Married Teenage Warriors

g2mil.com ^ | 2003 | Carlton Meyer

[paltz]

      During the past two decades, the number of married GIs grades E-1, E-2, and E-3 has more than tripled. There are now twice as many military family members as GIs, and many young servicemen lack the maturity to deal with marriage. This has occurred because our military provides private quarters and extra pay for married personnel.  As a result, 31% of enlisted GIs marry before age 21, compared to only 7.5% of civilians.  Many teenager warriors believe they have ample pay and benefits to support a family, but later learn that unexpected financial problems force them into debt, and frequent separations often result in failed marriages.  This lowers readiness and costs American taxpayers billions of dollars each year.  

      Readiness is affected whenever family problems require a GI to moonlight, to miss training, to miss deployments, or to take emergency leave while on deployment. Everyone suffers when a GI troubled by family strife acts withdrawn, irritable, and unable to concentrate on the task at hand. Leaders are frequently distracted from their mission in order to resolve teenage marital and associated financial problems, which are a major factor why 30% of GIs fail to finish their first enlistment.  Leaders also find it difficult to punish young servicemen with extra duty or fines knowing their families will suffer too.

     Family problems of young enlisted men were noted in 1940 when the US military began to deploy units overseas. Testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee in 1949 cited scandalous problems during World War II caused by "families left behind in distress by men who should not have families." As a result, the 1949 Career Compensation Act continued the pre-war policy of providing family benefits only to career servicemen. This law treated all enlisted men E-4 and below with less than seven years of service as single men. According to the Act, this policy "stemmed from the prevailing view that such personnel make better servicemen and were less apt to create a social problem when they were not married and, consequently, allowances should be structured so as to discourage them from marrying."

      This rank restriction was suspended when the Korean war broke out in 1950.  Congress recognized that it was unfair to deny family benefits to married men who were involuntarily inducted through selective service and reserve mobilization. This suspension continued during the draft years until it was allowed to expire in 1973. However, establishing the all-volunteer force required greater incentives to fill the ranks during the 1970's. New legislation guaranteed family benefits to all enlisted and pay for junior enlisted was doubled in 1971. During the next two decades anti-military attitudes began to fade while military pay was boosted ahead of inflation.

     These factors resulted in a tremendous improvement in the quality of recruits. However, spartan barracks and shipboard life make the government's offer of private quarters for those willing to marry very attractive.  This is one reason manpower costs have risen 40% since 1983, even after adjusting for inflation.  For example, married E-3s in Hawaii and California are paid $15,000 more per year just for housing, and require expensive support costs like family medical care.

    

By 1993, marriage problems became so disruptive and costly that Marine Corps Commandant Carl Mundy announced his desire to ban the recruitment of married Marines. While the great majority of Marines applauded the idea, some living in ivory towers in Washington DC hastily denounced it. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin immediately suspended the Commandant's policy. He then appointed a panel to review the marriage issue, which endorsed his viewpoint that marriage has no affect on readiness. 

     The marriage incentive remains a readiness and fiscal problem. (see "A New look at an Old Idea for First-Term Marriage" by Captain Alfred B. Connable in the October 2002 Marine Corps Gazette).  Captain Connable urged the adoption of General Mundy's idea of banning the recruitment of married people, and punishing those who marry during their first enlistment. This is the right idea, but only the wrong approach. Marriage is a religious matter, and our political leadership nor the federal courts will allow restrictions on an individual's right to enlist while married, or right to marry after enlistment. However, the strong marriage incentive could be removed if all E-3s and below received equal pay and benefits, regardless of marital status. 

     A return to the traditional system in which only career servicemen are provided private quarters would mean that teenage GIs could get married, but that taxpayers will not reward them with a private home. This would remove a financial incentive for married people to enlist, and deter them from marriage until they reach the grade of E-4 at around 21 years of age with greater maturity and better pay.

