Bait and Switch Tactics

Here's an unbelievable account of how the government lures soldiers into re-enlisting by offering them signing bonuses and then asks for the money back after they have been wounded and separated from the service because of their wounds.

"The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

"To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

"Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back."

I was talking recently to a young guy who had returned from Iraq. He was telling me that when he was going through processing over there and was turning in all his field equipment, helmet, flak jacket, rifle, etc., they actually deducted money from his pay for turning in damaged stuff. When I asked him how they could expect his equipment not to be damaged since he had been in combat, he shrugged his shoulders and said he didn't care at the time. He just wanted to get the hell out of there and it was a small price to pay to leave.

What the hell's wrong with our government?

No votes yet

When I was in reception (in late August 1966) they didn't have a field jacket my size. When I got down to Fort Gordon, Georgia I stood out like a sore thumb because in the cold weather I didn't have a shorter field jacket (just my fatigue blouse). They finally gave me permission to wear my long coat. Eventually I was required to buy a field jacket since they had no record I hadn't been issued one, and I was supposed to have one. The GI (I guess that's the wrong word now) always gets the shaft.

Old South End Broadway

So, there was no "Bait and Switch."

From the same story:

Griffin asked Army Spokesperson Major Nathan Banks if the government was taking on Fox's case.

Banks said via phone, "We are. We are ... definitely working it out. We have seen where the problems have been made, the system, and we're just making - you know, give us the opportunity to make a wrong a right."

You will see many more troops complaining of having to pay for damaged or missing property because of Congress' refusal to provide funding. I've lived through this. I am not claiming that this incident has anything to do with the last DoD funding fiasco by the Congress. I'm letting you know that it will probably get worse.

Oh, and the soldier who had this happen to him said in the same story:

While he's unsure of his future, Fox says he's unwavering in his commitment to his country.

"I'd do it all over again... because I'm proud of the discipline that I learned. I'm proud to have done something for my country," he said.

Hoo effing Haa!

I don't know what you mean by "From the same story:". You posted no story or link and nobody here has any idea where you're getting these quotes. You had better go back and check your post, which is obviously defective.

Regarding your "Hoo effing Haa!", I wouldn't say definitively that, had you been born in Germany in the early part of the last century, you would have been an enthusiastic supporter of the SS, but I do wonder about your uncritical support of everything military and your ability to be objective in any of these matters.

It is not bait and switch, but it is a reprehensible interpretation of the policy for sure. Hopefully the congressman mentioned in the article will get it fixed pronto. They probably wrote it to cover soldiers that that go awol or take the five finger discount on their gear and someone is enforcing things a bit too strongly.

Most people fail to realize that the military is a bureaucracy just like every other form of the government. It was probably one person seeing on a form that the soldier in question didn't fulfill his commitment and didn't investigate as to why.

All it takes is for one bureaucrat to read an order with a strict interpretation and not look at the intent of the order for something like this to happen. I spent most of my days dealing with problems such as this. Normally once those who write the orders get wind of the problem it's dealt with quickly.

BTW Pete, Paul is an Army vet and Hooaah is their cheer. He was giving the soldier in question a pat on the back. In the Marines we do the same thing but our cheer is Ooh rah.

I have no doubt this soldier and others like him will be able to keep their enlistment bonus. The reason for the clause that takes money back is for those who are given administrative discharges or anything less than a general other than honorable discharge.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.