November 30, 2007
-
Signing Bonus
I mentioned this in my photoblog a week or two ago but RaVnR reminded me of the issue.
The U.S. government is requiring wounded military personnel to give back signing bonuses because they could not serve out their full term. The military will give signing bonuses of up to $30,000 to get military personnel in certain careers to reenlist.
Some of these men and women are getting injured in the war and they cannot serve out their terms.
For example, Jordan Fox has to pay back some of his bonus. He was injured when his vehicle blew up from a roadside bomb. He was knocked out, had a back injury and lost all vision in his right eye. The injuries stopped him from finishing his commitment. Here is the link: Link
Do you think military personnel injured in the war should be forced to pay back their signing bonuses?
Edit: I received this link from Paoguy118: Link
Apparently the letter was sent out inadvertently and Jordan Fox does not have to pay back the signing bonus.
Comments (70)
1st
No, they got hurt in the service.. Even tho they couldn’t finish it due to an injury. Bonus signing would help them along the way..
No, but they should make Eli Manning give back his.
Thats our Commander in Chief for ya…. George W F’en BUSH!
That’s ridiculous.
It’s not their fault that something happened to them, I’m pretty sure they weren’t intentionally looking to get injured.
I smell a blanket policy – there’s a chance that letters are being sent out in waves without considering the actual injuries being sustained.
In the case of Fox, he should get to keep his money.
Hey, just stumbled onto your page fo a bit of “light” reading. Anyway, I says hell no! Of course they shouldn’t pay anything back. These enlisted men and women were doing us a service, a duty and they shouldn’t have to make sacrifices and getting nothing in return.
No! I say they should pay them extra because they got permanent injuries because of being in the war.
OMG no.
NO WAY! They were injured PROTECTING US! If ANYTHING they should be given another BONUS for being injured! That’s just ridiculous to take the money back. That makes NO sense at all….ZIP ZERO NADA!!!!
HELL NO, if they are injured while serving………
No. This is a ridiculous idea. These men and women have sacrificed their lives for their country. It isn’t like they decided to quit, they were injured doing their duty.
No!
That sucks as much as the war. They’re getting punished for ….what? Not being careful enough not to get hurt?
Do deceased soldiers’ families get the bill to pay back THEIR bonuses?
WWWWWWat The Crap!
NO. Leave it to the government to come up with such a stupid idea.
no. that’s fucking bullshit.
no !!!
NO. That is stupid. I would say more, but I think everyone allready realizes how stupid that is.
That is detestable. If they are injured and can’t complete their term because of a JOB related injury they should be gifted that money. Lord I am sure they would rather give all the money back and NOT be injured, but that can’t happen so at least let them keep that money!
Um.
…
NO.
Stupid isn’t it but that is how goverment works.
No the president can’t just give the money to him. He has no spending authority, congress can do it and maybe the entire policy can be changed. But no, this is not something the president or any one human has the power to just do. Rules, laws, and regulations can be such stupid things.
No, that’s pretty awful.
This is false information! Wounded and injured soldiers do not have to repay their signing bonuses. This one case was a clerical error that has since been resolved. http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/11/21/6245-wounded-warriors-entitled-to-keep-bonus-payments/
No, if they are serving and get hurt while serving and are getting a bonus to serve, why make them pay the bonus back. I hope paoguy118 is right and its a clerical error.
hell no! wtf?
heck no, not like they injured themselves on purpose to get the benefits….
No.
NO WAY! What an outrage!
They may not have got to finish out their term but they almost got killed to try to make sure they did serve their term! & a lot of them get injured so bad they will no longer be able to work. They should get to keep it.
What is wrong with people!?
No. They put their lives on the line and should be entitled to what is theirs.
No. I think that’s rediculous. Indian givers. Our military deserves SO much better treatment. Honestly.
paoguy118
thank you for that its nice when someone posts the facts. It is such a shame that reporters never do that
Depends on the nature of the contract they signed. If they are legally bound, they are legally bound to do so. Of course that doesn’t mean it’s a good contract, but it’s still a contract nonetheless and they should honor it; after all, it IS their responsibility to read every line of the contract they sign, is it not?
I think the politicians that are taking the money away from them should finish the wounded soldier’s term for them in exchange. That sounds fair.
