Soldiers who honored their contracts are being forced by the army to return signing bonuses

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Part of the he problem is that the bonuses were not authorized by law, as far as I am understanding. So it doesn't really matter who owns the blame, the money has to be returned to where it came from. Sounds like nothing short of congressional action would stop the fact that this money was unlawfully disbursed.

Now since the veterans are on the hook for something that isn't their fault, I think it would be reasonable to get that money back in a way that results in the least amount of burden to them. Small payments (and something well within their means based on financial hardships) no reporting to credit agencies, no negative legal actions, etc; as long as the vets show that they are working with the government on resolving the governments screwup.

**jmurph**

Yeah, it's pretty reprehensible that soldiers are getting stiffed on the contracts. It's worse that our Congress has done nothing to address it.

**Troy**

jmurph wrote:
Yeah, it's pretty reprehensible that soldiers are getting stiffed on the contracts. It's worse that our Congress has done nothing to address it.

However I am confused.
These are actual contracts correct?
These contracts are not illegal correct? They just weren't authorized.
The officers countersigning had adequate powers to sign the person up and provide bonuses correct?
There is no information that these contracts were signed while under duress or either counterparty not having the power and authority to sign correct?

Why are they (vets) not suing for breach of contract under labor law provisions? If the above notes are correct they fulfilled the terms of a valid contract, signed by a party with apparent authority to sign.

**CptJake**

Peregrine wrote:
sebster wrote:
There's a difference between getting paid more than you agreed through a payroll screw up, and being offered more than government intended through a contract by an authorised government agent. The former can be recovered by any organisation, private or public, the latter is a contract signed in good faith that should be honoured.

That last part is the key assumption though. If it's a situation where people know that excessive contracts are being handed out and are saying "{recruiter} is overpaying, get in quick before they figure it out" then it's no longer a contract signed in good faith.

NG has had problems with recruiting scandals, as an example:

http://www.kcra.com/article/ca-national-guard-bonus-scandal-leads-to-guilty-pleas/6418325

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/11/national-guard-fraud-claims-taint-recruiting-assis/

http://wnep.com/2016/01/06/pocono-couple-involved-in-military-recruiting-scam/

So, there may be some troopers getting screwed, but there may also be many who were in on the kickback scheme.

Bottom line, the bonuses were bogus/not allowed.

**jmurph**

CptJake wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
sebster wrote:
There's a difference between getting paid more than you agreed through a payroll screw up, and being offered more than government intended through a contract by an authorised government agent. The former can be recovered by any organisation, private or public, the latter is a contract signed in good faith that should be honoured.

That last part is the key assumption though. If it's a situation where people know that excessive contracts are being handed out and are saying "{recruiter} is overpaying, get in quick before they figure it out" then it's no longer a contract signed in good faith.

NG has had problems with recruiting scandals, as an example:

http://www.kcra.com/article/ca-national-guard-bonus-scandal-leads-to-guilty-pleas/6418325

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/11/national-guard-fraud-claims-taint-recruiting-assis/

http://wnep.com/2016/01/06/pocono-couple-involved-in-military-recruiting-scam/

So, there may be some troopers getting screwed, but there may also be many who were in on the kickback scheme.

Bottom line, the bonuses were bogus/not allowed.

There is a big difference in someone who is in on a scam vs. someone who signed on honestly with a recruiter who screwed up. If they were knowingly defrauding the US govt, that would also be a potential criminal issue. Of course, in the civvie world, the person who drafted the contract promising too much would be screwed, but it's different rules with the fed. They make the rules and, as any enlisted knows, you pretty much sign away your rights anyway. Suing would be a no-go as there is this thing called governmental immunity. It would take an act of Congress to fix this, and as we have seen, Congress hasn't been great at dealing with actual issues and seems to prefer political grandstanding and the occasional shutdown.

**CptJake**

Not one of the recruiters 'screwed up'. This was a scam on the part of the recruiters.

Some of the troops may not have been in on the scam. That does not change the fact the recruiters illegally committed money.

**Relapse**

Looks like they don't have to pay the bonus back:

http://www.kmtv.com/news/national/defense-secretary-tells-national-guard-members-not-to-worry-about-paying-back-enlistment-bonuses

**CptJake**

Congress will unscrew it, they're being pressured by all sides.

**Ouze**

Relapse wrote:
Looks like they don't have to pay the bonus back:

http://www.kmtv.com/news/national/defense-secretary-tells-national-guard-members-not-to-worry-about-paying-back-enlistment-bonuses

That's not what he said (although that's what the article cited said so no fault of your own).

If you read his statement, he's ordered them to cease collections and improve the process, and to have it done by July 1st 2017.

There is no more important responsibility for the Department of Defense than keeping faith with our people. That means treating them fairly and equitably, honoring their service and sacrifice, and keeping our word. Today, in keeping with that obligation, I am ordering a series of steps to ensure fair treatment for thousands of California National Guard soldiers who may have received incentive bonuses and tuition assistance improperly as a result of errors and in some cases criminal behavior by members of the California National Guard.

While some soldiers knew or should have known they were ineligible for benefits they were claiming, many others did not. About 2,000 have been asked, in keeping with the law, to repay erroneous payments. There is an established process in place by which service members can seek relief from such obligations. Hundreds of affected guard members in California have sought and been granted relief. But that process has simply moved too slowly and in some cases imposed unreasonable burdens on service members. That is unacceptable. So today, on the recommendation of Deputy Secretary Work, I am ordering measures to make sure we provide affected service members the support they need and deserve.

