It’s making more headlines recently and many members of congress, while out on break, are calling for the Pentagon to put a stop to the collections.
If you haven’t been following, apparently back in 2006, the government had a program of paying enlistment bonuses for specialized assignments such as intelligence, civil affairs, etc. Recruits that met certain criteria were only eligible for these bonuses. The California National Guard disregarded these criteria and paid enlistment bonuses to thousands of recruits in order to reach recruitment targets.
After subsequent Pentagon audits of these programs discovered the fraud (by California Guard officials), people were convicted and served time. And also the California Guard or the US DOD, not sure which, decided that these ineligible enlistment bonuses were due back from the soldiers along with back interest. Mind you the bonuses were offered by the California National Guard and their agents.
It’s unclear if the documents supporting these bonuses said recipient had to meet criteria X, Y & Z or was subject to repayment. I haven’t seen anything like that. If my employer mistakenly pays me a bonus, I’d like to see him come back and collect it 10 years later. This is a government agency not taking responsibility for their own problems and attempting to punish the innocent in my opinion.
I am not a lawyer, so I would like someone to set me straight here: Doesn’t the principle of estoppel mean that these bonuses, paid so long ago, shouldn’t have to be given back to Uncle Sam?
Because otherwise nobody could ever spend any sum of money. They would forever have to sit on bonuses, etc., untouched, for fear that decades down the road, they might have to give the money back.
IANAL, but I agree with you. Unless, there was documentation that the recipient signed that said I meet these criteria for the bonus, and if they are not true, then the bonus can be clawed back. Then the recipients were party to the fraud as well. But I have heard no such allegations.
I feel certain that the paperwork the recruit signed was written in indecipherable legalese. Even if they read it, they probably wouldn’t understand it. They probably assumed that recruiter acted in good faith.
I am all for going after corrupt recruiters, but the recruits should be left alone.
I have heard of the government collecting money (and, especially, charging interest on that money) when the target of the collection had engaged in some kind of fraud. (For example, cheating on your taxes.) However, the Guardsmen in this story made a good faith agreement with the duly appointed government (recruiting) agent. I also assume that these Guardsmen actually fulfilled their end of the bargain, so their is no question of fraud on their part, right?
While they may have received monies that they didn’t actually qualify for, trying to take that money back now (6+ years later, plus fucking interest, and, finally, after those enlistment periods would have been completed) certainly has the perception of “punishing” the guardsmen for not knowing that their recruiter is lying (or mistaken).
My gut says: “Unfair!”
I heard some Congress-critters on talk radio this morning state that they are going to attempt to get some legislation/amendments passed quickly to put a stop to these collections.
From what I understand, the Pentagon/DoD is saying they don’t have the legal authority to NOT collect these bonuses paid in error. Wink wink nudge nudge, let’s throw it back into Congress’s lap.
I’m good with Congress stepping in, although one guy already refinanced his house to pay back the bonus. I don’t know if he will be reimbursed.
Have you – or anyone – ever signed anything that wasn’t? Besides a birthday card, that is.
Besides, these were contracts. This for that. Not loans. If the CANG fucked up, they owe the Pentagon money, but I don’t see how the soldiers can be on the hook, or how anyone can even make the mistake of believing they owe anything. They didn’t take on any debt (or accept any financial liability), so how can they owe money?
Seriously, the fact that “respected” reporters and newscasters are using words like “debt” and “owe” here pisses me off to no end. A recruitment bonus is not a loan. In fact, in this situation, it was the California National Guard who took on the debt in order to attract recruits. If they blew it, sucks to be them. It should never have even crossed anyone’s mind that what they blew it on should be forced to pay it back.
Not if the employer signed a contract agreeing to the “overpayment”. It’s not like the Army offered $5k, but gave out $15k, and they’re just now finding out their mistake. They offered $15k, paid it, and now they realize they shouldn’t have. And that’s in no way an overpayment.
