Posted on Sep 15, 2018
Does possible misappropriation of federal funds, constitute fraud waste and abuse?
5.3K
19
19
2
2
0
Is California the only state Army National Guard, to have a policy against Medically Non Deployable Soldiers participating in Annual Training, and "field" IDTs? (presumably, the FEDERAL funds provided to the state, for the ATs of these Soldiers, are still provided and not expended.. So if that's the case, does that constitute fraud waste and abuse?)(The 2013 order I'm referring to, appears to violate multiple Army regulations, including 40-501, 135-91, and 600-20. Namely by bullying the most vulnerable group of Soldiers, not honoring contractual obligations, and stopping Soldiers from performing their contractual obligations. MG Haskins appears to attempt to differ blame, by placing the decision on needing a "G-1 waiver", as opposed to Commander's retaining the ability to determine participation based on the medical determination made by the Soldiers health care team.)
UCMJ
Armed Forces Staff College
Congress
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
SSG Lyle O'Rorke - BY NOT paying people? How is this coisting the feederal government a penny the funding is based on the number of troops that are trained it is not a blank check.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr - verbal vote down. As far as I know, the funding is based on numbers, if that's the case, then when ans not provided Equivalent Training, as required by reg, then if that money is being used elsewhere, it's not being used for its intended purpose. I submit there are variables I'm not aware of, but it seems legitimate to ask the question. Further, the Soldiers have contracts. They are required to participate, within the constraints of their profiles. Might it not be fraud, waste and abuse, to require these Soldiers to violate their contracts, not to mention, to mandate the violation of those contracts, by the CA ARNG?
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I was in 2 State National Guards ( New Mexico & Texas) in each the Non Deployable Soldiers, still went to ATs and were used for manning the TOCs, and Administrative duties that every AT' s have. The CANG Commander is dutifully wrong in having this policy. And the higher NG Headquarters IG needs to be Investigating this.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
workin on it.. I've tried state IG, and Congresman Ami Bera with no results. Was told to try the House Committee on Armed Services, but they said I should have my Congressman put in for me, so I'm getting a bit of the run around. Thanks much.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jack Stevens
SSG (Join to see) Contact the National Guard Branch IG. Not the California NG IG. The higher branch.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google