Posted on Mar 11, 2015
Should we really get BAH and BAS if we are deployed?
135K
877
341
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 >1 y ago
Responses: 122
2
2
0
2
2
0
I think you should have added a little background about your current situation. Are you single, married, children?
Either could make your opinion about the matter very biased.
I could go one step further and I ask why do married people with children get additional money for their dependents when they are doing the same job and their single counterparts. As a single person with no children I'm biased and those with children are biased as well in many ways with how we answer such question. For me, if it's authorized, I want every penny, until the moment it becomes unauthorized.
Either could make your opinion about the matter very biased.
I could go one step further and I ask why do married people with children get additional money for their dependents when they are doing the same job and their single counterparts. As a single person with no children I'm biased and those with children are biased as well in many ways with how we answer such question. For me, if it's authorized, I want every penny, until the moment it becomes unauthorized.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSgt (Join to see) I love the give it til me til you say I am not authorized it! I am just asking the question that I feel may have to be asked. If we are not cutting other locations and we do not want to cut base pay or positions where are we cutting from?
(2)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
It's probably, comparatively, such a small cost to the military that it just hasn't been addressed. It will, along with every other military benefit, all of which are being cut as we speak. there are other things I see that we do every day that should be cut, but will never be cut. I can't believe the things we waist money on. If we were a real business, we'd be out of business. But honestly, from a business stand point, I would certainly not allow this at all, but the whole military financial system is setup like this. Look at end of year spending. The whole idea of use it or lose it, it's like Black Friday for the military, where everyone across the military goes out and purchases a whole bunch stuff they don't need so they don't lose it in next year's budget. Now if that's not waist, I don't know what is. This, in my opinion, is a bigger issue than the one you pose. But I get your point!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Yes we should if we are a single income household with dependants then we should be entitled to bah and bas. Our families don't stop having needs just because we are deployed
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
BAH, YES: BAS, NO. When I was stationed in Korea both time I was married. My BAS (Sep Rats) was cut off but I continued to get BAH because I still had a home (Apt) to maintain for my wife to live in. The same should still apply today as married soldiers still have to maintain a roof over their families heads.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
If we are on this topic, there is a way to save money without hindering a Soldiers ability to provide shelter for his/her family. One also not popular I am sure.
How many dual military families do you know? How many senior ranking Soldiers/Officers are married to another senior leader? Lets just take Hawaii for an example. Two SFC's married, one will receive BAH with dependents at the rate of $3,312 while the spouse gets another $2,925.
If the BAH is for the family, in this scenario the family is more than taken care of. In fact I believe that this is the same pay out as if they had no kids. Do they really need $6237 to go live in a million dollar home? Or could this be some of the fat that needs trimmed?
Do dual COL marriages (seen it, and without kids) really need over $8000 a month to live in Hawaii?
If it is for the family, why is it only paid out as "with or without dependents"? Why, if its for the family does a Soldier with one kid receive the same as one with 4? Worse yet, why would a married Soldier with no kids get the same as the Soldier with 4 or 5 kids?
I realize this was whether or not a Soldier should be allotted BAH while deployed. It all revolves around wasted payed out monies. Clearly as BAH is paid out, its a entitlement of the Soldier and should not be taken away now that he/she is over doing the hardest part of the job.
There are many ways to save money before trying or even talking about taking away benefits of someone downrange.
BAS is a no brainer, we are given chow halls and MREs. You're deployed, not on vacation....eat an MRE, you will live.
How many dual military families do you know? How many senior ranking Soldiers/Officers are married to another senior leader? Lets just take Hawaii for an example. Two SFC's married, one will receive BAH with dependents at the rate of $3,312 while the spouse gets another $2,925.
If the BAH is for the family, in this scenario the family is more than taken care of. In fact I believe that this is the same pay out as if they had no kids. Do they really need $6237 to go live in a million dollar home? Or could this be some of the fat that needs trimmed?
