Ordered Into Debt: Pentagon Brass Force Credit Debt On Soldiers and Sailors

The numbers were staggering: $3,400 for a sumo-wrestling outfit, $16,000 for a corporate golf membership, $38,000 in cash advances for lap dances. All were part of a $101 million shopping spree made with "government purchase cards," the U.S. military's version of corporate credit cards -- another made-for-media scandal of reckless Defense Department spending.

But throughout congressional hearings on the topic in July, the real scandal with the military's other piece of plastic, the Government Travel Card (GTC), went ignored by the mainstream press, despite the fact that the card has plunged thousands of ordinary servicemen and servicewomen into debt so deep that the Pentagon is busy garnishing the wages of its own soldiers. And the only military commander known to raise hell about the scheme -- a lone Air Force colonel based in the Midwest -- says that blowing the whistle on the GTC ruined her career.

Lower in the ranks, the damage has been considerable. U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan have found themselves stranded in the desert without a dime because their credit was suddenly cut off, according to a May 29 report in the Military Times, leaving families behind in a nasty catch-22: Swallow the debt, or borrow more money to pay the bills so their credit wouldn't be ruined.

Concocted by Congress in 1998, the GTC was designed to privatize the accounting of federal travel expenses and touted to save taxpayer money. (It also reaps huge fees by the financial conglomerates that issue the cards.) It works like this: Servicepeople are ordered to apply for personal GTCs -- interest-free credit cards issued exclusively by the Bank of America. Instead of requesting vouchers or getting cash to pay for travel expenses, servicepeople pay up front with the their own GTC cards -- essentially floating interest-free loans to the government. As a result, they have to submit expense reports and wait for reimbursements.

But reimbursements often come late, according to a report issued in March of 2002 by the General Accounting Office, which means the GTC bills aren't always paid on time and servicepeople are getting branded as "delinquents." The GAO found "substantial" delays in reimbursements; in one command unit, for example, the California National Guard failed to pay its personnel within a month 61 percent of the time, and of those payments, 42 percent were inaccurate.

Just in the past year, the names of more than 10,000 military personnel have been reported to national credit bureaus as "credit risks," according to the Military Times. Instead of changing the mechanics of the travel card system, however, the DOD and the bank have only tightened their grip on cardholders; since October, the Pentagon has garnished over $19.5 million from military paychecks to pay off "delinquent" GTC bills, according to DOD accountants.

"It's totally unbelievable," says Ed Mierzwinski, consumer banking advocate at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "The notion that you're forced into a contract -- one where you can't pay your bills on time -- and the Pentagon takes it out of your paycheck is outrageous." Military personnel have even less cushion than civilians: Annual pay for an E-2 private is between $11,000 and $14,000.

"It's a pathetic situation when soldiers are forced to buy into a system that's likely to screw them personally," says Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a D.C. nonprofit watchdog group. "This is just another example where the Pentagon has conjured up a scam with a favorite contractor. The desperate rush to privatization has a million warts."

By putting the burden of bookkeeping on its servicepeople and the bank, the Bank of America claims that the Pentagon has saved anywhere from $100 million to $450 million a year in administrative costs. Meanwhile, Bank of America has acquired an entire new fleet of captive consumers: more than 1.4 million servicemen and servicewomen ordered by law to use the card for every travel expense till 2008.

Pentagon officials contend that the program is beneficial to both taxpayers and servicemen. Consumer advocates laugh.

"In no way can this be characterized as a pro-employee program," says Stephen Brobeck, executive director of the Consumer Federation of America. "For any government agency to insist that its employees obtain a personal credit card only shifts the cost and risk on its employees. It's highly inappropriate."

More unsettling, the GTC program may turn out to be highly illegal. All employees of the executive branch are required to apply for them; all servicepeople are ordered to do it. But using a military order to force a serviceman or servicewoman into a private contract -- against his or her will -- is a clear violation of basic contract law, according to handful of military and constitutional legal scholars.

Moreover, they argue, forcing military personnel to personally front the government money for travel expenses and subject their personal "creditworthiness" to the whims of the Pentagon's sluggish accounting system could potentially violate private property rights, which are protected -- even for servicepeople -- under the Fifth Amendment.

