Posted on Mar 11, 2015
Should we really get BAH and BAS if we are deployed?
133K
877
346
9
9
0
This will surely be a heated debate. As leaders we are looking for ways to be smart with our money, so why do we all get full BAH and BAS when we are deployed? We are provided with housing and food without any costs to us overseas. So should we be given BAH and BAS while deployed?
BAH
Deployment
Military Pay
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 123
27
27
0
If you are required to maintain non-government housing, you should receive BAH. Rent doesn't stop because you deployed. BAS should stop whenever you receive meals in kind.
(27)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
@SP6 Michael Primm "By SP6 Michael Primm about 7 hours ago:
Those entitlements are for your family not you."
An interesting statement, wrong on it's face, yet, a position the Army at least agrees with at times... let me explain.
At its base, BAH and BAS is authorized to the service member... both those with and without family. Yes there is an increased amount based on family,,, yet still the moneys are not per say, for the family.
Yet, should a service member voluntarily or or by order , be removed from the home.. Army Regulation 608–99, Personal Affairs Family Support, Child Custody, and Paternity comes into pay.. and now that same service member who receives BAH and BAS is not obligated to provide some it it to the spouse (BTW Im not advocating a servicemember should NOT be providing for their spouse and children, not at all)
(from Paragraph 1-5-b):
Soldiers are required to manage their personal affairs in a manner that does not bring discredit upon themselves or the U. S. Army. This responsibility includes—
(1) Maintaining reasonable contact with family members so that their financial needs and welfare do not become official matters of concern for the Army (see para 2–1).
(2) Conducting themselves in an honorable manner with regard to parental commitments and responsibilities (see chap 2).
(3) Providing adequate financial support to family members (see paras 2–3 through 2–9)
To answer the OPs question directly .
Yes the service member should be allowed to retain BAH. The service authorized other than government furnished housing,, they should not rescind that authorization upon deployment orders.
BAS.. like it or not, that funding is to provide from the servicemembers substance.. period. Yes that money bundled with other is used collectively to feed the family, but that is a decision of the service member.. If the service is providing sustenance directly (food while deployed or in training) then there is no "right" for BAS, even though budgetary wise there may be a need on the servicemembers part. My only want for this is a standard established, and service members informed, counseled, and acknowledge the loss of BAS well in advance of the benefit being stopped. The patchwork of enforcement is difficult for junior service members to deal with in many cases
Those entitlements are for your family not you."
An interesting statement, wrong on it's face, yet, a position the Army at least agrees with at times... let me explain.
At its base, BAH and BAS is authorized to the service member... both those with and without family. Yes there is an increased amount based on family,,, yet still the moneys are not per say, for the family.
Yet, should a service member voluntarily or or by order , be removed from the home.. Army Regulation 608–99, Personal Affairs Family Support, Child Custody, and Paternity comes into pay.. and now that same service member who receives BAH and BAS is not obligated to provide some it it to the spouse (BTW Im not advocating a servicemember should NOT be providing for their spouse and children, not at all)
(from Paragraph 1-5-b):
Soldiers are required to manage their personal affairs in a manner that does not bring discredit upon themselves or the U. S. Army. This responsibility includes—
(1) Maintaining reasonable contact with family members so that their financial needs and welfare do not become official matters of concern for the Army (see para 2–1).
(2) Conducting themselves in an honorable manner with regard to parental commitments and responsibilities (see chap 2).
(3) Providing adequate financial support to family members (see paras 2–3 through 2–9)
To answer the OPs question directly .
Yes the service member should be allowed to retain BAH. The service authorized other than government furnished housing,, they should not rescind that authorization upon deployment orders.
BAS.. like it or not, that funding is to provide from the servicemembers substance.. period. Yes that money bundled with other is used collectively to feed the family, but that is a decision of the service member.. If the service is providing sustenance directly (food while deployed or in training) then there is no "right" for BAS, even though budgetary wise there may be a need on the servicemembers part. My only want for this is a standard established, and service members informed, counseled, and acknowledge the loss of BAS well in advance of the benefit being stopped. The patchwork of enforcement is difficult for junior service members to deal with in many cases
(3)
(0)
PV2 Glen Lewis
I had to look these up to find out what they stood for but my feeling for a long time has been that BAH should be a servicemen's right whether deployed or not. It was in my day but that was 45 years ago and an E-1 was getting $125 a month so you just about had to have it.
