The Pentagon Promised $15k Bonus To Re-Enlist, And Then "Re-nigged" After Enlistment

[Gold9472]

Pentagon withholds promised bonuses to state guard members who re-enlisted

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/washingtonstate/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1131223441155461.xml&storylist=orwashington

The Associated Press
11/5/2005, 12:39 p.m. PT

SEATTLE (AP) — At least 15 soldiers with the Washington State National Guard have been denied bonuses they were promised by the Pentagon if they re-enlisted, and at least one has hired an attorney.

The soldiers, many stationed in Iraq at the time, signed re-enlistment forms promising them a tax-free $15,000 bonus in return for their service, said Maj. Phil Osterli, a state Guard spokesman.

But the Department of Defense has since withdrawn the offer, saying the bonuses were canceled because they duplicated other programs and were prohibited.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment for a Seattle Post-Intelligencer report Saturday.

"I'm to the point now where I want to get out," said Sgt. 1st Class Carl Latson, a guardsmen who has hired Seattle attorney Mark Clausen to fight the decision.

Clausen this past week mailed letters to local military officials seeking help before pursuing other legal options. The letters were sent to Col. Michael McCaffree of the 81st Brigade Combat Team at Camp Murray in Tacoma — Latson's unit — as well as 14 other officers in Seattle and Tacoma.

Latson, 35, of Spanaway, is a 13-year veteran who served in Operation Desert Storm and the current Iraq war — he returned from a yearlong tour in March. While stationed at the Balad Army base near Baghdad, he re-enlisted in January for another six-year term.

He said his incentive was the promised bonus, which he was counting on to buy a house and support his 11-year-old daughter.

"For them to offer a bonus when we're at war, when we're risking our lives, and then to turn around and not pay it when we return is the wrong message to send to me, to any soldier," said Latson, who served two years active duty with the Navy and the last 11 years with the National Guard.

The state Guard is also fighting the Pentagon decision. Maj. John Sharrett, the division's recruiting and retention commander traveled to Washington, D.C., to argue before National Guard and Pentagon officials that the reversal is unwise and unfair, said Osterli

"We're clearly concerned about this issue and want to make sure these soldiers get what they deserve," said Osterli.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., also has demanded further explanation from Pentagon officials on the issue.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Damn that sucks. They should sue!

[beltman713]

I read somewhere that re-enlistments were supposed to be at an all time high. Anyone else see that article?

[Gold9472]

I read somewhere that re-enlistments were supposed to be at an all time high. Anyone else see that article?

Not that I know of.

[beltman713]

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200510623278.asp

How Much Time is Too Much Time in the Combat Zone
by James Dunnigan
October 6, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

The senior general in the U.S. Army warned that American troops might be in Iraq, at current levels, for another four years. This adds another obstacle for army recruiters. All of the services know, from long experience, that every time you send troops overseas, to an unpleasant place, especially one where they cannot bring their families along, a certain percentage of those troops will not re-enlist. This is very predictable, with the navy having the same experience with long cruises.

If the army keeps the number of troops it currently has in Iraq, for the next four years, that means many soldiers are going to spend every other year, or one year out of three, in Iraq of Afghanistan. Re-enlistments are at an all time high right now, because of the war. Troops who serve there, know they are making a difference. But most of them have families to take care of, and that’s what causes many of them to get out of the army. How many troops the army will lose because of sending half a million troops to Iraq and Afghanistan over the next four years, is unknown. At least a few thousand, and possibly over 10,000.

But there’s another problem, accumulated combat stress. Combat wears a man down and out, particularly infantry fighting. World War II experience revealed that the average soldier can be effective for about 200 days of combat. After that, you generally have a case of combat fatigue; someone dangerous to themselves and those around them. At that point, these veterans are best removed to non-combat jobs or civilian occupations.

But a lot has changed since World War II. The army knows a lot more about combat stress, and how to manage it. To a certain extent, you can mitigate (erase the effect of) some of those days of combat. The army has already demonstrated this, by having many troops go through more than 200 days of combat action in Iraq, and come back in good shape. And then go back, a year later, for another year. But this is getting to be uncharted territory, with troops subjected to multiple tours of action in, in Iraq, especially.

[Gold9472]

"Re-enlistments are at an all time high right now, because of the war."

[beltman713]

I guess stop-loss and just plain bribery have nothing to do with it.

[Gold9472]

U.S. Army needs help in recruiting

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/11/03/editorial_main/doc436809937fb4f031744218.txt

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed heavy demands on the U.S. military. To cope with the strain the Pentagon came up with a plan to expand the Army, which has absorbed much of the workload in Iraq and sustained 68 percent of the more than 2,000 fatalities.

Unfortunately the Army’s recruiting efforts have been disappointing, which means the Army will continue to struggle without additional troops while it continues to carry a heavy load in Iraq.

The Army’s recruiting shortfall of more than 6,500 was the biggest in the past quarter century. Also experiencing shortfalls were the Army Reserves, which reached only 54 percent of its goal and the Army National Guard, which reached only 80 percent.

Among the reasons for the failure to meet recruiting goals were the Iraq war and increased reluctance by parents to support their children’s enlistment, according to Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

Some observers believe the condition of the Army has reached a perilous state. “Now they’ve broken the Army, and after this administration is history, it will take 12 or 15 or 20 years to repair the damage it’s inflicted on an institution that our country desperately needs in a century as this one,” wrote Joseph L. Galloway, senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller, “We Were Soldiers Once … and Young.”

Other branches of the military have not experienced the same problems. The Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy all met the recruiting goals.

In addition, the Army has experienced remarkable success in retention, recording 108 percent of its target goal. Reenlistment was high among soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the failure to reach recruitment goals has ramifications beyond the damage done to expansion plans. The Army, for example, must continue to order personnel in certain specialized jobs to stay in the service beyond the expiration of their contract. The Pentagon also has lowered its minimum testing qualification standards and intends to privatize some jobs on military bases.

The Pentagon currently is developing new plans to bolster recruitment, including proposals to double the maximum enlistment bonus from $20,000 to $40,000, and a proposed mortgage program that would make a $25,000 down payment on a home for soldiers with four years of service.

The new lures, if approved by Congress, might help the Army achieve its expansion goals. Recruiters said they were able to achieve monthly goals in September after lagging earlier in the year.

But the shortfall in Army recruiting is an issue that cannot be ignored for long. America’s all-volunteer Army has been overworked and is in danger of becoming worn out. It needs fresh troops.

[Gold9472]

I guess stop-loss and just plain bribery have nothing to do with it.

You don't think our soldiers are re-enlisting because they don't want a draft to take place so people would have to participate in a war for lies, do you? Could they be that noble?

[Gold9472]

Or is it just the bonuses, etc...

[beltman713]

You don't think our soldiers are re-enlisting because they don't want a draft to take place so people would have to participate in a war for lies, do you? Could they be that noble?
Maybe the military thinks they will do just that for the next 4 or 10 years.

[Gold9472]

Maybe the military thinks they will do just that for the next 4 or 10 years.

I wouldn't put it past them... if this was taking place, if our soldiers are re-enlisting because they don't want more Americans to die for this war, that's not something we would hear about. Not in the news anyway.

[somebigguy]

I'll tell you what, if I was one of those soldiers, I wouldn't have re-enlisted until I had the cold hard cash in my pocket.

Who knows, maybe it'll piss them off and they'll jump to our side.