Don't "help the military family down the street". . .

The BBQ Pit
61

What I meant to imply is that in the military, like the rest of the world, a college degree – or at least an associates degree from a well-regarded tech school(rightly or wrongly–that’s another debate unto itself)–increases one’s career advancement chances. If one sits at home whining instead of helping support the family while Dad puts in the extra hours and effort into getting more college or more technical training, then one shouldn’t blame the taxpayer. That goes for civilians, as well.

I agree that neither a degree nor an officer’s commission is a guarantee that the holders of either are in any way the “betters” of those who don’t; but the rules of a game that none of us grunts, military or civilian, had any hand in formulating state that the big bucks come to those with the fancy piece(s) of paper.

62

LDOs are not limited to O3. That particular career path is open to advancement to Captain.

63

Read “volunteered”.

To quote your own post, fucktard (bolding mine):

Putz yourself, moron.

64

It may very well be a crime, and I think the military can go further in helping people, but I agree with Chefguy. How the father came to be out of the picture is very relevant. If he died, there should’ve been something from life insurance or a death benefit. If he divorced her, she should’ve pursued child support. If he deserted her, that’s a little trickier, but there are still things she could’ve done. That she did nothing doesn’t sit well with me.

Robin

65

I was enlisted Air Force for 3 years on AD and then spent 4 years in the Air Guard, both Montana and Oregon. Highest rank I got was Senior Airman (E-4). I was never married or had kids (still the case now, :frowning: )

In the AF, it was a gravy train, because ALL of my income was disposable. I lived on base, ate mostly at the chow halls, and when on deployment got all sorts of cool per diems that I mostly spent on beer and tittie bars.

The Guard was a bit harder financially. For the first two years, I had to travel 4 hours each way to drills once a month and two weeks a year, and they put me up in a hotel and fed me three squares and everything (although they didn’t pay for my travel). It wasn’t too bad, but the duty pay was less than I would make working my day job. I kept doing it because I was a student and didn’t want to work fulltime and wanted a little adventure on the weekends.

The second two years was much harder. I moved to Oregon, then Seattle. Having to commute from Seattle to Portland, OR for Guard Drills wasn’t too bad, although they wouldn’t put me up in a hotel as it was only 2.5 hours away, and wouldn’t feed me (no chow hall on base). And it was MUCH less than I made in my civilian job contracting for an IT company. And it really became a money loser when I went on deployments, of which I did 4 in two years (Panama, Turkey twice, and regular guard drills). These were not, repeat NOT, regular annual drill periods but above and beyond that - backfill for cut-back Active Duty units who couldn’t fill their mission obligations without destroying their readiness (didn’t apply to us, apparently).

So let’s work this out - for 6 weeks a year for 2 years, I lost something along the lines of $500 per week. That’s a minimum $3,000 I lost in wages alone. And I wasn’t stuck in Iraq for 6-9 months continuous with a wife and kids at home.

Those are the only ones I feel bad for - the Guardsmen and -women. The vast majority of them have left behind much better paying jobs, and are facing effectively unlimited deployments where they are losing hundreds if not thousands of dollars per week, and things like the daily per diem (you only get that if there are no chow facilities on base where you are deployed to) are required by the servicmen and women to feed themselves!

Now, I didn’t have a family while I was doing this, and I was losing between $500 to $1000 per week; if I had to pay child care, as well as pay for medical insurance or medical care for my family, I would have been in such an enormous hole that there would have been no daylight left; I was nearly evicted on one deployment because my rent was overdue! The few ‘archangel’ companies that continue to pay Guardsmen and -women full salary are laudable (but few and far between), but this is something that the individual states and the Federal government should do more to mitigate, not something indivdual companies must do!

It’s no wonder Guard recruiting is down across the board. Who the hell would want to sign up to lose money month after month after month!

66

As some have said, I really sympathize with the Guardsmen and their families. Taking the hit of lost pay from a civilian job can be brutal.

