50% BAH cuts for dual military, 25% to military roommates

[NavyHoops]

1985 brings a great point. This has been one that my Facebook has been flooded with this week as the majority of my female friends from USNA and in the USMC are married to fellow service members. Retention of female officers and enlisted is very difficult. In part this is because balancing two military careers is very difficult. I think adding one more challenge to a tough life already, would not help the DoD's cause to try to expand retention of female mid and senior level enlisted and officers in the military. This has been an issue the DoD (honestly I think its all industries to some extent) has really focused on and are generally consuming topics as women's military conferences. DoD has tried adding in programs to allow 2-3 years of time off and return to service, modifying maternity policies, etc. Retention rates still have not improved much. Be interesting to see where this goes in the future. I would expect this is also a challenge for same sex dual military couples also, will be an interesting trend to see retention rates in those relationships over the years.

hornetguy, thanks for the stats. Only question the one line....

So nearly half of married military women are in dual-military. This BAH policy would really hurt military women and create a wage gap where there was none.

Are you assuming that the female would not be the military member to get the BAH or am I misreading that? In many cases my female active duty friends are actually senior by 1 rank in some relationships, that is why I asked. In that case, she would should be the military member to get the BAH. Don't think that is what you were stating, just clarifying.

 

[LineInTheSand]

20%? HA! Where is that and when can I move?

 

[tankercaptain]

1) In dual military couples, the man is more likely to be higher in rank or have greater time in service
2) The gap isn't direct in the sense that gender = woman so pay is reduced. Of married women in the military, half are dual military. This policy will disproportionally affect women service members. If you average the income lost over both members in the couple, the numbers will show women receiving less income overall than men - argue about the method as you wish but the media will jump on it.

Finally there is nothing to prove that removing mil to mil BAH will have a mass exodus of service members.

Mass exodus? No. But female retention will be hurt much more and that looks bad in the press and goes directly against a DoD (or at least AF) prerogative to improve female retention.

While I realize that this is a very personnel thing, you have forgotten the intention of BAH. Prior to 2000 BAH was very different and service members survived and served.

Did dual military have their pay docked more than others? As far as I know, they did not. It's one thing to apply a BAH policy across the whole spectrum in terms of what it covers, etc. But this targets a minority and accuses them of being paid lavish bonuses to which they didn't earn (by your accounts).

Good quote of how I see this.

It would be one thing if the base salary actually provided an equivalent market salary compared to the civilian market, but I'm sorry, it falls drastically short. BAH and BAS payments have been baked into overall equivalent compensation for decades, and marketed by the military as part of your full compensation and entitlement. Also, you have to remember, BAH is not taxed therefore the full cost of losing it in civilian terms is BAH + federal and state income taxes (generally 20% at least), so it's an even bigger loss than you might realize in terms of income.

Will I appreciate your post, I never posted or stated that dual mil to mil couples are being paid lavish bonuses which they did not earn. Again the intent of BAH is a U.S. based allowance prescribed by geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. It provides uniformed Service members equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets within the United States when government quarters are not provided.

You have take it as BAH being a pay, which it is not. It is an allowance. These are very different things. We can talk about the Senate proposal, but honestly I don't see it passing. The President has already stated that he is against it.

 

[kp2001]

While I realize that this is a very personnel thing, you have forgotten the intention of BAH. Prior to 2000 BAH was very different and service members survived and served.

I still would not be happy but let's at least make it equal, why does a married couple get less than roommates?

However, while your post is an emotional reaction, I find it disingenuous that you would threaten divorcee over losing BAH.

It's not emotional, it's biased. I have done some serious thought in regards to divorce and I can guarantee you it is not a hollow statement. I think the likelihood is low; however, for a difference of over 300,000 it will be a serious discussion. (And that's a low estimate by the way)

Finally you do have the option to leave active duty and continue your service in the reserves.

No, I don't have that option. I am currently obligated through 2025. Give me the option and one of us is gone as soon as this becomes law.

Your earning potential on the outside as an Ophthalmologist is rather high with an average salary in the $200,000 range.

And my wife's is much higher due to her specialty. Create an even bigger pay gap for physicians and retention is going to decrease further. There are many, many dual physician couples, although I do realize this is a small percentage of the overall force.

