Posted on Jul 16, 2015
Air Force Secretary stands up to protect BAH eligibility.
16.3K
69
38
14
14
0
In response to recent talks about changing BAH eligibility for service members, the Air Force Secretary speaks out against the change.
What are your thoughts on this act and the issue at hand?
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/pay/allowances/2015/07/16/dont-change-bah-eligibility/30232701/
CW5 Charlie Poulton LTC John Shaw Sgt David G Duchesneau TSgt Hunter Logan CWO3 (Join to see) SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. SPC Jeff Daley, PhD SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL CPT John Hermida PO1 John Miller SGT (Join to see) SGT Kristin Wiley CPT (Join to see) COL Mikel J. Burroughs Capt Richard I P. MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca Capt Seid Waddell GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad @ch (cpt) William
What are your thoughts on this act and the issue at hand?
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/pay/allowances/2015/07/16/dont-change-bah-eligibility/30232701/
CW5 Charlie Poulton LTC John Shaw Sgt David G Duchesneau TSgt Hunter Logan CWO3 (Join to see) SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. SPC Jeff Daley, PhD SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL CPT John Hermida PO1 John Miller SGT (Join to see) SGT Kristin Wiley CPT (Join to see) COL Mikel J. Burroughs Capt Richard I P. MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca Capt Seid Waddell GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad @ch (cpt) William
Air Force
BAH
Military Pay
Compensation
Policy
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 12
5
5
0
CW3 (Join to see)
I'm out of up votes for the day but I'll get you tomorrow. I applaud Madam Secretary James and hope that her fellow Secretaries back her, as well as the military heads of the branches/Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I'm out of up votes for the day but I'll get you tomorrow. I applaud Madam Secretary James and hope that her fellow Secretaries back her, as well as the military heads of the branches/Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
Good, that section was completely asinine, and if this were the civilian sector wouldn't stand up to any scrutiny. Just because we call it an "allowance" doesn't mean BAH is not part of a Service Member's total Compensation Package.
(3)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
If they were to nix BAH, I wonder how the total compensation package would work with a service member assigned to Fort Irwin, CA versus one assigned to the Pentagon. Totally different cost of living.
I guess there would be a COLA system but then again, BAH is adjusted just like COLA based upon location....
I guess there would be a COLA system but then again, BAH is adjusted just like COLA based upon location....
(1)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - I still disagree with you, I was in this same issue. I was married to another SM, She drew Full BAH and I drew 1/2 BAH. Nobody will turn down free money. I understand the article and I have always felt the 1.5 BAH for married dual military couple should be disallowed under certain circumstances. What about those dual military couples who are assigned to different duty stations? Should we punish them for the needs of the Service?
I do like how you state "You are wrong on this issue. You may have a point regarding off-base quarters"... I'm guessing by your statement I am 1/2 wrong? lol...
The Government has no "Contractual Obligation" to allow a SM to live off-post. Show me a numbered line item in your enlistment contract where it states that quarters will be provided to you. It doesn't and never has. Quarters are provided at the needs and ability of the Service and depending on the unit, certain Commanders do not allow living off-post. Providing quarters as a dollar value is a ridiculous analogy method.
Where does your "Contractual Obligation" for housing or shelter go when deployed or during a field exercise? Please tell me you have some field training experience CONUS or OCONUS where you slept on the ground whether it be in the sand, brush or snow. Even on the hood of a HMMWV would count.
The point of the discussion comes down to costs; dollars and cents for the entire force. I understand what the AF Sec stated and what the article stated. Dollars are Dollars... She and any politician can stand up and state "we are going to save the program", but in their mind it all comes down to the numbers. BAH needs to be cut 100%, IMO!
I do like how you state "You are wrong on this issue. You may have a point regarding off-base quarters"... I'm guessing by your statement I am 1/2 wrong? lol...
The Government has no "Contractual Obligation" to allow a SM to live off-post. Show me a numbered line item in your enlistment contract where it states that quarters will be provided to you. It doesn't and never has. Quarters are provided at the needs and ability of the Service and depending on the unit, certain Commanders do not allow living off-post. Providing quarters as a dollar value is a ridiculous analogy method.
