Reduction of military combat pay and other issues with military treatment in Iraq

As a parent of a young man serving in Iraq (U.S. Army) and retired Navy Chief, I’m very concern with many things taking place today that directly affects our young men and woman serving in Iraq.

1. Reduction of combat pay: It’s a rare day that my son and other young man are not shot at or have to deal with unexploded ordnance. Yet, the pentagon and our President claims they do not have the funds to pay our serviceman combat pay approved before going into battle. With combat pay, many young men including my son only take home around $625 per pay (E-3). Now I know that many feel that our military is overpaid, but how many of those demanding tax rebates are willing to work 14 – 15 hours per day in 120 degree hit 7 days a week for $312 per week (that’s $3.00 per hour pay). 2. Uniforms and supplies: My son has been in Iraq since day one of the war. Recently he contacted us very upset because he was told his uniforms where not inspection ready and he would be placed on extra duty. He was told that he needs to contact family or friends back in the U.S. to purchase new uniforms and correct patches. The Army does not have the time or resources to provide uniforms to each and every service member in Iraq (stated to him via his chain of command).

My wife and I contact the uniform shop at Fort Campbell, KY about buying and sending new uniforms to my son. We where told that the uniform shop does not carry the uniforms used in Iraq, we need to contact one of several civilian stores outside the base. My wife traveled 1000 miles (Houston to Fort Campbell) to purchase over priced new uniforms and supplies and have them shipped to my son (cost of over $800.00). I questioned my son as to why the Army did not purchase these uniforms for him, he responded that they only provide two sets initially (cost deducted from his pay), additional purchases must be made by the member since he receives an annual clothing allowance of around $200.

It seems to me, that serviceman serving in Iraq, sleeping on the ground should not be held responsible because two sets of uniforms wear out in 6 months!

3. Special Resort: Last month my son and other members of his unit had to turn down the opportunity to get away from combat for a couple days, because they did not feel it was right that they had to pay monies out of their pocket to stay at a special location established outside Mosul Iraq by the Army. To visit this so called resort, each member is required to pay a $75.00 deposit plus all meals consumed at this resort (3 day pass). As of today, my son and others are lucky to get 1 or 2 meals a week that are not defined as MRE’s. And now we tell them that you need to pay the Army to get a couple days away from combat!

Over all, I’m embarrassed by the way our service members and their families are treated. Many of the young families (spouses left behind) are choosing to forgo food and other essentials to be able to purchase needed supplies, postage, and phone cards for their loves one stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. My wife and I spend over $200 per month to purchase and mailed need items to my son, I can afford this, however those E-3’s and E-4’s with families can not. Something must be done; I was a supporter of President Bush and the republican platform, but since keeping the Presidents image-up (flying onto a Naval Carrier) and taking month long vacations while men die everyday overseas, is more important then the youth of America. I can no longer support this administration or any of the elected republican.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2003/n09262003_200309264.html

the letter is BS, if this soldier is buying anything out of pockets it because he wants something different than the Army provides.

Congress Sends $368 Billion Appropriations Bill to President By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2003 -- Congress has sent the fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations Bill to President Bush for his signature.

The $368.2 billion bill funds the basic necessities for the department through Sept. 30, 2004. The administration already has submitted separate, supplemental bills to cover the cost of the global war on terrorism.

The average military pay raise is set at 4.1 percent. However, the pay raises are targeted, with raises ranging from 2 percent to 6.25 percent. The lowest-ranking service members would receive the 2 percent raise. Noncommissioned and commissioned officers at middle levels of their respective pay scales will receive the higher numbers.

The bill also increases the basic allowance for housing to reduce current 7.5- percent out-of-pocket expenses to 3.5 percent. The change puts the housing allowance on the slope to eliminate out-of-pocket expenses in fiscal 2005. When then-Defense Secretary William Cohen announced this housing initiative on Jan. 6, 2000, out-of-pocket expenses averaged 19 percent.

Overall personnel accounts are pegged at $98.5 billion. The bill supports an end- strength of 1.388 million active duty military personnel and 863,300 selected reserve personnel.

The bill provides $128 million for the continuation of increased rates for imminent danger pay and family separation allowances, and provides $88.2 million for 12 additional weapons of mass destruction civil support teams. The bill also provides $15.7 billion for the Defense Health Program.

The bill also fully funds the president's $115.9 billion operations and maintenance request. That level funds land forces training, tank training miles, helicopter flying hours, ship steaming days and Air Force and Navy flying hour programs. It also supports the Defense Department's goal to fund facilities sustainment at not less than 93 percent in all branches of the armed forces.

Procurement is set at $74.7 billion in fiscal 2004. Among other items, this provides $3.6 billion for 22 F-22 Air Force fighter aircraft, $2.1 billion for 11 Air Force C-17 airlift aircraft, $228 million for 19 Army Black Hawk helicopters, $2.9 billion for 42 Navy F/A-18E/F fighter aircraft, $1.5 billion for 11 V-22 aircraft and $355 million for 350 Navy Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The bill also includes $724 million to buy Navy and Air Force Joint Direct Attack Munitions, as well as $11.5 billion for shipbuilding, including one Virginia-class submarine, two Trident SSGN conversions and three DDG-51 destroyers. Future starts, including $1.5 billion for the next-generation CVN-21 carrier, $168 million for the littoral combat ship and $1 billion for the DD(X) program to produce a family of advanced technology surface combatants also are included.

The research and development portion of the budget is pegged at $65.2 billion. Major programs in that include $1.1 billion for the Army's Comanche helicopter, and $4.3 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Procurement and research and development, defense officials have said, are the heart of the administration effort to transform the U.S. military to face the challenges of the 21st century. "What we've laid out in our plan is a balanced approach to the various accounts," said a senior defense official. "We have been deliberate in ensuring that the operations and maintenance accounts and procurement accounts will not rob each other."

But the future could hold problems once the Defense Authorization Bill passes. "We don't know what Congress is going to do," said the official. "The Congress has some legislation pending up there, or being debated, that clearly could drive costs up. That's something we're concerned about."

Two proposals that could affect the defense budget are an expanded concurrent receipt program and putting in place a Tricare for Reserves program. Both would be extremely expensive, and would create difficulties in preserving the transformation portion of the budget, defense officials said.

My son has been in Iraq since day one of the war. Recently he contacted us very upset because he was told his uniforms where not inspection ready and he would be placed on extra duty. He was told that he needs to contact family or friends back in the U.S. to purchase new uniforms and correct patches. The Army does not have the time or resources to provide uniforms to each and every service member in Iraq (stated to him via his chain of command).

If true, which I highly doubt, there is grounds for an IG investigation. Having been a commander on several different occasions, I cannot fathom a commander or a chain of command making such demands on a soldier in a combat zone, placing him on extra duty for merely having worn out uniforms and telling him to contact friends and family to correct his deficiencies. If, by some remote possibility, this is true, then the whole cahin of command forcing these requirements needs to be sacked - immediately. However, I'm extremely suspect of this letter.

Either this PFC isn't telling the truth (or covering up the real story) in order to get out of hot water, or the father has misinterpreted the extent of the problem, OR, most likely, this letter is a plant to discredit the Bush administration (based on the last few summary comments).

I questioned my son as to why the Army did not purchase these uniforms for him, he responded that they only provide two sets initially (cost deducted from his pay)

This is total B.S. Enlisted soldiers don't have their initial issue of any uniform deducted from their pay. Besides, these are most likely, Desert BDUs (not specified in the letter). These are issue items for everyone deploying to theater, including officers. You cannot buy them in the clothing sales store.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.