Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off.
 
Deployment Dollars Favored Over More Days Off

This plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff [to compensate soldiers for earlier or more frequent deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan] shows just how out of touch our senior leaders are with the troops on the ground.

One-, two- or three-day passes already are available for company commanders and first sergeants to give. Where is this plan any different from what is already available?

Every command I have served with has used the Army Leave & Pass Policy to great effect upon our return from deployment. Commands were prolific with use of passes. As a senior NCO I have arranged with the command to give numerous soldiers “days off” as incentives for good performance. This policy is not new.

Soldiers and leaders I have discussed this policy with totally disagree with it. One specialist I work with calculated that as an E-4 with three years in service, draws base pay of $22,597 a year or approximately $61.90 a day. An extra $1000 a month is only about 16 days of pay. But it’s very significant to a single sergeant, specialist or private first class or to any soldier with a family. It would be used to enhance what quality time soldiers do have when they return from extended deployments.

This is a slap in the face to those who already know their commands have made plans to institute pass policies upon their return. My question to the Joint Chiefs is, “Are you now going to dictate to individual commanders when these passes will be applied?”

They’ve made a horrible decision!

R. Richardson
Sergeant First Class, USA
Camp Victory, Iraq

No one with half a brain would think that a day off is somehow equivalent to $1000. The article is a hoax, right? I can’t believe the best and the brightest this country has to offer, working in the top levels of government, came up with this. It truly shakes my confidence in our leadership’s concern for the men and women who carry out their policies.

I do not take issue with them trying to compensate us with something besides money. People don’t join the military for the money, and they don’t continue to serve multiple enlistments for it either. Compensating us with additional time off is a good idea, but one day off for every month over twelve in a thirty-six month period is ridiculous.

I received two four-day passes for re-enlisting, in addition to the terms of my contract. Now, to compensate me for two twelve-month tours in three years, I’m going to get twelve extra days off? I find the policy insulting. How did we go from the original proposal of $1000 per extra month to this?

I suppose if service members were paid $30,000 a month, this would make more sense. As it stands, the average junior enlisted person makes about as much as someone flipping burgers full time in a fast food restaurant, but they do five times the work and spend significant portions of their lives away from their loved ones. I didn’t ask for additional pay but it would be nice. I understand that there are limits to budgets, and that compensating us in other ways may be necessary. But this idea is stupid, for lack of a better word.

At a minimum, a four-day pass per extra month served would be respectable. A week off per extra month deployed would be great but it would cut into training time and hurt readiness. Ideally, doubling the amount of leave time accrued for every month over the 12-month threshold would be equitable. This is the proposal our leadership should have came up with.

There are other ways too to compensate service members without throwing money at us. Why not stop charging us for the 15 days of R&R we take when deployed for a year? How about half-day schedules for the first month after redeployment block leave?

I find it discouraging that ideas like this weren’t proposed.

MATHEW J. CARSON
Sergeant
Al Asad Airbase, Iraq

I thought a soldier was on duty seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Throwing money at these soldiers will eventually ruin the military. You can't buy a real soldier.

R.D. MOORE
Maser Sergeant, USA
Republic of Korea

Administrative days are a real benefit for active duty troops who have months or years remaining on active duty. I don’t think anyone has looked at the mechanics of providing administrative absences to reservists who deploy.

At present if they decide to take normally accrued leave (2½ days a month), their departure from theater can be advanced to a date at which they can travel, process out and take leave before coming off of active duty.

More often than not, however, reserves work right up to the day their orders end.  When they get to their demobilization stations they are sent on their way and paid for days of accrued leave.

So how are these reserves to receive extra time off?

JAMES CLAY
Colonel
Via e-mail

DOUBLE STANDARD

I am a Navy retiree who uses the Keesler Air Force Base hospital in Biloxi, Miss., for my primary care. I was referred by the Family Medicine Clinic to the optometry clinic for a complete eye examination. It was determined I needed glasses for driving and reading.

After the exam I was sent to choose a frame style and be measured for size. In this office there were all of these nice metal frames, and others affectionately call “BC” frames. I come to find out retirees can only be issued “BC” frames. Nice looking frames, the ones I would wear in public, are for active duty only.

I understand giving active duty priority for medical care. But I did not dedicate 22 years of my life to the U.S. military for it to be insinuated the appearance of active duty members is more important than that of retirees.

Thank you for allowing me to vent.

RUSSELL N. BURGESS
USN-Ret.
Via e-mail

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com