Do dual COL marriages (seen it, and without kids) really need over $8000 a month to live in Hawaii?
If it is for the family, why is it only paid out as "with or without dependents"? Why, if its for the family does a Soldier with one kid receive the same as one with 4? Worse yet, why would a married Soldier with no kids get the same as the Soldier with 4 or 5 kids?
I realize this was whether or not a Soldier should be allotted BAH while deployed. It all revolves around wasted payed out monies. Clearly as BAH is paid out, its a entitlement of the Soldier and should not be taken away now that he/she is over doing the hardest part of the job.
There are many ways to save money before trying or even talking about taking away benefits of someone downrange.
BAS is a no brainer, we are given chow halls and MREs. You're deployed, not on vacation....eat an MRE, you will live.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see), I agree with some of your argument (who needs $8000 for rent a month? - nobody!) but feel you're heading down a slippery slope. Specifically with BAH here, you're talking entitlements, and entitlements aren't tied to need - they are simply part of a contract. We don't operated from the framework "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Marx).
Think this defines a lot of the uneasiness I have with this thread and the idea that entitlements should ever be based on what someone needs simply because they need it. We are not Socialists. We each (should have) understood pay/benefits/entitlements when we signed a contract to serve... and that shouldn't be adjusted because we have more or less of a need. Need more money? Find the job that will get you there and go after it.
Think this defines a lot of the uneasiness I have with this thread and the idea that entitlements should ever be based on what someone needs simply because they need it. We are not Socialists. We each (should have) understood pay/benefits/entitlements when we signed a contract to serve... and that shouldn't be adjusted because we have more or less of a need. Need more money? Find the job that will get you there and go after it.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Yes Ma'am, I say the same to those in my bussiness, want more money? Do more. As far as the BAH, I mearly bring up an option for cutting back when* they do, because it is coming. Wasn't arguing who needed what, just showing where it could be trimmed back. Perfect world, they don't have to touch a thing, but it is coming.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I once spent 5 months living out of the back of a truck and sleeping in transient tents with questionable ventilation...I'd of been pissed if the Army considered that "housing."
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) You mean 4 star hotels with running water and A/C. I would've been happy to be able to just crap in a porta-john, instead of the 25mm can...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
When deployed, I still had a family back home to feed, and housing to pay for. Yes, I know those entitlements are "for the Soldier" but this Soldier has an obligation to continuously support his family (regs say you can be UCMJed for failure to support your family).
While deployed, I didn't get to choose my housing, nor those whom I lived with. In Afghanistan, I lived in a 30' CONEX with two other guys. I had about 18 sq ft of living space, and had to go outside and downstairs to use the bathroom or take a shower. Hardly worth my BAH, or even 1/10 of my BAH.
The DFACs at KAF weren't horrible, but the food was definitely NOT worth my BAS.
When I came into the Army, I intended to stay for 20 years. But now, with every little thing that is supposed to be a benefit for serving being slowly taken from us or being chipped away piece by piece, I am seriously doubting the benefit of reenlisting in 2017. These types of questions just make me more sure that there won't be any benefit to continuing to serve.
While deployed, I didn't get to choose my housing, nor those whom I lived with. In Afghanistan, I lived in a 30' CONEX with two other guys. I had about 18 sq ft of living space, and had to go outside and downstairs to use the bathroom or take a shower. Hardly worth my BAH, or even 1/10 of my BAH.
The DFACs at KAF weren't horrible, but the food was definitely NOT worth my BAS.
When I came into the Army, I intended to stay for 20 years. But now, with every little thing that is supposed to be a benefit for serving being slowly taken from us or being chipped away piece by piece, I am seriously doubting the benefit of reenlisting in 2017. These types of questions just make me more sure that there won't be any benefit to continuing to serve.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG(P) (Join to see) the BAH is to ensure you are housed. The Army never promised you good quarters but promised to at least give you a poncho liner. BAS is not even enough for us to pay to go to DFAC every meal with a month.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC (Join to see) You could take this to an extreme. Because deployment is a non-permanent condition, yes, you should still get these benefits.
