SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes

[picklesuit]

So why does somebody who decided to marry anybody, incurring extra costs to the DOD in terms of FSA, health care costs, and decreased tax income, rate more monetary compensation than a single member?

Am I suddenly better at flying/leading/Officering just because I got hitched?

I think the mil-mil BAH cut actually makes sense.
Pickle

 

[IKE]

IMO:
1) Pay should be based on rank/merit. I would gladly give up the with-dependents portion of my BAH for this principle

2) Bearing (1) in mind, there is a significant difference between mil-mil and mil-civ couples: collocation. There is a cost associated with restricting the services' ability to move the right people when and where they see fit, especially if only one member can be deployable. Why shouldn't the couple that chooses to marry mil-mil share in that cost? Would a civilian company pay a travel-capable employee the same as one that isn't? Unlike EFMP issues, the mil-mil marriage is a choice.

So, if (1) were reality (which I'm not expecting any time soon), I think mil-mil folks should choose between collocation and a pay cut or being treated and paid like any other servicemember.

 

[Spekkio]

So why does somebody who decided to marry anybody, incurring extra costs to the DOD in terms of FSA, health care costs, and decreased tax income, rate more monetary compensation than a single member?

Am I suddenly better at flying/leading/Officering just because I got hitched?

I think the mil-mil BAH cut actually makes sense.
Pickle

I never had an issue with married BAH being higher. I always figured that mil spouses end up taking a paycut in some capacity to make it work. Turns out that's usually true, and it's way more than $200-400/mo.

According to BAH isn't based on what people need, anyway. It's based on what people in your income bracket can typically afford if they had a 'normal job' and stayed put for more than a couple of years rather than being forced into a perpetual rental cycle.

If it were based on need, there would be no reason to pay an O-3 with dependents $600/mo more than an E-3 in the same duty station. They're both going to look to get the same sized place in a similar neighborhood.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Come on, now, let's be honest. How many of the majority of guys went IRR because there "weren't any billets" and how many went IRR because there weren't any flying billets? And I understand you may not know the answer, but with the number of unfilled O-5 and O-6 billets available on the APPLY sheet in fleet concentration areas, I have a hard time believing there aren't/weren't billets. Now, were they attractive billets? Meh, probably not, especially for someone who has been in the cockpit for that long and/or was a CO, but there are still opportunities out there, but many don't allow the job satisfaction while being away from family that a SAU gig would.

The APPLY open billets are on a CAC enabled website - and Navy IRR do not have CAC cards. I believe the other services list their billets where anyone can see them.

 

[Gatordev]

The APPLY open billets are on a CAC enabled website - and Navy IRR do not have CAC cards. I believe the other services list their billets where anyone can see them.

That isn't really relevant to your initial post. You said that the majority of your SELRES contemporaries went IRR because there were no billets available. While they were SELRES, they had CAC access and could look at the billets. My supposition is that there were billets, just not ones they wanted.

 

[Recovering LSO]

being treated and paid like any other servicemember.

Yes. This. Treat and pay each servicemember the same.

One servicemember goes through a few years with a set compensation package, then gets married to another servicemember and now you're going to cut one of their compensation packages by upwards of $20,000. Again, when you consider doing the same thing to a who servicemember marries anyone else with an income then you'll have an audience for this conversation.

 

[IKE]

Yes. This. Treat and pay each servicemember the same.

Equal treatment, so no collocation?

My point was and is that collocation is both a cost to the service and a special, beneficial treatment to the mil-mil members. I'm not saying cut pay of mil-mil folks simply for marrying in-house. I'm asking why mil-mil who request collocation shouldn't share in the cost of their choice. Because, as it stands now, mil-mil get equal pay but special treatment.

Maybe I've got it all wrong. I've never worked in Millington. Is collocation no more prioritized than Joe Schmo's dream sheet preferences? In my experience, it has trumped other considerations and allowed mil-mil couples to bypass selection processes in order to negotiate directly with detailers.

 

[CommodoreMid]

Not married here, but thus far I've seen a lot of married couples have to choose being stationed together and one (or both) having to take orders less than desirable for career progression as a result, or both members take "good" orders at the expense of living together.

 

[Randy Daytona]

That isn't really relevant to your initial post. You said that the majority of your SELRES contemporaries went IRR because there were no billets available. While they were SELRES, they had CAC access and could look at the billets. My supposition is that there were billets, just not ones they wanted.