That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. The government should realize that if they send soldiers to a combat zone they might not be able to serve their full commitment. I cannot understand the military’s logic on this at all. The military should share the burden of the risk on this.
No, that is total bullshit.
that’s all BULL!
No, they shouldn’t be required to pay back. And the idea that they should shows the true cynicism of our masters. Judging from the overwhelming “no” vote here, it also shows their stupidity. Which is worse I wonder?
The British government tried something of the sort in the minor Falklands war, charging returning soldiers for equipment lost in battle.
It’s by no means a new idea. The following lines were written after the Second World War about Tommies (soldiers, specifically British, but actually it’s applicable to any nationality.)
It’s “Tommy this,” and “Tommy that’
And “Tommy is a brute”
But it’s “Tommy is a hero”
When the guns begin to shoot
No, they shouldn’t have to pay them back. Whether or not they should, however, has very little to do with whether or not it’s legal. While it is legal, yes they should pay them back. However, it is not a good thing.
No
What the hell is the government trying to do, salt these guys’ wounds?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!
No!
That’s ridiculous.
Oh that is a bunch of BS.
that’s just fucked up.
That’s bull. Hell, they should be payed extra for being injured while serving their country! It wasn’t their fault they were hurt. Damn government/military.
Insane….Isn’t it enough that they already pay our guys crap for doing their jobs….
no. They endured bodily harm, which is probably worth more than a full however many years they signed on for.
no. what the fuck?!
Of course not!
Good god, Who makes these obscene offensive rules? They should only have to return the money if they are drummed out for bad behavior, go AWOL, or somehow quit of their own accord.
that is a HELL no….
they have served in a war zone and sacrificed life and limb to protect us and our country and they should be able to keep the sign up bonus
No way! That’s nuts…. I also hope paoguy118 is correct.
HELL NO!
REMF
Rear-echelon…. fill in the rest yourself
That is a typical retraction.
The bull shit story gets front page for a week. But the truth, when it finally comes out, is notation on a back page. printed only once
Talk about adding insult to injury.
I had always heard that if you are injured in the course of your duties as a soldier and are unable to continue in your role in the military then your commitment was considered to be fulfilled so I had doubted that earlier post about the paying back signing bonuses. Besides, the bonus apparently comes half up front and half upon completion of your service.
NO WAY
Daniel (doubledb)
That’s absolutely ridiculous.
Again, the ironies of our govt being so willing to send in our young people to death then screw them when they get hurt or killed in the process.
They send out the letters just hoping it will not be challenged. If you challenge it they can’t do anything. I’ve had a little experience with this.
No, if you sign with the army and get a signing bonus, but get hurt in the course of serving, then you shouldn’t have to pay it back. However, if you sign with the army, and then quit or leave without serving your term, yes, you should have to pay it back.
They shouldn’t have to give it back. They will need it to survive; they are now disabled because they signed up. How do you compensate for that? Surely not by asking for the signing bonus back.
if there’s truly nothing else they can do, then they shouldn’t have to pay it back.
However, there SHOULD be something else they can do! Let the guy file papers! Let him do something… and if he refuses without good medical reason, then take back the signing bonus.
that is freaken stupid to have to give it back.
That is messed up. The signing bonus is just what it says. You get a bonus for SIGNING UP! Not Sign up and finish your term then you get payed. If anything, the government should pay extra compensation for injuries; physical, mental, and emotional. That is such bull that they’re suggesting they pay back some of their bonus. That’s false advertisement in some way. I’d sue
hell no!!
Let me restate - IF the contract stated that the signing bonus required them to finish the tour of duty, then they are contractually bound to pay it back because they did NOT finish their tour of duty. Sure, it wasn’t their fault they got wounded, but a contract is a contract. It’s their responsibility to read what they sign.
Those tightwads. It better be a clerical error…unless they had some small print somewhere.
Oh My…No
that’s… just…. sad…..
I guess it depends on what the agreement was – If it says that they have to serve the full term to keep the signing bonus, then I guess it’s technically within the power of the military to ask for some of that money back. BUT I think it’s unfair to take back a signing bonus when someone signed on to do the bidding of the military and then got injured in the process, rendering them physically incapable of serving the full term.
Do their families get the bonus if they die or do they have to pay that back too?