     Eliminating the marriage incentive will discourage hasty marriages by teenage servicemen. It will not reward unmarried GIs for having children in order to qualify for a housing allowance.  (Men even receive a housing allowance for having a child out of wedlock.)  Paper marriages would also be eliminated, which occur when a serviceman marries an older "friend", often a divorcee he met at a local bar. The "temporary spouse" gets military medical care and half the housing allowance, or they may share an apartment.

     Equal pay for teenage GIs will have many benefits. A single GI undergoing tough entry level training will not be agitated that the married man in the next bunk is paid 30% more. Bachelor sergeants will no longer be incensed that many newly arrived privates get larger paychecks. Fewer GIs will work extra hours to make up for the absence of married personnel. Fewer military beneficiaries will mean better overall family care and housing for career servicemen. Most importantly, all GIs can focus more mental energy on their mission, rather than family strife.

      A policy of equal benefits for E-3s and below can be phased in by applying only to new enlistments. Since very few organizations in the United States pay employees more money if they are married, civilian leaders nor the courts should object. Obviously, eliminating the married bonus will reduce the number of Americans interested in military service. This will not cause a recruiting problem since only 4% of recruits are married, and our smaller military must recruit only 60% of what was needed a decade ago.  Even without a housing allowance, most married recruits will earn more than their current jobs.

      If this proves a bad policy, it can be quickly reversed. Meanwhile, Congress should allow each Armed Service the option of testing this idea to improve readiness and save money. The Marine Corps would adopt it immediately, while the Army and Navy would probably wait a couple years to see how it affects the Marines. Eventually, Congress may mandate this policy for all Armed Services when they realize that it can save billions of dollars each year through fewer housing allowances, moving expenses, and a reduced demand for family housing, family services, and medical care. The entire U.S. military can become more ready to rapidly deploy overseas for a major war without experiencing the scandals of World War II caused by "families left behind in distress by men who should not have families."

[Ace of Spades]

That's no joke. Two of my brothers are Marines, and they tell me you wouldn't believe how many people marry just to get out of the barracks. I have all the respect in the world for the armed forces, but your average 18-year old soldier isn't any more emotionally mature than anyone else.

"If this proves a bad policy, it can be quickly reversed."

Now that's just funny.

[ken5050]

Excellent essay.. All points are spot on.. It would be even easier to attract recruits ( unmarried) by using the $$ spent for family housing/services, etc.to pay biger recruiting bonuses and pay..I've said this many times. However, HOWEVER ( and there is always a "however") thie story ignores one teling point. We are in wartime, and will be so for the forseeable future, in the War on Terror. and young men, volnteering to serve their country, and protect her by going into harm's way, have this incredible desire to leave something behind of themselves, if they don't return. It's human nature. It's not the number of marriages..it's the number of marriages AND immediate pregnancies that causes the problems..

[R. Scott]

Way back when we were told “If the Army wanted you to have a wife it would have issued you one”.
Times change.

[Jacquerie]

Amen. It is tough enough on young men and women to adjust to a new way of life in our armed forces. Adding the pressure of family life at such an early age is a recipe for problems.

By the way, it was that b!tch congresswoman Pat Shroeder from CO that went bonkers over Commmandant Mundy's decision to solve the problem.

[dakine]

lot of fun stuff in this...

"Fewer GIs will work extra hours to make up for the absence of married personnel."

??? WTF, who is in charge where this is happening?

[Jacquerie]

I forgot to add, "Pat Shroeder the impaler of Naval Aviators."

[glorgau]

Gotta agree with this. I hated doing weekend duty just so some married PFC could have some "quality time" with their wife. It was blatantly unfair and corrosive to morale.

[DYngbld]

I have seen way too many "paper" marriages just to get out of the BEQ or off the ship. I got married after I had been in the Navy for a year, and been very happily married my entire carrier. I was also 21 years old and had known my wife for a couple of years.
I have seen many divorces due to lack of maturity, or just plain respect for the service members job. My wife is very much a part of my career she had a 50.5% vote in my staying 20 or not.
The biggest problem I have seen is Military married to military I know several. Many of them work out great, however many of them also bring new issues of readiness, especially if there are children.
Removing the incentive of more pay and better housing if you are married is great at the E1-E3 ranks. If the Navy did not pay for my housing now I would not be able to support my family, and I would have moved on years ago.

