Army debates whether to give Bergdahl $300,000 in back pay!!!

[ShootSpeeders]

Go ahead and desert. When we catch you, there will be no penalty and you'll get your back pay.

Army to decide if Bergdahl is entitled to $300G back pay

nov 9 2017 The U.S. Army is set to decide whether Pvt. Bowe Bergdahl is entitled to as much as $300,000 in back pay and other benefits he amassed during his captivity with the Taliban.

Bergdahl, 31, was captured by the Taliban in 2009 after he walked off base while in Afghanistan. He was given a dishonorable discharge and he was demoted from sergeant to private in a court decision earlier this month but spared prison. President Trump called the ruling a “complete and total disgrace.”

Captive soldiers normally receive special compensation worth around $150,000 in addition to hostile-fire pay and their basic pay they accumulated during the captivity. But determining whether Bergdahl should receive the back pay is not as clear-cut.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Another monstrous screw-up caused by idiot Aunt Barry.

 

[JGalt]

Will they be giving him his $300,000 in Afghanis?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Go ahead and desert. When we catch you, there will be no penalty and you'll get your back pay.

Army to decide if Bergdahl is entitled to $300G back pay

nov 9 2017 The U.S. Army is set to decide whether Pvt. Bowe Bergdahl is entitled to as much as $300,000 in back pay and other benefits he amassed during his captivity with the Taliban.

Bergdahl, 31, was captured by the Taliban in 2009 after he walked off base while in Afghanistan. He was given a dishonorable discharge and he was demoted from sergeant to private in a court decision earlier this month but spared prison. President Trump called the ruling a “complete and total disgrace.”

Captive soldiers normally receive special compensation worth around $150,000 in addition to hostile-fire pay and their basic pay they accumulated during the captivity. But determining whether Bergdahl should receive the back pay is not as clear-cut.

That they are debating it shows how far we've sunk. He caused his own captivity. He should not benefit from it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Army might as well legalize desertion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No.

 

[Moonglow]

Another monstrous screw-up caused by idiot Aunt Barry.

What did the black man do this time?

 

[tyroneweaver]

I don’t think you can deny someone’s pay

 

[Moonglow]

I don’t think you can deny someone’s pay

It can be denied if taken away through jurisprudence..

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don’t think you can deny someone’s pay

When he pled to desertion, ty? I won't quarrel. I am vet, too. But I hope you are wrong.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I don’t think you can deny someone’s pay

He sure as hell didn't earn it. He sided with the enemy - let them pay him.

 

[The Professor]

I don’t think you can deny someone’s pay

The law in this one may not be so cut and dry. The following information is from the United States Army web site:

Missing in Action (MIA) Status: "Missing" is a casualty status, described by United States Code, that provides for missing members of the Military Service. Excluded are personnel who are absent-without-leave (AWOL), deserters, or dropped-from-the-rolls. A person declared missing is categorized as beleaguered, besieged, captured, detained, interned, Missing, or Missing in Action (MIA). To be categorized as MIA, the casualty is a hostile casualty, other than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is not present at his or her duty location due to apparent involuntary reasons and whose location is unknown. A Soldier who enters a missing status is entitled to the pay and allowances to which entitled when the missing status began or to which the member later becomes entitled.

Captive / POW / MIA Entitlements

It is clear that back pay accrues only to someone who is missing in action “due to apparent involuntary reasons”. Desertion by definition is a voluntary act which results in termination of pay and benefits. However, a soldier who is captured by the enemy would be entitled to back pay and all other benefits including promotions on the date he became eligible.

I am not aware of any case law regarding a soldier who deserts and is subsequently captured by the enemy; therefore, I have no idea how the military is going to decide this one. The way I see it is once Bergdahl illegally abandoned his post he was not entitled to pay thereafter. In civilian life, an employer is not responsible for what happens to an employee who is not in a pay status. Since Bergdahl was a deserter, and hence not in a pay status when captured, he should not receive compensation for the period of his captivity.

If Bergdahl sought the enemy and cooperated with them (as some suggest), that would also be a voluntary act and there is no doubt he would not be entitled to back pay during any portion of his absence from duty.