58 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
No, it is not criminal ...
as EVERY service member who applied for and received one of the cards (not available to civilians) was fully aware of the collection process should such collection be necessary because of the card holder's negligence.
Service members are people and people are responsible for their own debts and decisions to pay or not pay for purchases they decide to make.
Pretty much the same as the hoorah about bailing out people who got sub prime loans and are now losing the homes - they were aware of the probability of increased payments but CHOSE, of their own volition, to purchase something they knew they could only afford if their temporary low interest stayed low.
I have to agree
you know that mildly hurt when I typed that. I feel the same way regarding debt and for the same reasons. caveat emptor.
what are your thoughts when they bill service personnel for missing or damaged equipment.
there have been a few reports of wounded or killed being charged.
I see why it would be necessary to prevent theft and also to discourage the idea that uncle sam is a big candy store, where one is rewarded for lack of personal responsibility.
are those rare events? do outside veteran organizations step in and help with payments? outside veteran legal services to fight pro bono?
seems that serving would be payment enough unless there was a crime or voluntary negligence.
The way it works...
The way it works in the military with equipment is that an officer is appointed to do a Report of Survey. The officer will investigate to determine if the loss was due to the person's negligence or willful misconduct. If so, they may have to pay for it. If not, in many cases they won't.
that's what I figured
and the cases that make the news are extreme, isolated 'headlines'.
possible paperwork glitches that arrive first and then resolved after investigation on an individual basis
that is true. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Nobody should have to have such a hefty charge if it was not their fault. That is totally not fair. But, if it was their fault, they must pay for it same as we do.
So the way it works
You buy something...you pay for it...UNLESS...someone determines that you don't have to pay for it.
OK , fine.
No, that's not the way...
No, that's not the way. You don't buy equipment issued to you in the military, it's given to you. If you lose track of it or damage it the Report of Survey comes into play and you pay if it determines that you were at fault in certain ways. Innocent until proven guilty and all that sort of thing.
From Original Post
U.S. soldiers and veterans have been illegally hit up by Pentagon debt collectors for millions of dollars in payments over military credit card debt, according to the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
Public Citizen and consumer lawyers have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Army and Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES), which issues credit cards to U.S. service members to buy goods at military stores.
You don't buy equipment issued to you in the military, it's given to you. If you lose track of it or damage it the Report of Survey comes into play and you pay if it determines that you were at fault in certain ways.
What does one thing have to do with the other?
What's up with the reference to military stores? Quartermaster stores? Where they keep the beans, beans as big as submarines?
Are people paying for missing or damaged military equipment with credit cards?
i guess most armies are the same
you get issued with 2 of everything, the rest you buy
maybe also take in to account that soldiers were buying stuff that the army didn't have (for whatever reason) decent body armour, GPS devices etc.
If you will notice...
If you will notice, the post to which I responded asked a question.
It said "what are your thoughts when they bill service personnel for missing or damaged equipment.
there have been a few reports of wounded or killed being charged.".
Now do you understand why I mentioned a Report of Survey in answer to that question?
I had one in the AF
I never used it. Seemed to many traps and conditions on it, but was required by the AF to have it at the time, just in case. It was supposed to be emergency use for mission support at the time as I recall. Don't know why these service people are using it otherwise, unless this is some different program.
That is also hat I was wondering.
Especially after I read the statement:
To take away .....these benefits because of old debt incurred during military service to buy things like uniforms and equipment is outrageous," said Gupta. I can stand corrected, but it's my understanding that uniforms are furnished (except to officers) or maybe for extra blouses or ties, as well as necessary equipment (this war could b debatable) on that point). I think it is mostly used for travel, temporary lodging, and meals.
you get a uniform allowance added to your military pay. After your first issue, you are responsible for keeping yourself with uniform although for special uniform requirements such as in combat there are other rules. Basic uniform after first issue you maintain, equipment cost in combat situations such as CW gear, flak jackets, etc, are issued and not part of uniform allowance.
Officers get a basic set of uniforms in OTS. After that, they buy all their own uniforms and don't get a uniform allowance (or didn't when I was in).
air national guard... re: uniforms
my time line 66-72. not an officer.
issued no-charge upon arrival at basic: field jacket (1 each), fatigue cap (1 each) fatigue shirt and trousers (2 each), pr of boots (1 each)
'the plain blue suit' dress uniform: rain coat and cap cover (1 each), service cap (1 each), jacket and trousers (1 each), blouse (2 each), tie (1 each), pr dress shoes (1 each).
no clothing allowances for additional or replacement of issued uniforms. I don't remember AAFES credit cards existing. cash or check at our BX, no credit cards.