First, I have ordered the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to suspend all efforts to collect reimbursement from affected California National Guard members, effective as soon as is practical. This suspension will continue until I am satisfied that our process is working effectively. Second, I have ordered a team of senior department officials, led by the senior personnel official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Peter Levine, to assess the situation and establish no later than Jan. 1, 2017 a streamlined, centralized process that ensures the fair and equitable treatment of our service members and the rapid resolution of these cases. The objective will be to complete the decision-making process on all cases as soon as possible - and no later than July 1, 2017.

Ultimately, we will provide for a process that puts as little burden as possible on any soldier who received an improper payment through no fault of his or her own. At the same time, it will respect our important obligation to the taxpayer.

I want to be clear: this process has dragged on too long, for too many service members. Too many cases have languished without action. That's unfair to service members and to taxpayers. The steps I've outlined are designed to meet our obligations to both, and to do so quickly.

Emphasis mine. My guess is Congress will pass something to eat it, which they should do except the cases where it's provable, intentional fraud.

**CptJake**

The problem is, it was all intentional fraud. Maybe not on the part of the soldiers receiving it, but on the part of the recruiters it was.

**Hordini**

CptJake wrote:
The problem is, it was all intentional fraud. Maybe not on the part of the soldiers receiving it, but on the part of the recruiters it was.

Then those recruiters should be held accountable, not the service members who are essentially victims in this case.

**BaronIveagh**

Hordini wrote:
CptJake wrote:
The problem is, it was all intentional fraud. Maybe not on the part of the soldiers receiving it, but on the part of the recruiters it was.

Then those recruiters should be held accountable, not the service members who are essentially victims in this case.

Unlike in the corporate world, where your signing bonus is yours, regardless, for the military it does not work that way.

However, if the recruiters deliberately lied and put it in their contracts, the contract should be honored considering those men made good on their side of the contract and then returned home. (a moral stance rather than a legal one, I know) Given the wild fluctuations in the bonus at the time, it's not legally 'reasonable' that a serviceman would know what the bonus was at the time, but it is reasonable to expect the recruiter would.

Given the apparent scale of it, it would no be unexpected to see breach of contract suits.

**Stormwall**

The recruiters have already paid the price legally and a SGM is now facing like 30 years. They already convicted recruiters for this, which is why it is so audacious they are going after veterans and current active duty.

Veterans are simply fethed due to being stonewalled by the VA, congress and the guard, and active duty are fethed by being governed at all times by the UCMJ.

Sure the contracts are legally binding but, with each re-enlistment you get a new contract. Some people went on and did 10-12 years, and extra tours due to this. They got paid funds to stay in the service - just because the issuer was corrupt doesn't mean they didn't honor the contract to do x years for y amount. However, if they no longer have the contract and they are out - it's hard to defend when the only people who would have your records are the very ones trying to recover the funds. It's why I always tell my friends who are still in to hold onto every scrap of paper the service gives them.

However, this is our military. Just because someone did x years for y amount, it isn't that simple because common sense is lacking in the service. I recall I had to repay an over-payment before, and what they do is they either just docked from my check or worse; the next check was entirely seized due to a fething admin not doing their job right.(It was the latter in my case. Check got seized over a silly amount being added on the previous one.)

Now just imagine dumb stuff like that that but, on the large scale with large amounts all due to some criminals screwing everyone else over. Furthermore, some of these veterans and AD have already bee fighting this for years - it's just now that Congress is pressured and it is mainstream, it's finally coming to major light.

Glad I'm out - this will probably take forever to fix unless they stack it onto the most recent defense bill. That still doesn't help those that already repaid - Congress is allegedly (according to the news,) discussing what will happen to those who already paid, if they will be recompensed, etc.

Really sucks for all involved.

**CptJake**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Hordini wrote:
CptJake wrote:
The problem is, it was all intentional fraud. Maybe not on the part of the soldiers receiving it, but on the part of the recruiters it was.

Then those recruiters should be held accountable, not the service members who are essentially victims in this case.

Unlike in the corporate world, where your signing bonus is yours, regardless, for the military it does not work that way.

However, if the recruiters deliberately lied and put it in their contracts, the contract should be honored considering those men made good on their side of the contract and then returned home. (a moral stance rather than a legal one, I know) Given the wild fluctuations in the bonus at the time, it's not legally 'reasonable' that a serviceman would know what the bonus was at the time, but it is reasonable to expect the recruiter would.

Given the apparent scale of it, it would no be unexpected to see breach of contract suits.

Unfortunately it is not that cut and dry, even from moral stance. The whole issue was more than just crooked recruiters, at least some if not many (though not all) of the troops who got the bonuses DID know and the recruiters got a kickback from the bonus. In some of the cases where the troop was truly ignorant the referring individual was also eligible for a bonus and was part of the kickback scheme. The whole issue is a real gak storm of corruption.

**Compel**

They probably miss the old days where all they needed to do was buy you a pint and slip a shilling into the bottom of the glass.

**BaronIveagh**

Compel wrote:
They probably miss the old days where all they needed to do was buy you a pint and slip a shilling into the bottom of the glass.

Yeah, barmen got wise and started using cups with class windows in the bottom. It's important to protect your customers from the Royal Navy.