"There are serious legal and moral concerns with a government agency ordering a member of the military to sign a private contract," says Philip Cave, a class-action lawyer who specializes in military law. "In the big scheme of things, this policy may seem like small potatoes -- until you're the individual involved."

Top Pentagon officials are grinding out publicity about their get-tough probes of credit-card abuse, but their investigations apparently have nothing to do with the cards' shattering effects on the piggy banks of their military personnel.

In late June, for instance, DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim scheduled a Pentagon press conference to announce the findings of a special task force ordered by Donald Rumsfeld to investigate the military's credit card programs. Zakheim did mention servicepeople's "abuse" of the card; legal and consumer concerns were not raised.

Vince Crawley, a reporter for the Military Times, raised those issues with Zakheim, and the comptroller, who's the Pentagon's chief financial officer, seemed caught off guard.

"You're effectively forcing people to get into a third-party contract with Bank of America," Crawley told Zakheim, according to a transcript of the press conference, "and they're personally responsible for getting the card paid. Has anybody looked at the legality of that?"

"Oh, sure," Zakheim replied. "Look, a person can always refuse to take a card. You know, nobody's forcing you to take the card."

"Well," Zakheim said, pausing to lean away from the microphone and toward an aide. "Yes. It's true. It's the law. So, yes, the law is telling you to do it, but ... correct me if I'm wrong, have people been violently against the use of credit cards, or rather, charge cards? We haven't heard any protest against it."

Colonel Judith Varnau protested the travel card even before the day her application came in the mail in March 2000 at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita. She signed the form, but scribbled in the margins: "I have signed this under duress. I have not voluntarily, for fear of losing my job."

The bank activated her card, so she wrote back, "Again, I state that I am not, nor have I been willing to enter into this private contract.... I am only following orders to obtain the card out of fear of losing my job, adversely affecting my career, or resulting in conviction and possible imprisonment."

Ten days later, her card was canceled. A week after that, she was in the office of her wing commander, Colonel Frederick Roggero. Under Air Force policy, if a card is canceled, personnel are expected to pay expenses in cash or from other credit cards. Roggero, instead, gave Varnau an ultimatum.

"You're effectively forcing people to get into a third-party contract with Bank of America."

"It's either leaving or staying," a voice identified by Varnau as Roggero said on an audiotape Varnau secretly recorded during many closed-door meetings.

She decided to stay, and to fight the card. She wrote state representatives and senators in protest. She asked the Pentagon for whistle-blower protection. She filed five criminal charges against Roggero, with specifications -- extortion, extortion with threats, conspiracy, solicitation, and false official statements -- all serious criminal offenses with maximum jail time of three years. She kept the unreleased tapes as the final trump card, if her day in military court should come.

That day might never come. After two years of fighting the policy, Varnau's charges against Roggero were dropped for lack of evidence, according to the Air Force press office. But no proper investigation was ever made, Varnau contends, and the Air Force lost her file three times in one year. Once a colonel running a small clinic, the 55-year-old Varnau now pushes papers in a dead-end job that she says was created just for her. "I'm blackballed," Varnau said. "I'm the black sheep. My career is over. I've got no place to go."

Roggero, on the other hand, was recently promoted to brigadier general. He now works at the Pentagon as director of marketing for the the Air Force.

This article was posted before and there are plenty of replies to it.

The credit card ISN'T intended to be used to pay for lap dances, golf memberships or sumo wrestling...it's that simple.

The idea is to allow card use the same way corporate business does...use it in an official capacity to pay for odfficial expenses, within a known limitation...that way a traveling member can conduct business without delays of cash advances, etc.

Damn few enlisteds need that card (aircrew members being and exeption), and miuse is no different than corporate misuse.

We had this system in place long ago (starting with Diner's Club, then AMEX and now MC), and it reduces a lot of paperwork and paper shuffle. The story is awfully biased, slanted and misleading.

If this article was any more slanted it would fall off the screen.

