53,000 Soldiers Overpaid in January

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Not only do I think they should let them keep it,
I think they should match everyone else with the same amount.
I only say this because as a former soldier, I know how hard it is
sometimes to live with the fact that trashmen/women make more money than
soldiers. I'm a big supporter for our men and women of the armed forces
not qualifying for food stamps.

Soldiers who see an extra few hundred dollars in their mid-month January paychecks shouldn't spend it. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service made an error that will cause about 53,000 Soldiers to be paid too much in January. The Army will collect the funds from end-of-month paychecks to restore financial balance. Most of the affected Soldiers will receive overpayments of between $200 and $300. There are 316 Soldiers who will receive overpayments of more than $500, a DFAS official said. When the Army "draws back" the overpayments, it will take back the overpayments of $500 and more in two installments, officials said, to reduce any potential hardship for Soldiers. Those who received less than $500 extra will see the drawback in the January end of the month paycheck. Those affected are Soldiers who have Army meal cards, but who are authorized for reimbursement for some meals. An incorrect date entered into a computer database caused the error.
CLICK HERE FOR THE ARTICLE

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

anyone else think our military is seriously underpaid?

 

[freeandfun1]

anyone else think our military is seriously underpaid?

Yup! (cept the officers....)

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I think it would be great if we could get back to specialized pay
by MOS. Never liked the fact that an E4 intel analyst got paid the
same amount as an E4 who changes tires all day. But overall
they all get underpaid.

 

[freeandfun1]

I think it would be great if we could get back to specialized pay
by MOS. Never liked the fact that an E4 intel analyst got paid the
same amount as an E4 who changes tires all day. But overall
they all get underpaid.

Too unfair. Should an intel guy get paid more than a grunt that has a very good chance of get'n killed?

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Too unfair. Should an intel guy get paid more than a grunt that has a very good chance of get'n killed?

Never said that, I think it would be hard to rate who gets more but
there should be some kind of standard or incentive for those who better serve
their country. Not saying that we don't need people to change tires, but
what we call "star MOS's" are suffering because people get paid the same
amount to do the easy stuff, like cook, and intel guys find it easier to make
money in the civilian world. Which later causes the Army to stop loss the
"star MOS's" so the can retain them. If not more money, something needs to
be done to help retain those hard to fill slots.

On a side note, I know there are more grunts than intel guys, but we
go out with those guys too. Tactical intel might as well be infantry.

 

[freeandfun1]

Never said that, I think it would be hard to rate who gets more but
there should be some kind of standard or incentive for those who better serve
their country. Not saying that we don't need people to change tires, but
what we call "star MOS's" are suffering because people get paid the same
amount to do the easy stuff, like cook, and intel guys find it easier to make
money in the civilian world. Which later causes the Army to stop loss the
"star MOS's" so the can retain them. If not more money, something needs to
be done to help retain those hard to fill slots.

I understand your point. Perhaps what they outta do is just make it so that certain MOS's start out at higher pay grades. They need to bring back Specialists 5th Class, 6th Class, etc. Then, for example, when an intel guy graduates from AIT, he should be a SPC4 for example and then a year later, a SPC5 so on and so forth.

The only problem I have with that is that it creates two military systems in one. I can't see a SPC5 intel guy with 2 years in service "outranking" and getting paid more than an infantry corporal that has four 4 years TIS and, likely, 2 years in a combat zone....

Maybe the SPC thing is what you meant before about bringing back the specialties.....

 

[freeandfun1]

On a side note, I know there are more grunts than intel guys, but we go out with those guys too. Tactical intel might as well be infantry.

Perhaps what they should do then is, in place of "combat" pay that everybody gets, give "dangerous duty combat pay" to those that are more likely to engage the enemy.

With the battlefield lines as blurred as they are these days, it is kinda hard to say that a cook or mechanic doesn't have a chance of getting killed.

As for the intel guy vs. the mechanic, well, the intel guy gets a lot of perks the mechanic likely doesn't (air conditioning, heating, beds, etc.) just because you guys work under much different conditions. So overall, it works out the way it is just fine IMHO.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I understand your point. Perhaps what they outta do is just make it so that certain MOS's start out at higher pay grades. They need to bring back Specialists 5th Class, 6th Class, etc. Then, for example, when an intel guy graduates from AIT, he should be a SPC4 for example and then a year later, a SPC5 so on and so forth.

The only problem I have with that is that it creates two military systems in one. I can't see a SPC5 intel guy with 2 years in service "outranking" and getting paid more than an infantry corporal that has four 4 years TIS and, likely, 2 years in a combat zone....

Maybe the SPC thing is what you meant before about bringing back the specialties.....

ya, that's what I meant.
I don't really know of a good solution I guess...
Maybe that's why there isn't one already.

I never want to disqualify infantry. I think they are a valuable asset and
should be treated as such. I just hate to see the military suffer for lack
of skill. Everyone has the right to choose what they want to do in the Army
(if they are qualified) but that's the point...We are running out of people
who express an interest to stay in the more valuable fields, to include
infantry.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Perhaps what they should do then is, in place of "combat" pay that everybody gets, give "dangerous duty combat pay" to those that are more likely to engage the enemy.

With the battlefield lines as blurred as they are these days, it is kinda hard to say that a cook or mechanic doesn't have a chance of getting killed.

As for the intel guy vs. the mechanic, well, the intel guy gets a lot of perks the mechanic likely doesn't (air conditioning, heating, beds, etc.) just because you guys work under much different conditions. So overall, it works out the way it is just fine IMHO.

Retention is still a problem, as for air conditioning, heating, beds.....
I guess I missed that part of the job...

