Unit Lied About Bonus

[gatorbait]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

I feel like my hands are tied my back and need any advice. I'm in the Florida National Guard and a part of a SF unit. I've been in the unit since 2003 and my intial 6 year enlistment was to expire on Apr 28, 2009. I contacted the S-1 (admin/personnel) office, asked them what the re-enlistment bonuses would be for myself. They responded 3 years, $5000, 6 years $10000. I received email from two seperate members in the S-1 office telling me the same thing, one email even asked if I was re-enlisting and laid out the bonuses available to me. I faxed in my re-enlistment for 6 years, S-1 called and said I was in the system and back in for 6 years. I then inquired about the status of my bonus. After they told me I was good for $10000, they now tell me I can't get one because I'm not in a qualified position. I was in the same position since November 2008. They knew where I was and what slot I was in. There in the admin section, it's their job to know that!! What should I do, is this illegal? I have all the documentation, emails and my re-enlistment contract even has a block I intial stating I understand I'm eligable for SRIP bonuses, etc..ANY HELP? THANKS

[Dustyaries]

Hello from Fort Dix,

It's unfortunate that you had a bad experience with your bonus issue. Most of the good soldiers are smart enough to leave when the Army have done them wrong. I sure hope your unit and unit admin has resolved this problem before I made this post. If that is the case, my advice towards this matter is for your lessons learn,

Okay, based upon the things you've written are:
1) you ENLISTED for 6 years in the military for a bonus totally 15,000
2) you've taken the option of the split bonus of 50 up front and 50 after the hump.
3) you've signed up for a critical MOS which I believe is the 18 series.
4) the unit didn't give you the bonus after completion of SF training (the initial 50%)
5) the unit didn't give you the other half of your bonus after 3 years for the second half of your bonus.
6) Therefore, you have not received any bonus at all for your 6 years for faithful service.

Here are my question-
On your contract:
1) on your enlistment contract, have you gotten a bonus control number on your addium to your contract?
2) was any of your contract been 'penciled' in?
3) have you heard anything about legal problems of the recruiting station?

On your unit:
1) Was there any change of command while you were stationed @ Blanding?
2) (knowing that SF keeps you moving and without violating OPSEC) Have you constantly been changing UIC? (if you can't tell me...don't)
3) Be honest- have you had any flags, Article 15 (company/internal/Field grade), infractions of any sorts (again if it violates OPSEC, a yes on this portion would surfice.), and/or you've pissed off POGS?

If you can answer some of these questions, I can help you. e-mail me here or if you can't, we'll find alternate ways.

Hang in there Operator!

from Dusty Aries
"We Own The Night"

[justalayman]

when I was trying to enlist in the Navy, we were told a very simple bit of advice.


If it is not in writing, (referring to your contract), you are not getting it; PERIOD.

Time has proven that statement to be quite true.

Obviously, if it is in your contract you can argue, or even sue, for enforcement of said contract.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by justalayman

when I was trying to enlist in the Navy, we were told a very simple bit of advice.


If it is not in writing, (referring to your contract), you are not getting it; PERIOD.

Time has proven that statement to be quite true.

Obviously, if it is in your contract you can argue, or even sue, for enforcement of said contract.

Members of the Armed Forces do not have the legal ability to sue the Armed Forces of the United States.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

Members of the Armed Forces do not have the legal ability to sue the Armed Forces of the United States.

I'll have to tell a few friends that did that they cannot do what they did. I guess the military wants them back in since they sued and won cases for termination of military contract due to failure to act within such a contract.

this is not any of their cases but just one that happened to pop up:

Cummings v. Dep't of the Navy, 279 F.3d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

Now, there are certain types of suits that cannot be brought against the US but yes, military personnel can sue the government in certain types of cases.

.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by justalayman

I'll have to tell a few friends that did that they cannot do what they did. I guess the military wants them back in since they sued and won cases for termination of military contract due to failure to act within such a contract.

this is not any of their cases but just one that happened to pop up:

Cummings v. Dep't of the Navy, 279 F.3d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

Now, there are certain types of suits that cannot be brought against the US but yes, military personnel can sue the government in certain types of cases.

.

Using civilian courts to seek redress for alleged wrongs encourages insubordination and diminishes unit cohesion. If allowed, service members could pick which orders to follow and which to sue over.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the military is “a specialized society” and that “to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps.”

That’s why the Supreme Court banned active-duty service members from suing the government or its employees for injuries that occurred while in the military. This is the Feres Doctrine, named after a 1950 Supreme Court decision, and it has very limited exceptions.

Engaging in a civilian lawsuit against a superior is generally not the right way to handle a problem. Depending on the facts of the case, you could be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with offenses involving contempt or disrespect toward officials or superiors, conduct unbecoming an officer, or conduct that adversely impacts good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the military.

While winning in civilian courts is difficult, it is not unheard of. Generally, most of the wins by service members involve allegations that the military has violated its own regulations or challenges to the constitutionality of military statutes, regulations or executive orders.

Service members have won suits to halt a mandatory Defense Department inoculation program, to review the military’s denial of troops’ requests for conscientious objector status, and to prevent the Navy from involuntarily enlisting a midshipman who failed to successfully graduate from the Naval Academy. But these wins were rare exceptions, not the rule.

