nookie. Nine months later, he was proven to be a daddy by virtue of paternity test. So, due to his making a personal choice to engage in risky, unprotected sex, he started receiving a bigger paycheck than me and his other E-4 peers. Oh, did I mention that he was the biggest rock in the workcenter, too? Oh, and that he got the clap from her, too, meaning the USAF incurred a cost to treat him for a condition he got during conception? The issue is not as black and white as you and many others would like to have it.

[garhkal]

I am surprised they could not get him for destruction of govt property (getting an std) ..

[AJBIGJ]

I'd definitely agree it's not a perfect system, hence the incident Shrike described. I think the fundamental premise in place is to allow servicemembers who wish to start a family a means to feel confident they might be able to support it and sustain it. Like many policies loopholes exist (for instance, back in 1999 I re-enlisted, got promoted to E-5, earned the initial installment of $15K, and never had to serve "those" extra years because they were redundant to my accession program commitments.) Like anything the ideal result is not always what really occurs.

It's really a question of what exactly is the desired end-state. It's not a fiscally responsible decision for the government to pay everyone the highest available rates. I don't think anyone on this forum sees that as being a realistic scenario either. It's also not too much of a stretch to imagine that single allowances at some paygrades would be insufficient to support housing for larger families. So the honest question one has to ask themselves is if we're willing to potentially lose more servicemembers if they wish to start families and cannot support it with what the military provides. If we desire to retain these individuals, then to what extent do we provide them benefits to make the military a viable career choice? I will tell you that very few sane individuals would willingly subject their families to conditions of a substantially lower quality of life regardless of how much they love being in the military. So do we want to keep them around or not? (Keep in mind there's no guarantee that any servicemember who is currently single will necessarily stay that way for their entire careers.)

[garhkal]

Nor is there any guarentee that those single service men and women feel continually left out, etc and decide to get out...

[Sgt HULK]

SO that one story is your basis for argument? 37 yrs ago a dude knocked up a stripper and gets more bah :D

WHat you should be pissed about is that 0-2 who has been in the usaf for 3 yrs gets more bah then you do with 7 times the amount of service etc.

Or maybe the fact that you as an E-8 cant live in the good area and send your kids to the good schools because you cant afford it, but that same 0-2 can live and send his kids to the good schools

congress dictates that his officer life is more valuable then your families

the married vs single is null and void, folks act like we are just banking the shit out of this loot, and then when the kids leave we are scott free to take that 20 yrs of banking extra loot to buy our Yacht LOL

Trust me I love my kids more then anything on this earth, but if I was single I would have that damn corvette ive been wanting to save up for instead i gotta pay kid bills

your damn right it was my choice, Im a family guy I came from a big family i want a prince to carry on my legacy and now i do, a boy and a girl and thats it snipped and done.

But to sit here and tell me that the blank check I have written to uncle sam for everything up to and including my life isnt worth an 100 bucks so I cna have anotehr bedroom for my kid is laughable.

as I stated before the only inequality in the BAH joke of a system is the difference between an Officers BAH and an Enlisted BAH they already double out base pay etc. why double the ability to live in an area where crime isnt as bad as the next.

he can live on this side of the tracks and I have to live over here, we have the same family but he has a bar and I have stripes.

His family is worth more then mine

:frusty

1) Get your facts straight - it's not a "married vs. single issue", it's a "with dependents vs. single issue".

2) When I was an E-4, I worked with and lived in the same apartment complex as an E-4 who loved strippers. One night, in an absolute drunken stupor, he and his stripper du jour neglected to put a cap on before having their drunken nookie. Nine months later, he was proven to be a daddy by virtue of paternity test. So, due to his making a personal choice to engage in risky, unprotected sex, he started receiving a bigger paycheck than me and his other E-4 peers. Oh, did I mention that he was the biggest rock in the workcenter, too? Oh, and that he got the clap from her, too, meaning the USAF incurred a cost to treat him for a condition he got during conception? The issue is not as black and white as you and many others would like to have it.

[AJBIGJ]

Nor is there any guarentee that those single service men and women feel continually left out, etc and decide to get out...

Honest question we have to ask ourselves (please consider this rhetorical, we all have our own thoughts on it), how often do we believe that really does happen for that reason? In MY experience I've yet to witness an incident where a single servicemember chooses to make the transition because of BAH differential, I just have never seen it. At best that's been a side item to larger predominant issues to why the individual is dissatisfied with military lifestyle.

Married folks leaving because they can't support both a family and the rigors of the military lifestyle, well, I do see a lot of that already, and much like mentioned above it happens especially at the junior ranks. Take current level of benefits away, well, I know what I'd expect to happen. People can think for themselves what they'd logically expect to happen. Just food for thought.

[garhkal]

In the almost 19 yrs i have been in i know only 2 who stated a good 'chunk' of the reason they were getting out, was cause of the 'short end of the stick' singles seem to always get. Whether in pay services, or work. BUT i know a number of others who it was one of a few factors.

[AJBIGJ]

In the almost 19 yrs i have been in i know only 2 who stated a good 'chunk' of the reason they were getting out, was cause of the 'short end of the stick' singles seem to always get. Whether in pay services, or work. BUT i know a number of others who it was one of a few factors.

I really am concerned to hear that is becoming the perception of many in some instances because I do feel that's harmful to morale when it does happen (and I'm absolutely sure your right that it does for some people). Honestly, thinking back I do see a lot of discrimination happening within chain of command structures. Since they are more "PC" versions of discrimimnation nobody does anything about it in most cases. I see it in wardrooms where CO's or XO's seem to favor one JO over the next. I see it in divisional workcenters where Chief's seem to take an extra interest in mentoring and grooming that one First Class they seem to favor over the others. I see it when females get treated with a light hand by male leaders after a simple "bat of the eye". I would be lying to you if I said I thought it was impossible for married/singles discrimimnation to exist among our ranks.

I do think that is its own issue. If information on BAH rates wasn't as widely available as it is I doubt we'd even be talking about it right now. Maybe a better solution would be to let those details get figured out by the government. Say a servicemember wishes to rent an apartment or buy a house, some contractor is hired specifically to go over there for an hour of some day and see if rates required for the government to subsidize that living arrangement are proportional to the actual "needs" of the individual. (Much like background investigations for clearances). I'm quite certain the cost of employing that one individual for an hours worth of work per servicemember would be quickly offset by the fact that not every living arrangement would require the government to subsidize living arrangements to the highest possible value (which could be capped at current BAH rates, but our servicemembers wouldn't need to know those details). End of the day, the government sets up an arrangement where it automatically covers the cost of the living establishment and a set number of necessary utilities. Anything frivolous like cable television and internet services would come out of the servicemember's pocket. The servicemember wins because they're not devoting any brain cells worrying about a rent check every month or a number of utilities to stretch their bank accounts for. The government wins because they pay only for the cost of living arrangements and set amenities and doesn't have to worry about its allowance turning into "beer money". The only person that ever sees the actual numbers involved are the renting agency/mortgage company and the associated government accounting office so nobody can complain they're being treated "inequitably" because like every other servicemember, the government is helping them to meet their own needs. I'm sure there could be loopholes there as well, but for the most part these issues would be "out of sight, out of mind".