Finally there is nothing to prove that removing mil to mil BAH will have a mass exodus of service members. I think you are forgetting key factors such as the economy, and the ability of prior service military members to earn a comparable salary.

I agree, there likely wouldn't be a mass exodus, but there would be a major hit to morale and some would elect to leave, some would elect to not get married, and some would elect to get divorced.

Personally my housing expenses are higher because we a re a dual military couple. We can't choose to live far out from base where it is cheaper because we then increase other costs such as childcare and also have bigger issues such as how to take care of a kid when they are sick and can't go to daycare/school. We are also required to live within a certain distance due to on call requirements. Find me a 24 hour daycare and I'll show you a happy family. We can't choose to not work and figure out those finances because we are both active duty. Want me to turn in my lease and pay exactly what my rent is, fine sounds reasonable, but don't take away an entitlement that has been in place ever since before I came on active duty.

 

[hornetguy]

I would expect this is also a challenge for same sex dual military couples also, will be an interesting trend to see retention rates in those relationships over the years.

I can pretty much guarantee if this policy had gone into place and I was still in, DH would have punched at the end of his commitment when our assignment here ends in SA. It would be a no brainer for us.

hornetguy, thanks for the stats. Only question the one line....

So nearly half of married military women are in dual-military. This BAH policy would really hurt military women and create a wage gap where there was none.

Are you assuming that the female would not be the military member to get the BAH or am I misreading that? In many cases my female active duty friends are actually senior by 1 rank in some relationships, that is why I asked. In that case, she would should be the military member to get the BAH. Don't think that is what you were stating, just clarifying.

There is one way to see this where women are not disproportionally affected: women lose their BAH at the same rate as men.

There are a couple ways this can be cut where women are more affected
1) Since a significantly greater portion of women are in dual-military marriages than men:
1a) if women are the lower ranking member more frequently, their individual contribution/income is more often docked therefore lowering the overall income of females in the military mean(male pay|rank) > mean(female pay|rank) - this is not publicly available info, but I think it is a good conclusion.
1b) if you average the BAH loss over both spouses, the proportional effect on women service members is greater due to the higher percentage of females in dual-military situations.

If either of these two is true (which at least one is true), the military has to deal with the public relations nightmare when the media points this fact out.

 

[tankercaptain]

Want me to turn in my lease and pay exactly what my rent is, fine sounds reasonable, but don't take away an entitlement that has been in place ever since before I came on active duty.

It is an entitlement, and granted the current system has been in place since you came on active duty in '03, it is just that an entitlement. It is not guaranteed. It was designed for service members to live off-base comparably to their civilian counterparts. It is not designed to cover all housing costs. The problem is you look at BAH as pay which it isn't.
I appreciate your feelings on this but you do realize that the "average" civilian has suffered similar things.

Look at AMO, you know how many individuals lost their pension when the Pension Program went under 7 years ago. I know men and women who had 17-19 years of service only to lose it and get pennies on the dollar. Or look at all the men and women working in the Gulf that are now looking for work because Drillships and Supply Boats are sitting idle because of price of oil.

 

[hornetguy]

Will I appreciate your post, I never posted or stated that dual mil to mil couples are being paid lavish bonuses which they did not earn. Again the intent of BAH is a U.S. based allowance prescribed by geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. It provides uniformed Service members equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets within the United States when government quarters are not provided.

You have take it as BAH being a pay, which it is not. It is an allowance. These are very different things. We can talk about the Senate proposal, but honestly I don't see it passing. The President has already stated that he is against it.

But this argument just doesn't hold credit when real life comes into play. If a military member is married to a millionaire and clearly doesn't have to worry about housing, we still give them a housing allowance for some arbitrary level of housing we think an O-x or E-x should be allowed to have (I saw the basis for housing in a chart on the DoD BAH page). Why should that member be allowed to receive BAH? What if the civilian spouse makes $200K, or $100K, or $30K?

Again, clearly we will never agree on the pay part. When I got a civilian job, I used my full compensation, not base pay as my basis for negotiation. The only time I didn't use my full compensation was for taxes! BAH is part of how the military markets to recruit members. Without BAH, pay simply isn't competitive. So many issues with the proposal, least of which is fairness...