[DYngbld]

Agreed, It is blatantly unfair. Your COC should have been kicked in head. Duty is duty.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

But did it benefit the family (the married PFC) on the whole which in turn benefits the country? I think younger workers military or not that are not married do carry the burden of working weekends, night etc. It is just part of being younger, not fair, but it happens to everyone. In terms of people marrying younger, I have my doubts, I think the longer you wait to get married the more selfish you become. JMHO.

[dakine]

Never had a readiness problem, being military married to military...have to have a plan....

[DYngbld]

Not all Mil to Mil have a problem. There are family care plans and so fourth. But I have seen issues come up that make one person not deployable. The big problem I have seen as of late the last 5 years or so is the increase of unmarried moms. 19 and 20 year old girls having babies. That wipes out readiness if you have a small shop, you lose them for about a year.

[Lazamataz]

During the past two decades, the number of married GIs grades E-1, E-2, and E-3 has more than tripled.

Soldier, if the United States Army wanted you to have a wife, they'd have issued you one.

[Lazamataz]

I think the longer you wait to get married the more selfish you become.

I'd question your comment, but I fail to see how that would benefit ME.

ME.

[dakine]

"you lose them for about a year."

Maternity leave use to be 6 weeks, I guess the time before giving birth they are "non-deployable"...

Just get women out of the military....

[untrained skeptic]

I don't think that the military should be paying those who are married differently than those who are single.

I understand this likely means that a pay raise is required to retain career soldiers. I think they deserve a reasonable wage for their service to our country. I think they deserve it regardless of their marital status.

[MissAmericanPie]

Billions of dollars? Wonder while congress is at it if they will consider the 34 billion ripped off from our economy and sent to Mexico each year?

[dk/coro]

This particular aspect of the broad critical problem facing our national leadership, relative to our current military manning and "recruitment" policies is but the tip of the iceberg.

The relatively recent relaxation of the marriage and billeting issue for the lowest paygrades was, of course, a transparent ploy to enhance both recruitment and retention. Dastardly shortsighted and flawed, of course.

But, beyond that issue looms the truism that the military is extended far beyond the capability to sustain itself over the mid to long term.

Further, I submit that we have "hessianized" our uniformed cadre -- giving the affluent segment of our national soul a free pass, while assuring the requirements are fulfilled by co-opting the economically disadvantaged (spell foreign) and minority manpower pool.

And, Congress has not a clue as to the severity of this horrific mistake. Less than 16% of our Senators and Representatives have ever worn a uniform -- much less heard the whine of an enemy bullet.

For over two decades now, we have been cooking the books relative to the imbalance between commitment and capability -- both politically and strategically.

We will soon have to face the issue of Uniformed Military Service -- or acknowledge the fact that we are dumbing down the officer corps -- and failing to meet overall manpower requirements; losing national contact with the military services; and generating a Military Manpower Problem that will take years to correct; and make the social security issue look like child's play!

Thank you. /s/ DKP

[Ro_Thunder]

lot of fun stuff in this...

"Fewer GIs will work extra hours to make up for the absence of married personnel."

??? WTF, who is in charge where this is happening?

But they don't get OVERTIME pay, so who cares if they work extra hours? I routinely worked 24 on/24 off (port & starboard watches)... we also worked a 2 days, 2 mids, and 2 eves shift that left us dog tired. I was single, and filed for VHA/BAQ, got it, and moved offbase. If they don't want single E-4's living off base, don't approve the pay!

As for the ones who marry? Well, that's just silly. It's the same as if they marry in college, and frankly, doesn't matter. Whether they can handle it or not, they want the pay, they get the pay by getting married. However, they also pay for it in having to pay for food instead of eating at the chow hall, and the extra headache of utilities, etc. Everyone has to figure out how to do that sooner or later, and the military isn't just to teach you to fight/go to war.