Active-duty members should get involved in civil litigation only as a last resort. And if you do, you should be sure that the objective is worth the risk, and you should be in it to win at nearly any cost. If you engage in litigation just to try and make some kind of political point, you’ll likely lose.

Badly.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

Using civilian courts to seek redress for alleged wrongs encourages insubordination and diminishes unit cohesion. If allowed, service members could pick which orders to follow and which to sue over.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the military is “a specialized society” and that “to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps.”

That’s why the Supreme Court banned active-duty service members from suing the government or its employees for injuries that occurred while in the military. This is the Feres Doctrine, named after a 1950 Supreme Court decision, and it has very limited exceptions.

Engaging in a civilian lawsuit against a superior is generally not the right way to handle a problem. Depending on the facts of the case, you could be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with offenses involving contempt or disrespect toward officials or superiors, conduct unbecoming an officer, or conduct that adversely impacts good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the military.

While winning in civilian courts is difficult, it is not unheard of. Generally, most of the wins by service members involve allegations that the military has violated its own regulations or challenges to the constitutionality of military statutes, regulations or executive orders.

Service members have won suits to halt a mandatory Defense Department inoculation program, to review the military’s denial of troops’ requests for conscientious objector status, and to prevent the Navy from involuntarily enlisting a midshipman who failed to successfully graduate from the Naval Academy. But these wins were rare exceptions, not the rule.

Active-duty members should get involved in civil litigation only as a last resort. And if you do, you should be sure that the objective is worth the risk, and you should be in it to win at nearly any cost. If you engage in litigation just to try and make some kind of political point, you’ll likely lose.

Badly.

You said:

Members of the Armed Forces do not have the legal ability to sue the Armed Forces of the United States.

You were wrong.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by justalayman

You said:



You were wrong.

I was right. He is not legally able to sue the military in this case.

I also said, "......you could be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice...." Which would make the lawsuit illegal.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

I was right. He is not legally able to sue the military in this case.

I also said, "......you could be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice...." Which would make the lawsuit illegal.

no, you said:

Members of the Armed Forces do not have the legal ability to sue the Armed Forces of the United States.

and that is an incorrect statement even by your own word in a subsequent post of yours:

While winning in civilian courts is difficult, it is not unheard of.

among other statements admitting your first statement of:

Members of the Armed Forces do not have the legal ability to sue the Armed Forces of the United States.

is most definately, unequivocally, indisputably, without question, wrong as you yourself even stated.

there was no "he", or "Uniform Code of Military Justice", in your statement of:

Members of the Armed Forces do not have the legal ability to sue the Armed Forces of the United States

which, as we know, is wrong.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by justalayman

no, you said:



and that is an incorrect statement even by your own word in a subsequent post of yours:

among other statements admitting your first statement of:

is most definately, unequivocally, indisputably, without question, wrong as you yourself even stated.

there was no "he", or "Uniform Code of Military Justice", in your statement of:



which, as we know, is wrong.

Whatever, get a hobby. I don't want to waste my time arguing such a moot point. You are wrong and service members are not legally allowed to sue. Case closed.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

Whatever, get a hobby. I don't want to waste my time arguing such a moot point. You are wrong and service members are not legally allowed to sue. Case closed.

but you even said they were. Make up your mind.

but besides that, I gave you an actual case where a service member did in fact sue even after it was appealed based on the Feres Doctrine.

I guess that just doesn't mean anything when EURAPIKE says that is not true.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by justalayman

but you even said they were. Make up your mind.

but besides that, I gave you an actual case where a service member did in fact sue even after it was appealed based on the Feres Doctrine.

I guess that just doesn't mean anything when EURAPIKE says that is not true.

That case is in no way related to this case. You are making some splash but not much headway.

Yes, there are some very limited and extreme circumstances in which a service member would legally be allowed to sue. I posted examples of those. This would not be one of those exceptions, making your advice for the OP to sue false.

Get a hobby, you are boring me.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

Yes, there are some very limited and extreme circumstances in which a service member would legally be allowed to sue. I posted examples of those. This would not be one of those exceptions, making your advice for the OP to sue false.

then I will go back to the anecdotal evidence of the friends I have that had their contract with various military branches cancelled via a suit to void their contracts due to the military failing to abide by those contracts.

I think that would be very similar to the OP's situation

but in all reality, my argument was with your blanket and all encompassing statement of:

Members of the Armed Forces do not have the legal ability to sue the Armed Forces of the United States.

which is obviously wrong. We both know it. Just admit it. It won't hurt for very long and you will feel much better once you just let go and admit it.

Go ahead. You know you want to.

Go on. Just say it.

[DRTDEVL]

Don't worry... It only hurts the *first* time you agree with justalayman.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by justalayman

then I will go back to the anecdotal evidence of the friends I have that had their contract with various military branches cancelled via a suit to void their contracts due to the military failing to abide by those contracts.

I think that would be very similar to the OP's situation

but in all reality, my argument was with your blanket and all encompassing statement of:

which is obviously wrong. We both know it. Just admit it. It won't hurt for very long and you will feel much better once you just let go and admit it.

Go ahead. You know you want to.

Go on. Just say it.

Military personnel are, as a whole, not legally allowed to sue the military. There are and have been a few exceptions to this rule but they have been very rare and extreme. This case is not one that would be, could be, or should be settled in civilian court. Doing so could likely result in charges against the OP for violations of the UCMJ, which makes your advice to him very poor.