As a Navy officer, when on ships, I had to pay a Wardroom Mess fee, which was always higher than my BAS, so I wasn't getting anything for free. I don't know what it's like in the Army when deployed, but this is the Navy way.
And, there are requirements for minimum square footage for suitable quarters. No Navy stateroom, or conex box in a FOB or any other deployed type shelter meets these requirements.
Besides, what would you do with families in quarters? Kick them out and "send them home" when you deploy?
This is a non-starter...
As a Navy officer, when on ships, I had to pay a Wardroom Mess fee, which was always higher than my BAS, so I wasn't getting anything for free. I don't know what it's like in the Army when deployed, but this is the Navy way.
And, there are requirements for minimum square footage for suitable quarters. No Navy stateroom, or conex box in a FOB or any other deployed type shelter meets these requirements.
Besides, what would you do with families in quarters? Kick them out and "send them home" when you deploy?
This is a non-starter...
LTC (Join to see)
LCDR Jaron Matlow just asking the question. They cutting jobs and benefits, but spending more money on entitlements for people who do nothing but suck the government dry. So how are we going to cut budgets to pay off the national debt? Just stirring thoughts for those on here who may run for office one day. Maybe they will remember this and take away some entitlements for those who are not working.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC (Join to see) Based on your statement, I must be a blood sucking leach, since I have my pension, VA and SSD disability payments - I am a 100% disabled vet.
I think I paid for those benefits with 22 years of service and all the damage my body took, just in a peacetime military. There are those, however, like Tom Coburn who disagree - I say they are wrong.
I'd gladly give up my disability pay if I could be able bodied again, but that train has sailed.
The problem we have right now with DOD budgeting is that both POTUS and Congress have decided that it's fine to put the budget pain on the backs of the troops.
That's why active duty troops took a pay cut this year, and the copay for generic scrips went up a whopping 60%. These actions are UNCONSCIONABLE in a time when we are still at war.
Instead of putting the pain on the people at the tip of the spear, DOD budget cuts need to come from things such as eliminating ill-advised and unwanted acquisition programs, reducing civilian and contract work force, and YES, I'll say it, reducing OPTEMPO.
The only equitable way for DOD to cut the budget is for our "leaders" to have a sea change in the philosophy of the US as police force for the world. As long as we are used as such, budget cuts are inappropriate, and cuts in compensation and benefits are nothing short of malfeasance and abuse of those who cannot fight back. Since the military is prohibited from striking or unionizing, we have no protections. The actions in DC, including the Pentagon, are complete breaches of faith...
I think I paid for those benefits with 22 years of service and all the damage my body took, just in a peacetime military. There are those, however, like Tom Coburn who disagree - I say they are wrong.
I'd gladly give up my disability pay if I could be able bodied again, but that train has sailed.
The problem we have right now with DOD budgeting is that both POTUS and Congress have decided that it's fine to put the budget pain on the backs of the troops.
That's why active duty troops took a pay cut this year, and the copay for generic scrips went up a whopping 60%. These actions are UNCONSCIONABLE in a time when we are still at war.
Instead of putting the pain on the people at the tip of the spear, DOD budget cuts need to come from things such as eliminating ill-advised and unwanted acquisition programs, reducing civilian and contract work force, and YES, I'll say it, reducing OPTEMPO.
The only equitable way for DOD to cut the budget is for our "leaders" to have a sea change in the philosophy of the US as police force for the world. As long as we are used as such, budget cuts are inappropriate, and cuts in compensation and benefits are nothing short of malfeasance and abuse of those who cannot fight back. Since the military is prohibited from striking or unionizing, we have no protections. The actions in DC, including the Pentagon, are complete breaches of faith...