Among my contemporaries, one of the interesting statistics that I remember was that only 30% of O-6 SelRes were able to find SelRes billets. That may or may not have changed but a significant number of the open billets the last time I looked at the APPLY board were for specialized designators - not just generic 10xx or 13xx billets. This meshes with PERS telling me reserve O-5 and O-6 were over-manned. I will make the correction that most of the O-5 SelRes I knew retired from SelRes.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Equal treatment, so no collocation?

I draw a dark line of distinction between f'ing with my pay/compensation (let's not get into the "allowance" vs "pay" dick dance - it's income), and co-location. Colocation should be provided IF/WHEN it does not put an undue burden on the community/detailer/commands. As CDRE MID pointed out, co-location can actually be pretty easy, so long as one member of the relationship is willing to accept some B billet. I understand SECNAV is hoping to change some of this...because women; but I think he's going to find it is more difficult that simply snapping his fingers and waving his wand. Talk to any of your friends in Millington and they'll tell you that the already do everything they can (and usually A LOT more, often too much) to get folks co-located.

IMO, when you embark on a mil-mil marriage, you understand that time away is going to be the name of the game. You might be bi-costal, you might be in the same town - but you're going to be opposite deployment cycles etc etc. This is something that mil-mil couples almost all go into (should go into) with eyes wide open. Yanking ~ $20k out from under someone - that's something different.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I draw a dark line of distinction between f'ing with my pay/compensation (let's not get into the "allowance" vs "pay" dick dance - it's income), and co-location.

You are still missing the point. Your CO can literally order you into government quarters and you will lose 100% of your BAH. BAH, as published by the DOD, is to cover the cost of housing on the private market (for you AND/OR your family), but isn't required to be paid if you can live at cost to the government.

I'm not an idiot and I fully understand that the vast majority of military people live out and town and consider their pay to include BAH as their total compensation.

However, if the military says that they are now only going to pay one military member BAH in a mil-mil couple, they are still providing the required compensation to house the mil-mil family. They could also order that mil-mil couple into government quarters and they now lose both BAHs. When I'm saying quarters, I'm not talking privatized housing, I'm saying on base in a barracks/Q style living.

The compensation package is to have housing costs paid for. The military isn't the civilian world so if the military says that the total compensation package of a mil-mil couple should only include one BAH payment, it makes fiscal sense.

That said, I'm not arguing that dual mil folks are getting overpaid or taking advantage of the system, I'd never fault someone for getting a good deal. However, one can only expect a good deal to go on for so long and shouldn't be surprised if that good deal changes.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I'd never fault someone for getting a good deal. However, one can only expect a good deal to go on for so long and shouldn't be surprised if that good deal changes.

If you consider being afforded the same compensation package as the service members to your left and right a good deal, than sure.

I'm still not sure why it matters what I do with my allowance? I'll ask again, why does a guy married to a very ($uce$$ful) spouse get BAH? I should be paid and compensated based on who I am and not who my spouse is. If we're going to go down that path, then all the rest of the non mil-mil couples ought to be willing to have their finances held up to scrutiny.

 

[squorch2]

It's been a while, but detailing consideration priorities used to be in this order:

1) EFMP
2) Colocation
3) Everything else

 

[IKE]

I should be paid and compensated based on who I am and not who my spouse is.

I agree 100%. What I'm saying is that you are no longer you if requesting collocation. You are now a less mobile and/or more restricted version of yourself. Any smart business would provide less compensation to a less flexible employee.

I know some mil-mil couples whom I greatly respect, and I can see it's an added stressor in the marriage compared to my mil-civ style, but it also constrains (costs) the service with no current monetary effect on the members.

 

[nittany03]

Any smart business would provide less compensation to a less flexible employee.

Uhhh . . . no. You are (ideally) paid in proportion to the value you add to the company. Want a big raise? First make yourself indispensable, and then get a counteroffer from another company. If I was hired for a role that didn't involve travel and I started getting shipped across the country, you better believe I'd be saying "hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort."

Now if I applied for a role that advertised 70 percent travel and I started saying "hell no, I won't go," then yeah. Expect the opposite, or to get bounced out on the street. But compensation depends on the role, and there are plenty of code monkeys making bank in Silicon Valley without worrying about being "flexible." If it's a buyer's market and you have a rare skill the company needs, the company caters to you.