Where does your "Contractual Obligation" for housing or shelter go when deployed or during a field exercise? Please tell me you have some field training experience CONUS or OCONUS where you slept on the ground whether it be in the sand, brush or snow. Even on the hood of a HMMWV would count.
The point of the discussion comes down to costs; dollars and cents for the entire force. I understand what the AF Sec stated and what the article stated. Dollars are Dollars... She and any politician can stand up and state "we are going to save the program", but in their mind it all comes down to the numbers. BAH needs to be cut 100%, IMO!
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
BAH is there because it is significantly cheaper to provide people with money to rent off base than it is to build and maintain on base housing in the numbers required. Hence, the reason a significant number of the base housing today is privatized. So really, unless you want people living in tents you really have no valid argument.
You talk about the civilian sector. Are you saying that if someone was to dock your pay that significantly you wouldn't immediately begin to look for other work ? Currently serving members don't have that option.
Total compensation includes BAS and BAH..most military members can claim WIK and other benefits based on actual income not including the allowances.. Yes, military members would qualufy for certain welfare benefits based on salary. So based on your opinion military members should be under or barely over the poverty line. That would be great for retention.
Honestly, its quite sad I'm an E5 with 8 years in and I still don't make what I was making as a civilian as a electrician apprentice. But then again, it isn't all about the money.
You talk about the civilian sector. Are you saying that if someone was to dock your pay that significantly you wouldn't immediately begin to look for other work ? Currently serving members don't have that option.
Total compensation includes BAS and BAH..most military members can claim WIK and other benefits based on actual income not including the allowances.. Yes, military members would qualufy for certain welfare benefits based on salary. So based on your opinion military members should be under or barely over the poverty line. That would be great for retention.
Honestly, its quite sad I'm an E5 with 8 years in and I still don't make what I was making as a civilian as a electrician apprentice. But then again, it isn't all about the money.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I am glad the AFS cares, because someone needs to. If the government wants to cut some costs, why don't they stop granting funds so scientist can build treadmills for shrimp from the ocean for research?
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2014/11/shrimp_on_a_treadmill_worthwhi.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2014/11/shrimp_on_a_treadmill_worthwhi.html
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Have you ever thought about why the Air Force has less problems with their personnel than other branches? Each branch has their own agenda and will not sway from it, one iota. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the Air Force is accruing their funds from the other branches. I don't know about the military, but in the civilian world, if you are given a budget and you don't use it all, you won't be allowed the same budget the following year. Maybe the Air Force is better at using all of their budget , so the next year, they can increase their budget. Just a thought.
(2)
(0)
CMSgt Tom Qualls
Well they cut a lot of personnel prior to my retirement trying to fund new aircraft. From what I've seen and understand, quality of life isn't as big a concern as it was, but at least the Secretary is trying to do the right thing and I applaud her for that....
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CMSgt Tom Qualls, When I was in Vietnam, we, the pilots, myself, and our CE would fly to Pleiku air base and grab some chow. We always had a small manifest to pick up supplies for a mess hall were we're building. It always seemed to take a lot of time, waiting for the supplies. LOL
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
I saw that article yesterday. I was glad to see that Chief Cody was speaking up and that Secretary James was also voicing disapproval.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
CW3 (Join to see) There is nothing in the verbiage that says it, but this strikes me as ARSE covering, it is already baked into the legislation. Perhaps she was not aware...I don't buy it, the service secretaries continuously massage legislation, especially the USAF who make a profession out of legislative aids.
(2)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
I guess we can say the Air Force leadership does a good job of winning the hearts and minds of their force.
(3)
(0)
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm glad to hear it or in this case read it. However, I hope her comments are not in category of too little, too late. The words "negative retention impact", don't strike me as particularly forceful. Especially when it is followed by "we are mindful of the budget pressures" and "cuts to BAH are not the kind of reductions our troops deserve". She needs to start using active words like Serious, Immediate, Necessary, Failure, etc.
(2)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
Sorry MSgt James Mullis I have to disagree 100%. Boot out those who arent "elite" in their field and the budget wouldnt be a problem! DoD is FAT and needs to go on a diet!
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It sounds like one of the unanticipated consequences might have been that couples wouldn't get married.
(2)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
That could very well happen, but I am not sure how common this phenomena would be.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google