Suspended Profile
CPO Don Alfera CSC Alfera, I agree with all that you have to say here, save the DECA commissary system.
I know that as an MS (now CS, previously other things...) you have worked the commissaries.
My take, at least while being in Virginia Beach was that it wasn't worth my time. Since I lived 30 minutes from NOB and all the other Tidewater commissaries, coupled with the quirks of said system, we never shopped there.
Now, when talking OUTUS, they are vital - even in Hawaii. I was stationed at Pearl twice, so I appreciate the value of the stores there.
That being said, the same quirks, the limited selections in fresh foods, limited off brand products, the ridiculous 5% surcharge and the extortion to pay the baggers, who didn't get paychecks, all combined with distance from the base to make them not all that great, when in Conus.
So, being in Olympia, I never shop at the JBLM commissary.
Additionally, I was always amazed at the redundancy in commissaries. It was crazy that both Pearl and Hickam had separate commissaries. I don't know what they do now as JBPH-H but I hope they've changed that.
I also lament the exchanges - NEX, AFEES, MCX, CGX, VAC not being good values any more. When I enlisted, 1979, the exchanges had spectacular values. Now, they generally cost more than stores in town, for older, less valuable merchandise, especially in electronics. I know there is the sales tax saving, but if it weren't for price matching, you'd be paying a lot more at the exchanges. The JBLM gas stations are almost always 5 to 10 cents higher per gallon than stations just off post.
So, I agree that it's outrageous that our benefits are under attack, but some (the stores) have been of limited to no value for many years now...
I know that as an MS (now CS, previously other things...) you have worked the commissaries.
My take, at least while being in Virginia Beach was that it wasn't worth my time. Since I lived 30 minutes from NOB and all the other Tidewater commissaries, coupled with the quirks of said system, we never shopped there.
Now, when talking OUTUS, they are vital - even in Hawaii. I was stationed at Pearl twice, so I appreciate the value of the stores there.
That being said, the same quirks, the limited selections in fresh foods, limited off brand products, the ridiculous 5% surcharge and the extortion to pay the baggers, who didn't get paychecks, all combined with distance from the base to make them not all that great, when in Conus.
So, being in Olympia, I never shop at the JBLM commissary.
Additionally, I was always amazed at the redundancy in commissaries. It was crazy that both Pearl and Hickam had separate commissaries. I don't know what they do now as JBPH-H but I hope they've changed that.
I also lament the exchanges - NEX, AFEES, MCX, CGX, VAC not being good values any more. When I enlisted, 1979, the exchanges had spectacular values. Now, they generally cost more than stores in town, for older, less valuable merchandise, especially in electronics. I know there is the sales tax saving, but if it weren't for price matching, you'd be paying a lot more at the exchanges. The JBLM gas stations are almost always 5 to 10 cents higher per gallon than stations just off post.
So, I agree that it's outrageous that our benefits are under attack, but some (the stores) have been of limited to no value for many years now...
2
2
0
BAH is for the dependents. They need a place to live while the Soldier is down range. I am a crewchief, and most times we missed chow due to missions. We would have to either skip meals, or buy them.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SFC Vernon McNabb I disagree. BAH is for the servicemembers. It is up to the servicemember to support and provide food and shelter for their dependents. The military deems to give them higher BAH. But I see your point when you are deployed the families are left behind. That is why we are having this conversation.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
If BAH is for servicemembers, I would have received BAH as a single E4. However, I didn't start receiving BAH until I became an E5. Now I'm married and have kids that happen to live in my house with me. Unless the Navy wants to bring them onto the ship with me when I deploy, then I need my full BAH while I'm gone.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Yes on the BAH for sure as you most likely still have property stateside that you will need to continue to pay for. As for BAS, they could possibly cut that because like you said you are getting your food at no cost while you are there and you aren't really in need of food to be delivered to an empty home, unless you have dependents of course. So maybe just cut BAS for single members. I would be more than willing to relinquish my BAS on a deployment for the sake of giving it to someone deployed with a family stateside that would need it.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SrA Matthew Knight BAS is strictly for those serving, hence why it does not rise if you have dependents. While admirable to give up to those with families they get separation pay that really is close to BAS.
