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
BAH yes, the money is provided for the servicemember to secure housing for their dependents, this does not change simply due to my being deployed, doesn't matter whether or not I was "issued a family" or not, I have one and the BAH provides for their housing. BAS, depends on the type of deployment IMO, while deployed to OIF and OIF-III where meals were provided I would say no, go ahead and take the separate rations, but then again there were a lot of times that rations other than MREs were not available due to missions or loactions, so I am fifty-fifty on that one. While deployed to Kuwait in support of Op New Dawn as a SFC I was paying for my meals so in this instance no, as I needed the BAS for my food.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Most that reside off base, will not be moving and storing their household goods when they deploy, married or not. Housing allowance should continue. However, BAS is a member's entitlement, not linked to dependents. If you are deployed, there is no reason for BAS to continue.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Does the deployed soldiers loss there dependents and the bills or house costs that we have when we are home just disappear? do they just vanish like a fart in the wind? No the families stay behind and still have to pay the bills that can't be paid on the base salary. The bills don't go away just because we are deployed. still have the rent and the electric and the phones, and the Ect, Ect, Ect...........
(2)
(0)
SGT Bryon Sergent
So those that voted for only the married soldiers. What of the National Guard lower enlisted. They are leaving a job that most of the time pays better than base pay. So there rent and things that are in storage and the other things we as civilian soldiers have to pay for that isn't normally paid for just are up a shit creek with out a paddle.
So a congress man that only has 132 sessions needs over 130,00 dollars for the year, and car service, free medical and all of the other benefits that go with it! Their not even wearing gear let alone dodging bullets! so yes sure cut the military pay and benefits. I CAN SEE WHERE WE NEED TO DO THAT!!!!! And the Cherry congressmen are the one who get that, more if you have been there longer and are on a committee.
So a congress man that only has 132 sessions needs over 130,00 dollars for the year, and car service, free medical and all of the other benefits that go with it! Their not even wearing gear let alone dodging bullets! so yes sure cut the military pay and benefits. I CAN SEE WHERE WE NEED TO DO THAT!!!!! And the Cherry congressmen are the one who get that, more if you have been there longer and are on a committee.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I still have to support my wife and daughter when I'm deployed. Just because I am overseas does not mean that I don't have a mortgage and other bills to pay.
(2)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
Okay I still have to pay for meals eaten underway/in port plus for meals when we get to shore. So yes to BAS as well
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I think so, especially with a family. I was married and my daughter was an infant when I went to Iraq, so we couldn't have paid the bills without BAH, as my wife at the time didn't work.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
BAH, it's for the dependent, not necessarily the service member. That's why they (the dependent) are by regulation entitled to it even in the process of a divorce with no kids (although the amount by regulation they are entitled to is a portion equal to non locality rate).
(2)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
BAS is for the servicemember, not for the dependent...There, an argument could easily be made not to give that to deployed soldiers. Strictly speaking by regulation anyway. I can't justify it other than it's a nice bonus for being in the suck, especially with talks of stopping "combat pay". It's all fair to take away really, when you think about it, and what we joined. "Duh" you're going to deploy. It could however be looked in the opposite light that base pay is "non-combat" pay, for your core function that Kris the army running when not at war. By principle I would argue the latter, at the very least for the junior enlisted and even junior NCO's. Generally speaking, there bodies are taking the brunt of the physical tasks of war. Nothing is ever really argued from principle though. The argument is first made in the making and modifying of regulation. As usual, I'm ranting now.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Pardon the typos and "there". And it's supposed to be "runs" not "Kris"...stupid Swype.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Because our families magically dissapear into magic pocket universes with Star Trek style replicators while we are deployed?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Example if single: Given short notice deployment orders where government storage of household goods is not available, a person is required to move stuff into personal sotrage or maintain a residence with people to watch over their stuff. How do I know? It happened to me.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Financial responsibilities continue on while a service member deploys, especially if he or she has dependents. In regards to BAH, some members are told they cannot live in military housing forcing them to live on the economy (privatized housing on the installation or off base). These companies expect a consistent paycheck whether or not the service member is deployed. For BAS, I believe it is also necessary since the member may not be able to eat the the dining facility while deployed. BAS helps offset food expenses wherever the member is located.
(2)
(0)
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)
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 