However, i have to echo the sentiment about full time military families- too many of these hardship cases are a direct result of trying to survive on 1 salary. My family couldn’t do it, so I don’t see why anyone else should get a pass in our volunteer army. It is my understanding that the military does a lot in the way of helping maintain its families- both through benefits and codes of conduct. Is day care a service provided on base? If not, I wholeheartedly support its implementation. But to give the spouse a pass on making ends meet does not sit well with me.

67

There is tons of support on base, as well as additonal pay, for military families. No, it’s not a great wage, and yes, I think the military should get raises across the board, but I agree we shouldn’t be paying military families to be single-income families. That is ridiculously unfair of a burden to put on taxpayers when this boon is extended to no one else in the country.

Raising a family is tough and expensive, and you should only do it when you’re ready to. Accidents and unfortunate incidents happen, and a safety net should be (and IS!) in place for accidents, but those who want to raise a family with only one working parent on a tight budget should suck it up a bit and deal with their decision and stop expecting Uncle Sugar to foot the bill.

68

Daycare is offered on most bases, and for the most part, care is excellent and relatively inexpensive. Unfortunately, there is a LOT of red tape to be able to use it and there may be waiting lists involved, as well.

Unfortunately for many military spouses, there is a great deal of competition for decent jobs, both from other military spouses and from people in the local community. Military people tend to move from place to place every few years, and who wants to hire someone who’s going to be leaving soon anyway?

Another factor is lack of advanced education. If Private Cletus joined the Army to get the hell out of Bumblefuck, Arkansas, his girl-back-home wants to get the hell out, too. I haven’t seen any numbers on spouse education, but I’d bet that a lot of the spouses of junior enlisted have at most a high school diploma, and I’d be willing to bet that there are a good number who don’t even have that. Lack of education is only an excuse when the family can’t afford to put food on the table, much less send Mommy to school. As I suggested upthread, the military can help families help themselves by offering tuition assistance to spouses so they can get better jobs.

Robin

69

Really? :dubious: How does that work? I’ve heard that in the past servicemembers needed approval from their CO to marry. Can Marines be discharged for marrying? Since the military has no authority over marriage laws punishing servicemembers would be the only way to enforce such a policy.

70

Military law is different than civilian law; if something is found to be detrimental to unit readiness or cohesion, the military can make it illegal for military members. This has no bearing on civilian law, and military members do not have the same legal recourses to fight against unfair laws as civilians do.

Now, I know in the Air Force (at least when I was in) there was no regulation preventing anyone of any rank from getting married, and you didn’t need a commander’s permission to get married (unless your spouse was a foreign national and you had a security clearance of secret or higher). But the Marines could have made it against their regulations to get married below a certain rank, and various duty stations (Korea, Saudi, etc…) were considered Hardship Postings and non-military spouses were not allowed to come with you.

71

Just some input here from a retired ol’ Personnelman First Class (that’d be me).

The Armed Forces cannot forbid someone from getting married. The right to contract marriage is, as should readily be evident, a right. What they can do is erect certain barriers to it, such as the aforementioned requirement to get permission to marry a foreign national. If you go to the MILPERSMAN you can check the military’s crock that they pretend is the rationale behind this requirement. FWIW, the requirement is for any military member to marry any foreign national regardless of where the marriage will be contracted/solemnized. For more crock, you can read the area regulations required to be promulgated by said MILPERSMAN regarding marriage to a foreign national. Oh, the commanding officer is not the individual who decides on the permission or lack thereof: it’s the area commander referenced in said MILPERSMAN.

Another interesting tidbit is that failure to gain permission prior to entering the “international” marriage does not invalidate the marriage. All it does is (a) pose a delay to gaining “command sponsorship” (see, again, the MILPERSMAN for more than you ever wanted to know about that), and (b) subjects the military member to punitive action for violating a lawful general regulation.

IIRC, and I may merely recall incorrectly, there wasn’t any prohibition on Marines getting married while of the rank of Corporal or below, but rather there was bandied about the idea of not recruiting those who were already married.