BAS I think you should be getting if you have a family. Whether you're at home or deployed you still have them to support. Your meals shelter, etc. of course should be covered whenever you're deployed but perhaps not in the States. The Armed Forces are paid almost 10 times what we were paid back in the '70s.
Medical, dental and the like I will always contend that they should be a part of what you are accorded as a member of the Service. I understand that these have to paid for nowadays and I heartily disagree with that policy.
I'm assuming I got the right definition for the acronyms but feel free to correct me if it doesn't look as if I haven't. A lot of what we were accorded has changed since I wore a uniform.
BAS I think you should be getting if you have a family. Whether you're at home or deployed you still have them to support. Your meals shelter, etc. of course should be covered whenever you're deployed but perhaps not in the States. The Armed Forces are paid almost 10 times what we were paid back in the '70s.
Medical, dental and the like I will always contend that they should be a part of what you are accorded as a member of the Service. I understand that these have to paid for nowadays and I heartily disagree with that policy.
I'm assuming I got the right definition for the acronyms but feel free to correct me if it doesn't look as if I haven't. A lot of what we were accorded has changed since I wore a uniform.
(0)
(0)
16
16
0
On the active side, BAH is only given to those with qualified dependents. BAH is to provide those dependents with adequate housing. BAS should stop if rations in kind are being provided. Having said that, being deployed I think we should be allowed to get whatever money we can get. Our lives are on the line.
(16)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
1SG (Join to see), can you cite a reg? Yes Single SM's in the barrack/dorms would not get BAH while deployed simply because they don't get BAH to begin with. But a single SM that does not have government quarters would still get BAH while deployed. They CAN use their TDY orders to break lease, but are not required to.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Lorne Houle
Not entirely true. .. I received BAH as an E4 due to base overcrowding. I didn't have a choice.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Hal Weeden, MBA
The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), known prior to 1 Oct 14 as the Joint Federal Travel Regulations, Vol. 1 (JFTR), cover the rules for BAH in Chapter 10. They are needlessly complicated, currently at 106 pages. There are cultural differences between the services on housing as with many things. In the Air Force, it is more common than other services to have insufficient housing on base for junior enlisted personnel. 1SG (Join to see) cites an example of single E-6 and below being required to live in government quarters. I was forced off base as an E-3 with just 17 months service. Anyone who is receiving BAH for living off the installation should continue to receive BAH while deployed, since that is a temporary situation and one needs to maintain their residence. The rules are different if you are TDY instead of deployed. TDY of over 180 days is actually considered a PCS, and per diem is curtailed.
As with everything else in the finance world, there are plenty of exceptions, and the possibility for some waivers. Your actual mileage may vary....
As with everything else in the finance world, there are plenty of exceptions, and the possibility for some waivers. Your actual mileage may vary....
Effective 1 October 2014, the Joint Federal Travel Regulations, Vol. 1 (JFTR), and the Joint Travel Regulations, Vol. 2 (JTR) are consolidated into one volume titled the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR).This action reduced redundant information and the overall number of pages of travel regulations.All issuances should be updated with the correct JTR name and/or paragraph reference(s). If necessary, issuances may be submitted for review, to...
(1)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
1SG (Join to see) - I think you will find that most post restrict CNA's of E5's and below, E6 and above can live on the Economy. Deployment does not cancel your BAH as long as your original base is listed as your PCS location.
(0)
(0)
14
14
0
When voting, one should consider Reservists who are married w/kids, etc who really take it on the chin when deployed
(14)
(0)
1SG Michael Blount
SSgt (Join to see) - more easily said than done, SSgt, especially for the services not named USMC. Frankly, I'm not sure I want to be on deployment with someone whose focus is not on the mission because he's worried about his family's financial situation. If BAH/BAS scratches that itch, then it's a small price to pay
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
The army pays huge bonuses for most of these soldiers to come back pay millions to private weapon contractors while putting soldiers on the side. This makes a lot of soldiers not want to re-up. The reason why you don't see them coming back of this bullshit the army pulls off, taking benefits away using their broad so called rules, this happened with education benefits for part time soldiers where they were going to take it out entirely by bending broad term rules and now this.
Most of the young ones make more back at home and they can't survive and support themselves making ends meet back home.
You are losing out on good soldiers.
Most of the young ones make more back at home and they can't survive and support themselves making ends meet back home.
You are losing out on good soldiers.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) - That’s a little narrow minded yes? I’m in the National Guard and still have a family back home to house whilst deployed. Should they just be put out on the street? As mentioned above, the allowance is for the family...not the SM.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google