 

[freeandfun1]

ya, that's what I meant.
I don't really know of a good solution I guess...
Maybe that's why there isn't one already.

I never want to disqualify infantry. I think they are a valuable asset and
should be treated as such. I just hate to see the military suffer for lack
of skill. Everyone has the right to choose what they want to do in the Army
(if they are qualified) but that's the point...We are running out of people
who express an interest to stay in the more valuable fields, to include
infantry.

I agree and that is why we need to boost the pay of the military substantially while also being extremely picky about whom we let in. It can't be like the 70's and early 80's where we let people in that can't read or write. We can't let people in that can barely pass the ASVAB. We need to increase pay and benefits while also increasing entrance requirements.

 

[freeandfun1]

Retention is still a problem, as for air conditioning, heating, beds.....
I guess I missed that part of the job...

Well, when in Korea the last year I was there, I worked in the Brigade S2/S3 shop and when we went to the field, we also had it much easier than the grunts, mechanics, etc. We had nice tents, the TOC was heated and cooled, the meals were good, etc. So frankly, I was basing it more on that experience but also on the fact that (correct me if I am wrong) most of the intel guys are working in Brigade, Division or higher HQ anyway and those guys are always in pretty nice conditions.....

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I agree and that is why we need to boost the pay of the military substantially while also being extremely picky about whom we let in. It can't be like the 70's and early 80's where we let people in that can't read or write. We can't let people in that can barely pass the ASVAB. We need to increase pay and benefits while also increasing entrance requirements.

AGREED

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Well, when in Korea the last year I was there, I worked in the Brigade S2/S3 shop and when we went to the field, we also had it much easier than the grunts, mechanics, etc. We had nice tents, the TOC was heated and cooled, the meals were good, etc. So frankly, I was basing it more on that experience but also on the fact that (correct me if I am wrong) most of the intel guys are working in Brigade, Division or higher HQ anyway and those guys are always in pretty nice conditions.....

I had the special title of the on-loan analyst, as did many other guys I knew.
Many units would pull from our shop (DIV level) to deploy as one of them.
I never even worked in our DIV level shop. It was just a hub so they could
whore the lower enlisted out and the NCO's could sit pretty on FT. Carson.

 

[CSM]

There is no question that our men and women in the military are underpaid. It has always been that way. I can tell you that each MOS is critical at one time or another. A cook can be just as important (and at times more so) than an infantryman or mechanic. It all depends on the individual circumstance. The Army in particular is going through a very tough transformation period right now; not only because it was directed some time ago, but precisely because of the asymmetrical conflicts we are currently engaged in. We have artillerymen leading troops in light infantry missions; women are just as exposed to the dangers as men are (despite the press, congress and administration's stance on women in combat) and many of our military personnel are finding themselves in situations that their job description NEVER
foresaw.

I don't know how much an entry level soldier should be paid but it sure as heck should be more than they are getting.

 

[CSM]

Go here to see the proposed pay scales for military:

http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/

I would point out that an E-4 with two years of service gets under $20,000 a year. One of my sons just got a job at a company that pays him 33k a year. This entry level with no training....

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Great job Sarrrnt Major

 

[5stringJeff]

Go here to see the proposed pay scales for military:

http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/

I would point out that an E-4 with two years of service gets under $20,000 a year. One of my sons just got a job at a company that pays him 33k a year. This entry level with no training....

I'll counter with this: that E-4 gets free housing, or a housing allowance that will let him pay for rent. That alone is worth 7-14K per year, depending on location. He also gets three free meals every day, or a food allowance that allows him to eat on the economy. Again, that's worth 2-3K a year. Plus free medical/dental care, which would cost a minimum of $200/mo, or $2400/yr on the outside. So that E-4 may only be taking home $20K/yr, but they are getting benefits that boost his total compensation to about $31-39K/yr. Fairly competitive. And let's not forget about the 30 days of leave each year...

 

[CSM]

I'll counter with this: that E-4 gets free housing, or a housing allowance that will let him pay for rent. That alone is worth 7-14K per year, depending on location. He also gets three free meals every day, or a food allowance that allows him to eat on the economy. Again, that's worth 2-3K a year. Plus free medical/dental care, which would cost a minimum of $200/mo, or $2400/yr on the outside. So that E-4 may only be taking home $20K/yr, but they are getting benefits that boost his total compensation to about $31-39K/yr. Fairly competitive. And let's not forget about the 30 days of leave each year...

Competitive with what? even at the high end of 40k, you are (as a minimum) asking this guy to deploy every two years or so, sometimes putting his life on the line in a manner with which no policeman or fireman could ever imagine. That "free" medical and dental costs him (see the Tri Care plan). Also, unmarried E-4s are not elligible for BAQ and seperate rats.

What folks dont realize is that those extra "benefits" (while looking good on paper) dont make up for a lot of things in a soldier's life. The deployments and separations, the risks that go on even in training, and so forth. 40k sounds like a great starting salary and it is...if you are not moving every 18-24 months, dont plan on buying a house, or saving for kids college education, etc.

 

[CSM]

I'll counter with this: that E-4 gets free housing, or a housing allowance that will let him pay for rent. That alone is worth 7-14K per year, depending on location. He also gets three free meals every day, or a food allowance that allows him to eat on the economy. Again, that's worth 2-3K a year. Plus free medical/dental care, which would cost a minimum of $200/mo, or $2400/yr on the outside. So that E-4 may only be taking home $20K/yr, but they are getting benefits that boost his total compensation to about $31-39K/yr. Fairly competitive. And let's not forget about the 30 days of leave each year...

You forgot to mention tuition reimbursement and career training too. makes you wonder why the Army can't make it's recruiting goals with such a great deal!