For those who have been monitoring, the Army changed the TDY travel reibursement rate to no more than 55% of Per Diem for RC and NG soldiers serving in CONUS billets greater than 180 days. As a result, Army RC and NG soldiers serving at the same location and unit are reimbursed at 55% while USAF, USMC, and USN RC personnel are reimbursed at 100% of actual costs up to max per diem. Additionally, the Army created a TCS task force to investigate Army RC and NG soldiers for travel fraud and have been persecuting and prosecuting soldiers as a form of intimidation as well as a method to reduce travel costs (oh, and to put some less than honorable soldiers in jail). The problem with the logic is this, DFAS is assumed to be correct and efficient while any error resulting in over-payment is assumed to be fraud. A class action federal suit is being contemplated and expect little to come of it, except adverse publicity. What are your thoughts?

My first thought is "where are you getting your information"?

My second is "Who cares if less than honorable soldiers are put in jail"?

Having rates different than other braches sucks but you are always welcome to change to another branch. A couple of IG complaints or complaints to congressmen typically fix persecution.

jwalk2515,

I get my information firsthand and from others serving throughout the east coast. I manage a joint team of officers (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) and we all receive something differently in travel pay. Additionally, the 55% rule went into effect on 1 May 2008 and has resulted in many people choosing not to voluntarily serve and others choosing to leave teh Army instead. As for those who are put in jal, that is fine, if they actually committed a crime. But if DFAS made an error or the rules were unclear and RC soldiers were punished for a poor system not intentional fraud, then that is a problem. As for IG complaints and Congressionals, done that. No one cares.

As an update, after requiring Army RC soldiers to accept 55% Per Diem as a condition of mobilization or Active Duty periods beyond 179 days, the Army has reneged on their promise and decided to instead force everyone to live in contract housing. So, much like 'Stop Loss' only the Army has the ability to enforce agreements and anyone attempting to point out the failure of the government to abide by the agreements they have made is considered an enemy of the state. It does seem strange that the policy applies to RC soldiers only. AC soldiers live on-post and if there aren't enough quarters, they have the option to live off-post in a place of their choosing. AC soldiers serve in accompanied tours as well as unaccompanied tours, whereas RC solders (non-AGR, which is AC in another form) only serve unaccompanied tours.

IG complaints and congressionals have resulted in nothing because to shed light on this issue would bring attention to a policy that selectively impacts one group of service members only, thereby persuading them not to volunteer to serve (most are in dwell due to the number of years away from their civilian careers). I guess nothing surpises me now.

quote:

Originally posted by jwalk2515:
My first thought is "where are you getting your information"?

My second is "Who cares if less than honorable soldiers are put in jail"?

Having rates different than other braches sucks but you are always welcome to change to another branch. A couple of IG complaints or complaints to congressmen typically fix persecution.

Having seen and heard of many instances of system abuse it's about time that the allowances are looked at and the paperwork is audited. No one in their right mind serves for the money and if they are then they need to look into another career. Nothing has changed and comaparing Active to Reserves forces serves no purpose other thant to deepen the distrust.

quote:

Originally posted by 1SGHicksD:
Having seen and heard of many instances of system abuse it's about time that the allowances are looked at and the paperwork is audited. No one in their right mind serves for the money and if they are then they need to look into another career. Nothing has changed and comaparing Active to Reserves forces serves no purpose other thant to deepen the distrust.

Part of the problem comes from the AD trying to have its cake and eat it too. Mobilize someone and send them somewhere CONUS away form their HOR is one of two things, TDY or PCS.

According to this policy, they sill want the soldiers, they just don't want to pay PCS and they don't want to pay TDY.

quote:

Originally posted by Shardik:

quote:

Originally posted by 1SGHicksD:
Having seen and heard of many instances of system abuse it's about time that the allowances are looked at and the paperwork is audited. No one in their right mind serves for the money and if they are then they need to look into another career. Nothing has changed and comaparing Active to Reserves forces serves no purpose other thant to deepen the distrust.

Part of the problem comes from the AD trying to have its cake and eat it too. Mobilize someone and send them somewhere CONUS away form their HOR is one of two things, TDY or PCS.

According to this policy, they sill want the soldiers, they just don't want to pay PCS and they don't want to pay TDY.

The real problem is you have USAR/NG Soldiers spending years on orders just make money and avoid deployments.

I really don't see anything wrong with this policy.

quote:

Originally posted by _JB:

quote:

Originally posted by Shardik:

quote:

Originally posted by 1SGHicksD:
Having seen and heard of many instances of system abuse it's about time that the allowances are looked at and the paperwork is audited. No one in their right mind serves for the money and if they are then they need to look into another career. Nothing has changed and comaparing Active to Reserves forces serves no purpose other thant to deepen the distrust.

Part of the problem comes from the AD trying to have its cake and eat it too. Mobilize someone and send them somewhere CONUS away form their HOR is one of two things, TDY or PCS.

According to this policy, they sill want the soldiers, they just don't want to pay PCS and they don't want to pay TDY.

The real problem is you have USAR/NG Soldiers spending years on orders just make money and avoid deployments.

I really don't see anything wrong with this policy.

While I am sure there are TOUR *****S everywhere I know many more Soldiers who are on their 7th and 8th mobilizations, some have lost their jobs, buisnesses and families serving our Country and doing short turn arounds due to shortages in skill and rank sets. I can't speak for everyone but as a MSG with over 30 years I lose money going on AD so I can't even understand how younger NCO's and Soldiers do it.

quote:

Originally posted by 1SGHicksD:
I lose money going on AD so I can't even understand how younger NCO's and Soldiers do it.

Yup and don't mean to intrude here, but....

That is (and the established career), specifically is why you don't see a lot of folks enlisting with a break in service in their 40's and the higher enlistment age being what it is.

$40-50k a year for E1-E5 is peanuts, if you have earned a bachelors degree, and 15-20 years put in via the Civilian workforce.

Even with the enhanced GI Bill educational benefits (which I can match with only 2-3 years work).

Even under the Officer Pay Scale, your getting seriously screwed pay wise in a lot of cases over 40 years old unless their is a flag flying on your staff car.

Your just NOT accumulating a whole lot for retirement nor are you earning a lot in savings.

If you had established differential pay (or if it was fairly standardized across employers), civilian job security AND portable retirement benefits. You'd see a lot more middle aged folks enlisting then you do today.

Don't misinterpret this post though 18-30, I think the Armed Forces is probably still a great deal for setting you on a fixed path or for other altruistic reasons. Not a lot of impact at those age groups with impacted earnings and retirement pay, IMO.