We do agree that this will probably never pass. And for that I am thankful even though I no longer have a direct stake in my pay.

 

[NavyHoops]

got ya hornetguy... so wasn't reading that wrong. I think out of all my friends in dual relationships the women are senior if not the same rank in probably 75% of relationships. But it would be an interesting stat to see if they track it.

 

[tankercaptain]

But this argument just doesn't hold credit when real life comes into play. If a military member is married to a millionaire and clearly doesn't have to worry about housing, we still give them a housing allowance for some arbitrary level of housing we think an O-x or E-x should be allowed to have (I saw the basis for housing in a chart on the DoD BAH page). Why should that member be allowed to receive BAH? What if the civilian spouse makes $200K, or $100K, or $30K?

We can agree to disagree, but it does hold credit. BAH again is an allowance prescribed by geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. It provides uniformed Service members equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets within the United States when government quarters are not provided. Your argument about what a spouse makes is irrelevant.

 

[hornetguy]

got ya hornetguy... so wasn't reading that wrong. I think out of all my friends in dual relationships the women are senior if not the same rank in probably 75% of relationships. But it would be an interesting stat to see if they track it.

It's def hard to gauge with anecdotes. Of my non-academy friends and colleagues, every dual military hetero couple has the male as the higher rank OR greater time in grade. I have heard my anecdotes more often than yours - its anecdote-ception if you ask me.

 

[kp2001]

Look at AMO, you know how many individuals lost their pension when the Pension Program went under 7 years ago.

Glad I jumped off that wagon many moons ago

 

[tankercaptain]

Look at AMO, you know how many individuals lost their pension when the Pension Program went under 7 years ago.

Glad I jumped off that wagon many moons ago

While I appreciate your dilemma you still have it better than most even with the possibility of losing dual mil to mil BAH.

 

[kp2001]

I've actually never seen this before: the Chief of Navy Personnel has personally responded via video. I've never seen such a quick response like this before (I'm sure there has been, just something I haven't personally noticed before)

 

[hornetguy]

But this argument just doesn't hold credit when real life comes into play. If a military member is married to a millionaire and clearly doesn't have to worry about housing, we still give them a housing allowance for some arbitrary level of housing we think an O-x or E-x should be allowed to have (I saw the basis for housing in a chart on the DoD BAH page). Why should that member be allowed to receive BAH? What if the civilian spouse makes $200K, or $100K, or $30K?

We can agree to disagree, but it does hold credit. BAH again is an allowance prescribed by geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. It provides uniformed Service members equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets within the United States when government quarters are not provided. Your argument about what a spouse makes is irrelevant.

So it provides members with what the government expects the cost of housing to be for each member. It doesn't say anything about other contributions that would affect the costs they bear for housing except dependents. "It provides uniformed Service members equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets within the United States when government quarters are not provided." This statement isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. Each member is entitled to compensation that would cover their individual housing cost or family in the case where they have a dependent. In dual-military, they are being compensated individually with equitable housing compensation for their rank, grade, and location regardless of family status unless they have dependents. If it was meant to cover only housing, the military would prohibit any cohabitation with non-dependents or penalize all members who live in situations where they share housing costs with a non-dependent person.

 

[kp2001]

While I appreciate your dilemma you still have it better than most even with the possibility of losing dual mil to mil BAH.

It's not a competition. I made choices based on what was known to be a standard compensation package. Want to change it for future people coming into the military, great. Want to change the letter to have everyone get 75%, not great but better. Making a separate class based on marital status - not great.

 

[tankercaptain]

If it was meant to cover only housing, the military would prohibit any cohabitation with non-dependents or penalize all members who live in situations where they share housing costs with a non-dependent person.

Where do you get that assumption from?

 

[tankercaptain]

While I appreciate your dilemma you still have it better than most even with the possibility of losing dual mil to mil BAH.

It's not a competition. I made choices based on what was known to be a standard compensation package. Want to change it for future people coming into the military, great. Want to change the letter to have everyone get 75%, not great but better. Making a separate class based on marital status - not great.

