DUAL-MILITARY BAH CUTS
I have been an airman for more than five years. More than 20 percent of my time on this Earth has been selflessly dedicated to a cause greater than myself. I have lost many nights of sleep, quite a few months of my year and even a few close friends along the way. But I have also gained many things in return: life experience, technical training, an incredibly marketable skill set and an entirely different breed of family. Most importantly, I found my wife.
Though she has been serving this country a few months longer than I have, I was promoted just a few weeks before her. And with this proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2016 [“Obama: Don’t cut BAH for dual-military,” June 15 issue], the time she has sacrificed is effectively invalidated. As far as allowances go, she will be viewed as a “plus one,” and nothing more.
To which I respond: Who are you to decide which service member is worthy of receiving earned benefits? These allowances afforded to us, for which we are grateful, are earned by our individual service. She has signed her own contract, paid her own sacrifices, and lost time, sleep and friends on her own accord. Her service is worth every penny; how dare you say otherwise?
We did not marry a fellow service member for money. Quite the opposite. We have spent a large portion of our married life separated, due to deployments or training. How can you justify stripping one of us of our benefits, effectively discriminating against us for whom we chose to wed? My service is worth no more than hers, and hers no more than mine.
As E-5s — a rank that we both earned of our own accord — this bill would cost us around $10,000 annually. Budget cuts, you say. Yet, in the same bill, you increase the nuclear incentive pay by $28,000 a year.
What happened to the need to downsize? “Doing more with less” is the military mantra as of late, but that seems to only be the case with Senior Airman X’s wallet. And that’s not even addressing your proposition of monetarily penalizing an unmarried airman for living with fellow blue-suiters.
This outrageous proposition discriminates against airmen — whether they are married to a fellow airman or attempting to be fiscally responsible by living with co-workers. We have all signed our lives away to the service of this great nation. By taking away one’s benefits simply because of who they live with or marry, you are effectively nullifying their sacrifice. My wife has paid her own dues, as have I.
Again I ask: How dare you invalidate one member’s service because of another’s?
Staff Sgt. Matthew Kenny
Airway Heights, Wash.
——————–
My wife is a sailor based in Mayport, Florida. I’m a Marine infantryman with 1st Battalion, 8th Marines out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
It’s hard enough managing our lives now. There’s a lot to keep track of, and we are constantly trying to plan our futures. Our schedules sometimes don’t line up, so one of us is forced to visit the other. This has happened multiple times. For example, she just got back from deployment and I was attending the Martial Arts Instructor Course, so I could not take leave or leave the immediate area after hours. She was forced to take her leave in North Carolina so I could see her when I got off in the afternoon. It’s unreasonable to have to sacrifice career opportunities for some time with our families.
This predicament happens both ways, too. When she was done with her post-deployment leave, she was back in Florida, and I had just gotten the opportunity to take leave between finishing my course and my unit’s predeployment work-up started. Since she could not take additional leave, I had to go to her.
Imagine doing this over and over if we did not each have Basic Allowance for Housing payments. Only one of us would be able to afford a place to stay, so if I had to go to her and I was the one with the BAH and the apartment, I would have to pay for a room in a hotel. A cheap one most likely. After being separated for months at a time, the last thing you want to do is spend your time together in a cheap hotel.
It’s unfair and undeserving of those who have already sacrificed their comfort and convenience for their country. This is just one example of how cutting BAH would be a real burden for dual-military marriage.
This is important to understand, because not everyone can be co-located. The BAH also helps offset the cost of our vehicles, gas, food and travel costs associated with visiting each other. Not to mention if dual-military couples have children, the stress of ensuring your child’s safety while traveling, along with the stress of making hotel arrangements and payments, would be on a whole new level.
Dual-military marriages should rate two BAH payments for the sake of stress levels, financial security and schedule inflexibility. All this would in turn provide for more stable and cohesive units, which would ensure our military is just that much more ready to take on its enemies.
Marine Cpl. Gabe Boyrie
Camp Lejeune, N.C.
——————–
WRITE US:Email your letters to airlet@airforcetimes.com. Include your name, address, phone number and rank. Submissions may be edited and published in print and electronic form and become the property of Gannett Government Media.