What is the other side of this problem? Where are the actual, confirmed stats on reimbursement timing - including that beyond 30 days? Why should we sympathize with people who buy country club memberships and sumo wrestling outfits and then refuse to pay their bills? Where is the actual verbiage of the contract language and the real repayment requirements?

Most large private corporations have the same type of credit card policy as that specified in the article. I never had a problem when I used the corporate cards. The only people who had problems were those who purchased improper goods or services (i.e. not company related) and those who were to lazy to make prompt payments.

We need to hear both sides of this argument before making decisions about who is right or wrong. This article appears to be just a hit piece against any form of privatization of government functions.

"U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan have found themselves stranded in the desert without a dime because their credit was suddenly cut off, according to a May 29 report in the Military Times, leaving families behind in a nasty catch-22: Swallow the debt, or borrow more money to pay the bills so their credit wouldn't be ruined."

Now, doesn't anyone see something wrong in this one? "Stranded in the desert without a dime"? Trust me...ground pounders in the sand and rocls do not use (or need) credit cards.

Again, while it is true that some higher ranking memebers have abused this card method (i.e., the golf memberships, lap dances, etc.), the system is a valid one and is not what the author portrays!

"But there's a mandatory use requirement," Crawley said, "It's the law."

I don't believe they are telling us everything there is to know here. It is my understanding that the government gets some small amount (0.1% or something) as a rebate for the use of these cards.. One might be able to get by not using them, but the travel expenses will come out of your pocket until you can get reimbursed.

"...they have to submit expense reports and wait for reimbursements."

Yeah right. I 'm still waiting for reimbursement for a number of trips and I've been out for over 6 years.

My hubby uses this card all the time, in fact he just used it last week to pay for food and hotel(military rate) while traveling for the Army.
He knows WHAT is allowed and keeps very good records of all purchases.
I don't feel sorry for my fellow military families who abuse this card, they are thieves.

Uh... I hate to tell you this, but depending on what unit/how you get deployed, it IS true that troops have found themselves downrange, with a cut-off credit Government credit card, that they are REQUIRED to use for travel/expenses. Remember, not everybody deploys in the same manner... and we'll leave it at that.

This happens a LOT more than is being reported, and IS a MUCH bigger pain in the ass that you can possibly imagine. Sure am glad that we have nothing better to do...not.

It sounds like nobody likes this program except the Pentagon bureaucrats. I can understand why soldiers would not want to be on the hook to pay credit card charges that they ran up on Uncle Sam's orders, when Uncle Sam turns out to be a slow payer when it's time for reimbursement.

I've also been involved on the other side of this, and I know the banks hate it as well. They are losing their shirts on the deal, partly because of slow payments, but more because the usual 2% take their reimbursements and don't pay the credit card with it... the default rate on these miltary travel cards is 3 or 4 times what it is on ordinary private transactions.

It sounds like the government has found a way to foist its accounting and transaction expenses onto its employees and vendors.

Corporate credit cards are used in our company too... it is not an annoyance since i would be paying for travel via credit card anyway ... you pay, you return, you file a travel expense, you get paid. not bad system if you get what is due you. It seems the key problem, if there is one, is reimbursement. If people are reimbursed on-time and only use it for valid expenses they would not get in a bind.

So is the real problem Govt SNAFUs on repaying what they owe to military travellers??? The article is unclear ... not well written.

You're confusing two different things. The credit cards used for lap dances are not the Travel cards, which are used for Ordered deployments. The point is, why should you be taking a chance with your private credit when the govt. ordered you to deploy somewhere? Vouchers worked fine before but didn't provide a big extra profit for some credit company that has no doubt bribed some of the big brass.

The legacy of #42....

Are you referring to the impeached ex-President, the cigar-~~smoking~~ sucking, perjurer-in-Chief that was disbarred by the US Sumpreme Court, the same ex-President that settled rape charges out of court? The adulterer-in-Chief that brought dishonor to the White House, recieved oral sex from an intern while discussing national secrets, sold overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder? Not to mention the sale of nuclear secrets and other information to the Chinese in return for donations, and pardoned numerous felons for cash? The same ex-President surrounded by innumerable deaths and scandals?

What a legacy.

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.