In response to an earlier article, "Surviving on Military Pay," it appears that while most E-5s and above do not question the results of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on military compensation, a number of E-1 through E-4 personnel feel betrayed that GAO did not identify some very serious flaws in the current military pay structure.

Here are some quotes from a few letters on the topic:

- "I am an E-4 in the Army with two kids and a wife and there are many times that we live pay check to pay check. There are a lot of other specialists that live around me with kids and they too are living paycheck to paycheck. I would like to know where GAO took the survey from and what ranks because anyone less then a E-5 with kids is just barely making it by…"

- "My husband is deployed with a National Guard unit in Iraq. His military salary does not cover our monthly mortgage payment, and while he’s gone, my three children and I use food stamps to eat."

- "While we families under E-5 receive food stamps and other funding when available, we go from pay check to pay check robbing Peter to pay Paul."

- "Could you please do your part to inform GAO that most enlisted military personnel E-5 and below qualify for some kind of government assistance, i.e. food stamps, subsidized daycare. If my husband, a Corporal (E-4) in the Marine Corps, and others like him, is so well paid, then why do we qualify for government assistance? My family and thousands of families like ours have to live from paycheck to paycheck not because we are trying to live beyond our means, but because our means are above what the military member is being paid."

Anyone reading the GAO report might be inclined to wonder why many people in the military are complaining about their pay or are on food stamps when GAO reported that the "total annual cost to provide military compensation was about on average $112,000.00 per active duty servicemember." The fact is that more than half of that $112K is in the form of deferred compensation such as retirement benefits that apply to less than one in five servicemembers who will serve a full career. For the four out of five servicemembers who will never receive retirement benefits, it’s the up-front pay today that is of significance. It is this pay, and not the deferred benefits, that GAO needs to carefully analyze.

The current military pay structure made sense prior to the introduction of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973 when most E-1 through E-4 personnel were single. Programmed pay increases for E-5 and above were not simply based upon their greater knowledge, experience and longevity, but also on the fact that most E-5s and above had spouses and children to support. Because most E-1s through E-4s were single and married only after they were promoted or returned to civilian life, the pay they received proved adequate to meet their single expenses. 

One respondent concurred with this assessment when he wrote: "In the old days not too many soldiers in the junior ranks were married. It is different today and we see many soldiers that are young and in junior ranks with children . . . The American soldiers’ pay should be looked at and set straight. If a soldier’s family is taken care of at home, that is one thing less soldiers have to worry about when they are deployed."

Many counselors and support agencies that provide financial and budget counseling recognize that the current pay structure for junior enlisted personnel is inadequate to support a family with one or more children unless the non-military spouse earns more than what they as a couple would have to pay for child support. The problem is, however, that many branches of the military do not make this fact known prior to or after recruitment.

I can think of two reasons why junior enlisted personnel are not warned about the financial problems that await them if they marry prior to being promoted to E-5. One: The military is short on recruits (particularly the Army) and informing them of this problem could harm recruitment. Two: Some branches of the military, like GAO, are not smart enough to recognize the inadequacy of pay for married personnel under E-5 with children.

The failure to provide more adequate financial support to married junior enlisted is scandalous. One woman wrote, "Shame, shame for having military families deal with so many financial problems on top of the stresses of having a loved one put in harms way. Is this the best we can do for our military families? I could go on and on at this point, but I will just say this: What a disgrace."

Insofar as military counselors and chaplains acknowledge that financial problems are a major cause for marital breakdown, why should we be surprised at high military divorce rates when the current pay structure for junior personnel is inadequate to support a family? While it would be responsible on the part of the armed services to warn personnel in the recruitment process and at basic training about the financial problems they might face as E-1s through E-4s if they were to marry and have children, it is morally irresponsible not to appraise them of this shortcoming in the current pay structure.

If we can issue warnings to people about possible harmful side effects involved in using certain drugs, we should also be able to warn people about the possible side effects of marrying in a military that does not provide adequate financial support for married junior enlisted personnel that can result in divorce, higher rates of abuse and suicide, and children growing up in broken homes who themselves become prone to a variety of problems. If military leaders really believe, as they often say, that their people, and not their weapons, are their most important assets, then they need to either increase pay for junior enlisted personnel, or warn them about potential financial problems involving married personnel under E-5 with children.