Family Services vs. DoD Budget Cuts

SGT Gary Frank — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:49:07 -0500

The suggestions in this piece are not designed to offend anyone, but to express what may be one of many solutions to the problems that face our military's economic situation.

I know that this will piss some people off, and I know this sounds heartless, but I support cuts in the Family Services for the Military.

I do ask for those who disagree with this commentary, Please give you reasons.

An anonymous "THUMBS DOWN" doesn't exactly add to a discussion.

The Military was never designed to be Welfare Program for the under privileged, yet the DoD spends Billions on just that. I remember when I was a young Sergeant, there was an unmarried female soldier who had 3 kids from three different fathers who was a lower rank than myself.

BTW: she was with child again by an unknown assailant.

The Army rewarded her for her promiscuous behavior by giving her an allowance so she could live in Off Base Housing. She also received money for separate Rations, this was in Germany so she also received an increase on her Rations Card for her PX and Commissary Privileges. Also she was granted an increase in pay for her Dependents. In a nut shell, this SINGLE[unmarried} lower enlisted soldier was making more money than a Single NCO [who is required to live in the barracks] by a substantial amount.

Today we have an ALL VOLUNTEER Force, we do not depend on The Draft to fill the ranks of our Armed Services. The Military can afford and should be more selective as to who they will allow to enter into service, and IMHO, All ACTIVE DUTY Recruits must be Unmarried and may not marry until they have been promoted to an NCO. I also believe that a soldier should not be promoted from E-4 to E-5 until their first reenlistment. Sorry Guys and Gals, but due to the cuts only Career Soldiers should be considered for these Finite Slots.

If you are married and want to serve your country, join the Reserves or National Guard. As they used to say,
"If the Army wanted you to have a Wife, It would have Issued you one."

Thank You ALL for Your Service.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 3:57 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:57:19 -0500

There are probably some locations where family services probably could be cut because of local off-post services that are available to those service members and their dependents. However the government keeps doing these broad brush budget cuts because it is easier than doing a deep dive into each location. It really isn't that hard to itemize, they are just taking the lazy way out.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 3:58 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:58:49 -0500

I understand most of your points - and have seen folks take advantage of the system…because they could. The Army does do ALOT for their Soldiers. One would be hard pressed to find a civilian employer who offers 1/2 the benefits the Army offers its Soldiers.

I had a SFC (single) come to me for an AER loan to pay his bills. I denied it for obvious reasons. I had my 1LT PL counsel his SFC PSG on how to maintain a budget because he was living above his means…there was a 15-20 year age gap between the two.

However - I don't agree that all Active Duty Recruits must be unmarried. There are plenty of Army Recruits that are in their 25-30s that come in the Army…married…and do just fine. You would have a hard time convincing anyone (who could actually make that happen) to make that an entrance standard.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 7:18 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:18:27 -0500

SGT Frank.

The military life imposes numerous very severe strains on the service member that civilian employment does not even begin to approach. The meager salary of our enlisted personnel, exceptionally long absence from home during deployments and foreign sea duty, risk of serious disease / injury / disfigurement / disability / maiming / death, the risk of unbearably long extended MIA / POW status, routine repeated moves every few years, and many other difficulties mandate the provision of family support to put food on some tables, provide for dependent medical care, psychological adjustment support for the servicemember / family members in preparation for departure and return to family life, etc.

While there are those who may be perceived to be taking advantage of the system, let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater, preserve what is good and eliminate waste from the family support system. But, do not discard the time tested family support system!!!

For their part, spouses and families provide a reason to return home, provide informal psychological support, and help our troops heal from both visible and invisible wounds of war. Many of us believe spouses and families provide an essential source of security and stability for service men and women without which we would be hard pressed to carry on.

Do we really want to confine our active duty military recruiting to individuals who either have not or cannot establish one long lasting intellectually, emotionally, and romantically satisfying relationship? Many of us believe that married men and women provide role models, maturity, sense of security and stability for our younger troops who may be in search of something more human in life. Do we want a military composed primarily of young unattached men and women?

Without spouses and families, who is going to provide the necessary long term care for our wounded service members when they are discharged from hospital to return to their homes?

Family services are in a sense compensation provided to support helpful healing family life.

Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2014 7:56 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:56:08 -0500

I don't want to dive into all of these points, but I could quickly see the erosion of the all volunteer force under these suggestions. As a recruiter a good majority of the applicants I process are with wife and or children. Maybe the answer is to do credit checks on everyone applying to make sure their finances are in order from the start and than as leaders when they assess, train them as we are supposed to and look out for their well being. If we as leaders can not set a positive example for new military members to follow, than you can change all the rules that you want only to face a different type of problem with the different military you create.

Response by SGT Seth Wardell made May 6 at 2014 1:41 PM

SGT Seth Wardell — Tue, 06 May 2014 13:41:11 -0400

How about something a little different, instead of saying 'you can't be married', how about extending the current stabilization drive?

Get away from the current 2-3-4 year enlistment options, and move to a 10 year contractual military obligation, with 5 or 6 years inital active duty?
Instead of rotating personnel every couple years, only move service members with a new contract, every 5 or 6 years.

A prospective servicemember is going to think a lot harder about joining if they are going in with the expectation of 10 years of service, moreso than a teenager expecting to join for 4 years and then 'move on with their life'.

likewise a servicemember who could expect to be at the same duty station for 5 years, working for the same people, I would like to think they would make a greater investment in the unit than if the commander is rotating every year or two and they expect to be gone not too long after him or her.

Combine that with a (slightly) more discriminatory recrutiing and retention policy - screen better for gang affiliations or potentially unsuitable candidates, and the services might be able to stabilize with a more invested force.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made May 14 at 2015 3:00 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Thu, 14 May 2015 15:00:08 -0400

While overall I agree that BAH and family allowances might seem excessive, we have to take care of our families. I fully agree that some people are taking advantage of the system, male service members can get allowances for a child out of wedlock and receive the allowance for where the child is living, and quite often the child doesn't receive the full amount if any.
Its going to be hard to set a standard for saying when someone can get married, if I remember correctly when I was stationed in Japan the Marines had a policy that E-3 and below could not get married.
Promotions are based on time in rate and time in service, many of our service members work hard for their promotions and want to advance as quickly as possible, I don't see the sense in forcing people to stay an E4 longer than necessary.
A married service member has more to balance than a single soldier for the most part because of the need to maintain qualifications and work load balanced by family responsibilities.
I don't think that a majority of the single service members are scamming the system, there are some but not that many.
Its hard enough with our screwed up pay to make ends meet, even the additional money paid as being married our with dependents its still tough to make ends meet.
No matter how you stir the pot, money for service members is always going to be second fiddle to the shiny new toys that our politicians want to procure at the expense of pay and benefits.