72

I forgot to mention two things:
[ol][li]Members of the Armed Forces do, in fact, retain their rights.[/li]&
[li]Members of the Armed Forces are not property of the government[/ol][/li]I’m just putting these in here in case someone decides to toss out those two myths.

73

The mythys I refer to are that “members of the military don’t have any rights” and “members of the military are government property.”

74

Monty, I hate to disagree with you, but military personnel do not have all the same rights as civilians.

[ul]
[li]Right to free assembly. Have you heard the term ‘fraternization?’ It doesn’t mean only sexual realations while on duty. If you look at the UCMJ, it is illegal for enlisted personnel and commissioned personnel to spend off-duty time together. Off-base or ship, it takes a real fucking hard-ass to enforce the law, but it is a law. [/li][li]Protection against unreasonable search and siezure. Anyone of sufficient rank can demand to inspect your locker at any time. For any reason. And based upon what may or may not be found there, further charges would be completely legal. The MAA of my ship ended up searching all the enlisted M and RL DIV lockers because the MPA thought that one of the enlisted personnel aboard had stolen his fucking mini-Maglite. [/li][li]Freedom of speech. I double-dog-dare any serving member of the Armed forces to tell a senior ranked person (comissioned or otherwise) that they are a douchebag. Granted this would be prejudicial to good discipline, but it’s not exactly something that a civilian can’t do. (With the possible exception of telling a judge in court that he’s a douchebag. Which isn’t quite the same thing as telling an officer or NCO in the mess that he’s a douchebag.)[/li][li]Freedom from self-incrimination. I’m less sure here, but I do seem to recall something about how military personnel do not have a right to remain silent. [/li][/ul]

As for marriage. I had never been a Marine so I don’t know whether I was just passing on a sea story or not.

Having said that, it’s pretty easy for a command to make getting married a real headache: Do you want leave to get married? Most young enlisted personnel arriving to their command do so ‘in the hole’ on leave days. It is not impossible for a command to deny leave based on a member’s being in the hole, or even wanting to use more leave days than they have accrued.

I don’t guess they can prevent you from marriage - but they can sure make it difficult and make you well aware that it’s not seen as a good idea.

75

It’s been going on a lot longer than 23 years- when my Dad enlisted in the Air Force (1968), they told him that he wouldn’t make enough to have a family until he was about E-5. Even with Mom teaching and Dad in the AF, they were still pretty damn broke to hear them tell it.

OTOH, I have a friend of mine who’s a O-3 in the Navy and a sub navigator. Between his sub pay, his base pay, and his cost of living allowances, he clears just shy of six figures a year. Not too shabby, regardless of where you live.

I agree they ought to increase pay, especially for the officers and NCOs. I’m not so sure that paying E-4s and below more is worth it for the long haul, but paying the NCOs and officers that stick around more is definitely worth it in terms of incentive to keep good people around. If I’m not mistaken, you generally don’t make E-5 until your last year or so of enlistment, if then.

As for whether or not a single mom with 2 kids can make it on an E-4’s pay, well, how many other jobs are there that a person with education/experience equivalent to an E-4 can work and support a family on? It isn’t the government’s problem to bail out poor decision makers.

76

That depends on many, many things. But I made E-5 at the two year mark myself. Granted, I came in as an E-3, which smoothed things along considerably. But I wasn’t the only sailor who did this.

77

My ex is in the marines (graduated bootcamp…started training at 29 Palms a few weeks ago). The other day he called me to tell me what “fucking idiot” his roomie was- see, his roomie was out shopping for a ring so he could marry his gf ASAP.

Marines most certainly can get married, but they are discouraged from it. In fact, my ex has actually had four different classes on why it is bad to be involved with a girl while you are in the Marines. A direct quote (told by my ex): “Those dirty sluts will cheat on you with every single guy that is around and leave you when you are injured in war.”

