Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

Revamp BAH for all

Having read quite a bit lately in regard to the supposed unfairness of Basic Allowance for Housing, it seems that many single soldiers are complaining that they do not get paid enough to maintain a household of their own. While this is possible, I have to ask, who is forcing them to live off-post?

Rarely do I see a soldier under the rank of staff sergeant forced to live outside the barracks. If the military wishes to pay these soldiers more money for BAH, so be it. However, if they choose to do so, they also should revamp the whole system, not just for single soldiers.

As a married soldier with two children, I am authorized a three-bedroom house on any military installation where I am stationed. However, this seems to apply only to post housing, since to rent a three-bedroom house off-post (which is a must more frequently) costs me close to $300 out of my own pocket to pay the utilities and an extra $75-$100 a month in rent.

If we’re seriously worried about single soldiers not being paid enough to maintain a proper household, then what about us married soldiers who aren’t paid fairly either?

Sgt. David A. Bowman

Fort Campbell, Ky.

I have just read the report on single soldiers’ BAH increasing and it had me going [“Fair play,” April 21].

I understand people would like more money, but if there is an increase, then married soldiers’ BAH should also increase. The statements that the people gave of why they deserve it or need it seem more like a personal budget problem. The last article [“Single doesn’t mean fewer expenses”] concluded with the quote, “They think that because we’re single, we don’t have the same expenses as married people.”

Are you serious? How is a single soldier paying the same as a married soldier? I have a wife and two kids. I have to pay for myself, my wife and my two kids. So all together, I am paying for four people. Simple math will tell you the expenses aren’t comparable.

Now, if I choose to get a four-bedroom house, and it is outside my budget, that is my choice. So if single soldiers’ BAH increases, then so should married soldiers’ BAH. Come on people — do the math.

Spc. Allen Reese

Fort Stewart, Ga.

Lead by example

I’m one of the fortunate few given the chance to serve the Army late in life, due to the recent increase of the enlistment age. However, because of my life experience outside the military, I can see things that are wrong with the Army that career soldiers and young kids entering the military can’t. They’re problems that the Army didn’t have in its earlier history.

In particular, you have noncommissioned officers who are more concerned with soldiers having their hands in their pockets or not tucking in their PT shirts or wearing their patrol caps, instead of concerning themselves with the soldiers’ welfare. The same soldiers committing these “unthinkable” infractions have pay issues or lack the necessary equipment to do their jobs, just to name a few more important concerns.

Additionally, many NCOs are elitists who aren’t willing to do what they ask their men to do. I don’t know what they learned in the warrior leadership course, but it wasn’t leadership.

During the Civil War, you had soldiers wearing varied uniforms, including Gen. George Custer — who designed his own that resembled a Navy uniform — and you can spot many a soldier with his hand in his pocket or without a hat in those old field photos, yet the Army still managed to preserve the Union and free the slaves. And I can bet that those NCOs led by example.

NCOs need to focus on the important issues in fighting this war on terrorism and lead by example to keep the Army the greatest army in the world.

Pfc. Richard Robinson

Jalalabad, Afghanistan

Still incompatible

Here I sit in retirement, stupefied again at the wasteful military. I served 21 years for the Army and saw this again and again.

I read in the April 7 issue that a House Armed Services Committee report “urged the Pentagon to build systems that are compatible” [“UAV dearth emboldens enemy”]. What a joke. Didn’t the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 direct all services by law to jointly develop, procure and field systems that work together? Why, then, in 2008 are we “urging” the services to make compatible systems?

After retiring as a chief warrant officer 4, it sickens me to see the continued waste of the services. Why can’t we develop a helicopter that all services can use? Why can’t we develop a drone that all can use? Why can’t we develop a uniform all services can use? Why do the Army, Air Force and Marines all require a different set of camouflage uniforms? If one design is better, then use it.

When will the leadership of our military services quit being so petty about turf and focus on the best equipment for all services and truly put country before job security?

And why do we need multiple supply systems with different numbers for the same piece of equipment depending on which supply system you happen to be looking at?

The Defense Department has a long way to go, and some very simple fixes could help ease some major problems and save huge dollars across the services.

CW4 Michael D. Dessinger (ret.)

New Port Richey, Fla.

Walk the talk

How many times has it been said to “give the troops what they need to get the job done” or “the troops deserve the best”? Probably too many to count.

These statements brief well. But then there is the real world, the lowest-bidder world, the cost-effective world, the hidden-agenda, politically driven world in which the service member lives.

The jam-prone M4 is still being purchased and issued when more reliable alternatives are available.

The current body armor is bulky and cumbersome, and requires additional attachments to offer the standard protection provided by some of its competitors. Adding insult to injury, senior-ranking individuals have worn a competitor’s body armor in Iraq. If this armor offers better protection, then why not issue it to those on the ground taking the fight to the enemy?

The Army should stop talking about providing the best, and start giving the troops what they need.

Master Sgt. David Bolden (ret.)

Puyallup, Wash.

Honoring spouses

I admire military spouses everywhere. Sometimes being a military spouse is the best military occupational specialty in the military, and sometimes it’s the toughest.

I urge military spouses to be strong and to stay strong and to remember this line: We’re proud military spouses. We can do — we will do.

God bless America and her allies and God bless military spouses.

Cynthia L.M. Ratliff

Cordova, Ala.

Instill pride

The revamped basic training sounds very good and needed [“From ground up,” April 7]. I spent 30-plus years in the Army and commanded companies, batteries, battalion, a NATO headquarters company and a reception station at Fort Ord, Calif., when it was a training base.

I would and still do ask new soldiers, “How was basic?” Almost every one has told me that it was far easier than they had anticipated. The Army seems to be addressing the problem.

Have you ever seen a sloppy Marine at an airport? No, because all through training they are continually indoctrinated with the pride of being in “the Corps.” They know the history of the Marines and would do nothing to bring discredit to the Corps.

The Army overlooks educating the new soldiers on the history and tradition of the Army. The overall outlook as soldiers leave basic is not the Army but their basic training unit. Between basic and advanced training, the soldier wanders around an airport in an unbuttoned uniform and gives a poor image of the Army, show a lack of personal discipline and pride he should hold in his uniform and the Army.

One of the last items the trainee should receive prior to leaving basic training is the tailored Class A uniform. The fat is gone, now fit the uniform.

Don’t fit them when they first arrive, as they now do. If they get discharged while in basic, you don’t have a used uniform to dispose of.

Col. Robert M. Furney (ret.)

Pacific Grove, Calif.

Insufficient ID

As a 20-year-plus veteran of our great military, I have discovered some rather disturbing news. When I applied for employment at various companies, I was required to produce documents to prove I was allowed to work in the U.S. Due to national security, I understand there is a need to prove I am an American citizen and allowed to work in the country.

However, I was completely dumbfounded by the fact that my military identification card was not sufficient to prove both citizenship and employment eligibility. What made the issue aggravating was that a permanent resident card, alien registration receipt card (Form I-551) or an expired passport were acceptable on their own.

Since when does an expired document prove you can be here or able to work? For that matter, how can alien residence cards be “better” or have a higher justification?

Any military members looking for employment have more than earned the right to use their military ID as full proof of eligibility and citizenship, especially since we defend this country and have the government to prove our rights. Certainly, our ID cards should be the least likely to counterfeit — unlike alien cards, which could be made by anyone.

Sgt. Gar E. Heacock

Lubbock, Texas