Posted on 07/11/2013 9:34:26 AM PDT by Nachum
WASHINGTON — Top defense officials were to meet Thursday to discuss trimming the list of countries where servicemembers’ paychecks are pumped up by imminent danger pay.
The officials were considering eliminating imminent danger pay in 18 countries and 5 waterways around the world that military officials believe may no longer be hazardous enough to warrant the extra pay. According to a Wednesday report from The Associated Press, that could affect up to 56,000 troops who serve in, sail through or fly over designated danger zones, saving the department $120 million annually.
A defense official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter cautioned that no decision has been made to eliminate danger pay, which amounts to $7.50 a day, or a maximum of $225 a month, in designated countries.
It would be the second cost-cutting move related to danger pay in just over a year. Last February, the Defense Department began prorating danger pay by the day — instead of paying the full monthly amount for even one day in a designated country — to save up to $30 million annually.
The move isn’t sitting well
(Excerpt) Read more at stripes.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
This administration will endorse screwing the military as much as possible as often as possible.
There are large quantities of Islamic Males between the ages of 18-30 in the area???
I’d call that an “imminent danger”. . . .
But will back up 70 million in bonuses to the IRS because they’re union.
DOD was given orders by the commander in chief who hates the military.
Bump
If you’re sitting behind a desk in Washington, all those regions seem pretty safe.
Since the TEA party is the real threat, they’ll probably give the pay to desk jockeys in CONUS.
So a recruiter in Dearborn, Michigan deserves imminent danger pay?
Frankly, yes. . .
Our military pay system needs to be revised and updated. There are a lot of troops that have seen multiple deployments and get burnt out at 12-15 years and leave with no retirement benefits and that is wrong. It is a result of having and long war with a minority of the services carrying a majority of the combat.
Some of these places where they are stationed should be getting hardship pay..not imminent danger pay..but they should get more than someone sitting in a stateside base. The troops in combat assignments should get special pay...and more of it.
Not getting any argument from me. I’d say a year in a combat zone should count for three years for retirement and pay seniority. Hazardous duty, 1.5 multiplier.
Sit in an airconditioned office at the 5-sided funny farm ?? .5 years credit for every year in the Pentagon. . .
“Sit in an airconditioned office at the 5-sided funny farm ?? .5 years credit for every year in the Pentagon. . .”
Actually. . .in the ‘gone time slows down. . .agony. . .where one month feels like one year.
;0)
I know. I’ve worked there too. Teh Stoopid is exceptionally strong there. The point is, to drive forces AGAINST long Pentagon tours. . .
Excellent idea. A guy in the Army with 6 or 7 or 8 combat deployments has to serve the same 20 years as an Air Force clerk hanging out at Bagram Air Field that gets to go to Salsa Night every Thurday.
The two career paths are totally different, and the pay and benefits system should reflect that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.