(1)
(0)
SrA Matthew Knight
LTC (Join to see) Ah, I am not married so that is something I never knew. Makes sense.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Single military members in the barracks do not get it anyway. But the rest at least are still paying for an apartment or a home, so the BAH is still needed. Now you could stop the BAS for military members that do not have dependents though. We would get COLA, and Hazardous Duty pay according to where we were deployed.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSgt Allan Vrboncic I do want to point out that I do love our military families and I know from experience and as a company commander that they play a vital role in supporting those who serve and that they make sacrifices. I know that we need to support them and take care of them in order to ensure that the Soldiers downrange do not get distracted from their mission worrying if their families are being taken care of or not. I have the upmost respect for them. This discussion is an open debate on benefits that we currently have. That is all.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Allan Vrboncic
I just did a refresher course on BAS and it is intended for the Military members only as you said. Does it go up though if you get married? And no. You should not ever lose your BAS for any reason.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Allan Vrboncic
As you can see. I am very rusty on the benefits. So now I think I have it figured out now So, BAH and BAS should never be stopped. Especially BAH because that means you must be paying for some type of off base housing and the payments do not stop just because you deploy.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSgt Allan Vrboncic BAH goes up with dependents or with rank. BAS is in two rates: enlisted or officer.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Let me ask this.
Was the coffin rack I lived in on ship worth a comparable amount to BAH? What about a tent in the desert? What about those days when I didn't actually receive "housing" at all?
When the government deploys you, whatever previous housing arrangement you had, doesn't cease to exist. Depending on geographic location, that can be sizable.
If they are going to take away BAH, they need to remove dependents from base housing facilities as well. Food for thought.
Was the coffin rack I lived in on ship worth a comparable amount to BAH? What about a tent in the desert? What about those days when I didn't actually receive "housing" at all?
When the government deploys you, whatever previous housing arrangement you had, doesn't cease to exist. Depending on geographic location, that can be sizable.
If they are going to take away BAH, they need to remove dependents from base housing facilities as well. Food for thought.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I would disagree. I would be working and putting money into social security that would be there when I retire and not being used to put a brand new leather coat on someone who has never worked a day in their life and never will by their choice.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC (Join to see) The governments attempts and its successes are unrelated. I believe they try to write fair (highly subjective) law. Their success in doing so.... "Momma always said if you can't say anything nice..."
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
CPT Zachary Brooks
Well 30% of my paycheck goes towards making sure the government can conduct all it's silly projects and studies. Can I claim them as a dependent and get more BAH?
(4)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Will you help me move my stuff into a storage, pay for my storage, find me a home when a return home, and make sure my household goods get moved back in a timely manner. Overall, would you buy me a bed to sleep on while waiting for my household goods. I really don't think you would.
(0)
(0)
3
2
1
Initially, it makes sense to only provide for dependents.
..But then it raises the question of how we discriminate between married and single SMs. The old saying about if the Army wanted you to have a family.. Where are we in that debate?
..But then it raises the question of how we discriminate between married and single SMs. The old saying about if the Army wanted you to have a family.. Where are we in that debate?
(3)
(1)
LTC (Join to see)
1LT L S I need time alone to myself before I can start even going out there to look for a wife or start knocking out kids. Though it only takes one to be paid w/ dependents!
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - "Why are my tax dollars paying for your family? To make a really rough argument what have they done to earn separation pay or the extra BAH? They do not provide a service to the American people more than a police officer's spouse when they go to riots or have to respond to other places....." With you pretty closely on this one.