Good times.

78

Let’s examine, shall we?

Actually, it’s a regulation which describes a policy. Many firms have anti-fraternization rules. Members of the military still have the right to free assembly, just like civilians.

Incorrect. Only personnel in specific positions of authority may inspect one’s quarters or lockers and they must have a clearly stated reason for so doing. The usual reason, IIRC, for locker/quarters searches is “health and welfare.” Of course, if any illegal items are discovered, the owner of said items is subject to disciplinary action.

I will happily discount your sea story of the Maddening Missing Maglite as just that: sea story.

So, you do understand that the military member has the right but that, as in civilian life, it’s limited in certain instances?

Go check that UCMJ. You’ll notice that the military member has the right against self-incrimination.

And, no doubt, it’s not uncommon for the member to contract marriage on a weekend in the local area and thus not require any extra time off whatsoever.

I agree with you fully on that one. That’s why I’m 100% fired up against the military’s absolute and complete bovine manure known as the regulation regarding marriage to foreign nationals. It’s hypocritical and it’s essentially based on the anti-Japanese sentiment from World War II (I did a lovely term paper for that at university; however, I don’t have a copy of it here–I’ll ask a friend to send me his copy of it and, if you want to read it, I’ll send it onto you).

79

It took 4 of us chipping in on a 3 BR apt to afford to live off the ship.
The stacked us 120 in the Coop (sleeping quarters) and 3 high with almost no storage space. Parking was doled out as a privilege and mass transit was terrible.

I was afraid to get married while in. I knew it would be a life of poverty. Just didn’t see how to make a go at it. I got out after 4 years and have never regreatted getting out.

I’m sure San Diego was worse than many places but Long Beach, San Fran, Nat Earle in Jersey, any Connecticut base or Hawaii would have been even more expensive. The extra money they provide married servicemen is still low.
In the 80’s when everybody was making huge amounts of money, we got one 2% raise that Reagan had to fight for.
The only saving grace was that promotions weren’t too hard to get. Going from E3 to E4 with Sea Pay made a nice difference in pay. I believe I went from around $9000 to $12000. Very good percentage raise.
The biggest insult to me was as a volunteer in the US military, we had worse housing then Felons.

80

Yes, and if you violate that rule in civilian life you’ll face, at maximum, firing. The military can send you to NJP for playing a game of chess.

I can give you the names of the officers and enlisted involved, the approximate time, and the command, but you’re so sure it couldn’t happen, I must be making it up to make a point. I also must have manufactured the memory of having to open my locker for the CMAA to look through so he could see whether I had the Maglite in question. I’m sure, now that you tell me this is simply a sea story, that it is impossible that the enlisted personnel aboard my command got the blame for the actions of one of the MPA’s fellow officers. Thank you so much for clearing that up.

I said that military members give up some of the rights that are accepted as part of civilian life. In civilian life the only two exceptions to Freedom of Speech I can think of are: when such speech is endangering other persons; or when in a court of law - which can be a bit of a crock, IMNSHO. The restrictions on military speech are far more extensive, and the definitions of insubordination, in particular, are such that any forceful disagreement with a superior could be interpreted as such. Again - there’s a big difference in the level of sanction available to a military member vs. a civilian if one mouths off to the wrong person. CCU is a very different prospect than being fired.

I did say I wasn’t sure of this one. Though, the way I seem to be reading the UCMJ, now, is that it’s only applicable to courts-martial. It’s in the section of the UCMJ under Pre-Trial Procedure. Thus, I’m not sure NJP has that protection. And whether it does or not, it’s relatively easy for a command to railroad people into accepting NJP, when a court-martial would be more in their interests.

I’m not defending the foreign nationals regulation. And never have.

I do, however, see a potential benefit to trying to keep marriage to those personnel who have presumably been in long enough to know what they’re getting into with it. Unfortunately, for all the good that might come of it, I also believe that it’s a person’s right to be an idiot if that’s what they want to be.