I Agree w/ you Also, Ed
They have to be responsible for their own actions just the same as we do. It is nobody's fault but theirs.
You figure it out
Those CC agreements are so worded as to not make common sense or not be interpretable by anyone with some degree of intelligence. Have you ever read an CC agreement? No matter who issues the CC it becomes so stacked against the person using the card they have no recourse other than beg for mercy. Even understanding what one gets into, no one can understand the depth of problems they have once they fall back behind it goes far beyond the debt. The consequences are too dear and that burden is carried to reflect too negatively in future loans, home purchase, other CCs, etc., one can only wonder why you want any card in the first place. Please, don't say, then "one should keep their finances in order", well guess what, everyone tumbles sooner or later.
As for home loans, that is so much an another issue. Don't totally relate to new home owners that couldn't pay beyond favorable points. It appears many loans were given in order to get the payback or fees the issuers/brokers desired. Plus, the fact once a person loses thier jobs, it becomes hard to pay anyone which many are experiencing now and many aren't blue collar either. Further, some buyers were dealing in "house flipping" and/or dealt in real estate hoping to get returns better than saving or plain interest, they gambled and finally lost. Further, those same people caused pricing to be inflated for no real reason as buyers were limited pool to begin with. Money, money, money, too many people got greedy, simple as that. -----Willy
It is certainly unsavory. I'm sure many here will argue anything that happens in the free market is all for the best. And that this practice is perfectly acceptable.
It is not even "unsavory", it is simply ...
being held responsible for individual choices and upholding agreements made.
NO ONE, including AAFES, browbeat or coerced a single service member into obtaining and using any of the cards. The service member has to specifically request the card and fill out the pertinent application.
While I can feel sorry that they got themselves into the mess, it is their mess and they are obligated by the agreement they made and put their signature to.
Docking disability pay not unsavory?
You must savor things that most good people dislike immensely.
But as long as it's not illegal and they are making a profit...
I guess the logic there is that a disabled person
should have all debts promptly forgiven?
The law of unintended consequences suggests that loans to disabled persons will quickly dry up. Is that what you are advocating?
No, Loans to disabled Persons Do NOT Dry Up
they continue. Bills keep coming. the sadfact is, nobodycares you are hurt. Nobody cares what has happened. They want their money, and you'd better find a way to get it.
I found myself in this situation, which is whyI work for myself. I had to quickly find ways to make ends meet and to supply the money owed. It was hard as anything: but, I did it. i had to think fast. It is amazing what you can do when crisis arises. I hope it never happens again.
"It is amazing what you can do when crisis arises"
Fear is a great motivator
I guess you missed my point.
If disabled people do not have to repay loans because they are disabled, who will be willing to loan money to disabled people?
You Are Right
This is why I said that disabled persons are just as responsible as everyone else. I myself am disabled though I do not like to think of myself as such since I push myself to accomplish great feats. If I were denied due to the fact I have a disability--and that is their only basis--lets just say that I'd hav a discrimination case going. It would be all over the media and the net. So, the moral of the story? Disabled people should be held just as responsible. After all, we--people with disabilities strive to be equal, as for so long, our basic rights were denied.
What I was trying to say
Even the government cannot take my social security check for debt unless they overpay social security. Here the government is taking their disability check to pay for credit card debt. According to the article Public Citizen and consumer lawyers have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Army and Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES), which issues credit cards to U.S. service members to buy goods at military stores. The suit alleges that AAFES improperly took money from military credit card users for expired debt and inflated penalties and fees. Unlike civilian debt collectors who use phone calls and letters to try to collect payment, the military simply deducted the money from service members' government benefits or tax refunds, the suit contends.
The credit cards are only good at military stores. In the civilian world the debt expires after a certain amount of time. I don't know how long these credit card amounts were not collected and I don't kow what the inflated penalties and fees were. I will say that the government can collect from tax refunds. It seems like another example of the government ignoring their own laws because they are inconvient. You'll notice this in the article the government has moved to have the suit dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds
Debt expires? Where did you get that idea?
Unless you go through bankruptcy court, debt NEVER expires. That's really saying that if I simply ignore my debts for a long enough period of time, they cease to become debts. It doesn't happen. At least not in the United States.
RE: they cease to become debts. It doesn't happen.
PS Pre- emptive response
You don't have to pay but they are still a debt.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)