The question I’d ask (which may have been answered in the media hullabaloo I’m not bothering to read) is whether it was widely known at the time, by the recruits, that the CANG was wink, wink, nudge nudge, offering to pay bonuses for ineligible enlistments.
If so, the soldiers gain some culpability. Much as did the Wells Fargo employees opening all those fake accounts on management’s nudge nudge wink wink.
OTOH, if the recruiter gave the impression all was kosher and there was no underground knowledge then the recruits were/are reasonably entitled to believe they’re not defrauding Uncle Sam by signing up to work for him. They can take their paperwork, and the legitimacy of their bonus payments, at face value.
As I said, I don’t know which situation is real and which is a straw man.
Some of these soldiers went on to get wounded during deployments that followed their reenlistment. They more than fulfilled their end of the agreement and do not deserve to have these bonuses clawed back.
That, and the optics are really, really bad - anyone thinking about the military, or if they are in the military - making a career or re-enlisting - is thinking “Hm. Ten Years After, and they just may want to claw $700 a month back from me if they fuck up.”
The Army wants to buy a $100 widget. So, they ask Congress for the money and it is approved.
After the Army receives the money, they find out the Navy has an existing contract to buy the widgets at $95. The Army can transfer $95 to the Navy so that the Navy buys the thing and gives it to the Army when it is delivered. Even if that is actually accomplished, that doesn’t mean that there might not be accounting problems.
Let’s say the paper trail that is supposed to document the transfer of the $95 gets screwed up some how – let’s say it is lost – even though the money is transferred and used. So the $95 transferred from the Army to the Navy is not properly accounted for even though the books are accurate that the funds were transferred to the Navy. Then the $95 spent by the Navy may be suspect because there is not a conclusive record of how the Navy got the money – just that they got it. Then the $95 widget arrives and becomes part of the Navy’s inventory, which needs to be accounted for somehow – but in worst-case scenario, someone could question whether it is proper. Then the widget is transferred to the Army, which could have the same problem.
Blammo: a $95 purchase becomes a $400 accounting problem.
Here’s another head-scratcher: if you want the Air Force to pass an audit, you need to know how much the Air Force has in assets. How much is a B-52 built in 1959, and upgraded with a thousand pieces of new technology for half a century, actually worth? And does that really matter to anyone?
Many years ago when I was the recipient of a critical skill bonus, the contract stated clearly that the bonus was contingent on me taking a future action - that is, me completing certain training within a certain amount of time. I don’t recall the penalty for nonperformance, but it definitely was a quid pro quo. I don’t know what happened here, but anyone who accepts a critical MOS bonus should not feel entitled to keep that bonus if they didn’t hold up their end.
I’m not sure how the CNG messed this one up. Perhaps the recruiter downplayed or misrepresented the contingent nature of the bonus, or some way that the soldier was supposed to be proactive in seeking the training? Recruiters have a reputation for that sort of thing. Perhaps there was no funding or slots in the CNG for the soldier to attend the training, and the soldier just sort of assumed they were off the hook because it wasn’t their fault?
My dad me warned me early when I joined the service… if the Army sends you a check that you’re not entitled to, you do not cash it and you attempt to rectify the situation, because they will absolutely claw that money back.
Thanks, Ravenman,
So am I correct that it’s still only a $95 problem that accounting makes look like $400?
So in the original article, there is not *actually *trillions missing?
There was at least one soldier who was promoted out of his “bonus rank” (?) and thus didn’t fulfill the requirements.
Is he supposed to refuse promotion?
If you have a reference, I’d want to look at the details before giving an opinion on that case. On general principle, yes, I agree it’s wrong to create an incentive structure that penalizes soldiers for getting promoted. On the other hand, if the DoD is issuing bonuses requiring soldiers to complete certain training at a certain rank, then a soldier close to promotion should know they will soon become ineligible for that bonus.
If true, that’s a dumb regulation, and I think a law should be passed to fix it. But regs are regs. Now, if the recruiters somehow concealed the eligibility requirements, that’s a whole different situation.