Not great for you but it's the government and they can change it. Is it fair, no but like an company they can change the rules.

 

[hornetguy]

If it was meant to cover only housing, the military would prohibit any cohabitation with non-dependents or penalize all members who live in situations where they share housing costs with a non-dependent person.

Where do you get that assumption from?

Based on the reg you keep citing: "BAH again is an allowance prescribed by geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. It provides uniformed Service members equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets within the United States when government quarters are not provided."

Then you say that two military members who are married and living together are not each entitled to their BAH compensation based on this reg under the guise that they cohabitate and therefore only need one BAH to cover that prescribed level of cohabitation. Under most circumstances, any military member residing with a non-dependent is sharing housing costs with them, so why would they be entitled to the allowance covering a full rate of housing but not dual-military?

While I appreciate your dilemma you still have it better than most even with the possibility of losing dual mil to mil BAH.
It's not a competition. I made choices based on what was known to be a standard compensation package. Want to change it for future people coming into the military, great. Want to change the letter to have everyone get 75%, not great but better. Making a separate class based on marital status - not great.
Click to expand...
Not great for you but it's the government and they can change it. Is it fair, no but like an company they can change the rules

A) I hope we expect a higher level of integrity and fairness from government employment and better oversight. At least we should expect that of a well-functioning democratic government. I hardly think a corporate model should excuse grabbing members' pay because "well, you could have it worse in some company"
B) Most companies hire and fire at well and employees have the same ability to quit at will (except in contracts). In contracts, an employee can sue the company if it fails to fulfill contractual obligations. Military members can't quit at will and people like kp or pilots with very long commitments can't quit when the compensation package they believed would be true is yanked. They can't sue the government for breaking a contract. "It could be worse" is not a valid point of argument.

 

[tankercaptain]

If it was meant to cover only housing, the military would prohibit any cohabitation with non-dependents or penalize all members who live in situations where they share housing costs with a non-dependent person.

Where do you get that assumption from?

Based on the reg you keep citing: "BAH again is an allowance prescribed by geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. It provides uniformed Service members equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets within the United States when government quarters are not provided."

Then you say that two military members who are married and living together are not each entitled to their BAH compensation based on this reg under the guise that they cohabitate and therefore only need one BAH to cover that prescribed level of cohabitation. Under most circumstances, any military member residing with a non-dependent is sharing housing costs with them, so why would they be entitled to the allowance covering a full rate of housing but not dual-military?

I never said a military member residing with non dependent sharing housing costs should be entitled to full rate of housing.
By the way, when I was active duty prior to 9/11, I never got full BAH when I was sharing rentals. I turned my rental agreements into DFAS and they reduced my BAH accordingly.

By the way I'm quoting Defense Travel with regards to BAH.

I suggest that you read chapter 10.
http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/perdiem/JTR.pdf

 

[tankercaptain]

[/quote]

A) I hope we expect a higher level of integrity and fairness from government employment and better oversight. At least we should expect that of a well-functioning democratic government. I hardly think a corporate model should excuse grabbing members' pay because "well, you could have it worse in some company"
B) Most companies hire and fire at well and employees have the same ability to quit at will (except in contracts). In contracts, an employee can sue the company if it fails to fulfill contractual obligations. Military members can't quit at will and people like kp or pilots with very long commitments can't quit when the compensation package they believed would be true is yanked. They can't sue the government for breaking a contract. "It could be worse" is not a valid point of argument.[/QUOTE]

I don't appreciate you posting statement about me that I haven't posted and I'm going to ask you to refrain from doing so.

The US government hasn't been and isn't some "higher ethical" organization. It a lot of ways it has been worse than the corporate model.

You do realize that not only military members are subject to the whims of the government but also the civilian population. How many people receiving government benefits have seen cuts to their benefits.

I think you forget the history of the US Military and it's contractual obligations to service members. The military has a long history of breaking it's contractual obligations. Perfect examples are the drawn downs of the 50s when officers were RIFed or reduced in rank from Field Grade to Warrants or NCOs. US Naval Academy class of 1877 graduated and didn't get commissioned.

Does it suck that dual mil to mil "may" lose the BAH, yes it does, but your level of expectations on what the government owes them isn't realistic.