I'm not anti-family support (am an Army brat who was 'never going to join the military' come hell or high water - and therefore some kind of a product of it. This, in itself, could argue that the support of families has a level of tangible value when you consider the percentage of SMs who are brats make up a huge majority of those who go on to serve in the future ... but I digress), but I have found myself wresting with these inconsistencies throughout command of how to treat SMs (married and unmarried) equitably.
Hypothetical: you have two E4s: one's married and chooses to live off-post, the other is unmarried and required to live in the barracks. Both Soldiers commit the same offense - and say everything else is equal - how do you equitably administer NJP? If you restrict the unmarried Soldier to the BDE footprint, would it be fair for the married Soldier to have to live on-post for the duration of his punishment phase? What if you took pay - would you treat the married Soldier differently because the pay might impact his family?
Know I'm digressing from the central topic here, but it taps a strong vein I like hearing others' opinions on because I'm not completely satisfied with where I am with it. It's complex. And you're right.. there is a total discrepancy in how married/unmarried Soldiers are treated, though not sure it'd fall under an EO protected category.. What if it did? Almost a base post for another discussion.
I'm not anti-family support (am an Army brat who was 'never going to join the military' come hell or high water - and therefore some kind of a product of it. This, in itself, could argue that the support of families has a level of tangible value when you consider the percentage of SMs who are brats make up a huge majority of those who go on to serve in the future ... but I digress), but I have found myself wresting with these inconsistencies throughout command of how to treat SMs (married and unmarried) equitably.
Hypothetical: you have two E4s: one's married and chooses to live off-post, the other is unmarried and required to live in the barracks. Both Soldiers commit the same offense - and say everything else is equal - how do you equitably administer NJP? If you restrict the unmarried Soldier to the BDE footprint, would it be fair for the married Soldier to have to live on-post for the duration of his punishment phase? What if you took pay - would you treat the married Soldier differently because the pay might impact his family?
Know I'm digressing from the central topic here, but it taps a strong vein I like hearing others' opinions on because I'm not completely satisfied with where I am with it. It's complex. And you're right.. there is a total discrepancy in how married/unmarried Soldiers are treated, though not sure it'd fall under an EO protected category.. What if it did? Almost a base post for another discussion.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) if they want the extra pay they have to pay the time if they mess up (family or Soldier). I heard of wives who got sent home from Germany after being disruptive and making it hard for the command to keep good order and discipline. I always think keep this fair, but you always have to treat Soldiers on an individual basis. So if you mess up you get punished, but it may not be the same punishment for each Soldier. Fair does not mean equal.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - fair doesn't mean equal. Absolutely. But if that's the case, we take things into an increasingly subjective realm where the leaders handling the issues may or may not do this effectively (and how do we really train - or receive training - to do this effectively? For me, it was standing in my CDR's office watching him administer FG ART 15s but I was lucky to have an extraordinary boss).
In your opinion, is there a way to keep this more objective?
In your opinion, is there a way to keep this more objective?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I never got both full- full BAH, yes, because my family had to have a roof over their head- got NO, 0, BAS because the Army was feeding me.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes if your Married and Deployed you definitely should receive BAH and BAS along with Family Separation Allowance.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
BAH is for your dependents. BAS is for you. If you are receiving food overseas, then you shouldn't be getting BAS.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Most mobilized Soldiers have a house "back home" whether it is a mortgage or rental. I think for those that have families, this is a no-brainer. It might get trickier with single Soldiers but I mobilized three times as a divorced Officer with no dependents living with me. I had a mortgage to pay while I was deployed and used my BAH for that. I do think that BAS should stop if meals are provided in kind just like it used to be when I was on active duty and went to the field.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe that those living in the barracks, to include young officers in the on-base barracks should not receive any more money than they are in garrison. Those with dependents count on that money to take care of their residence for their dependents, even the SM's BAS is counted into that income. When they go to the field it is taken, but never processed timely so the SM can account for the lower pay for one or two pay periods.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
