When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If this is on-the-level, it's a good illustration of the detachment of a government bureaucracy....I'm sure somewhere on page 16 of the re-enlistment bonus is a clause specifying something like "for fulfilling an additional 4 years of active duty"......and some computer somewhere saw a discharge date of 40 months instead of 48 months----did the math and sent a notice.....I just can't see some pointy-head bureaucrat with a calculator sending out "amount due" notices to wounded vets who are being forced out because of injuries......I'm SURE that any idiot with more than 2 brain cells could see the potential for a political spanking they'd take when demanding bonuses back from veterans wounded in the service of their country......
It's gotta be a computer-generated thing....It's GOT to be.......Please, dear God tell me some penny-pinching bureaucrat did NOT send those letters......If so, they should be fired for being short-sighted, socially retarded IDIOTS!......
A signing bonus should be just that - money received for signing up and completing some initial period of time such as basic and tech school/AIT, etc. Once you get the money, it is yours as I would see it.
Re-enlistment bonuses are another matter but they have a way around that now. They used to pay 50% up front and then pro-rate the balance every year after that. Now, they pay you 50% once you have completed a year after re-enlisting.
It is non-sense though to want a portion of the bonus back unless the man went AWOL, deserted or commited some other act that was other than serving honorably. Something like this should really help boost recruiting numbers.
But "fired?" How about fired with a flame-thrower.
You can't fire a government employee. The bureaucracy won't allow it. They just need to be reassigned to the front lines for a more comprehensive understanding of the situation. If not let the disabled guy stay in, keep his bonus, and after 20 years collect his retirement.
If there are any letters that need to be written on this count me in.
the either computer generated or combination of with human generated thing just came up and in the rush of things and that whole not paying attention to details thing, he got sent the notice to pay back money, the only thing anyone probably noticed was his early discharge, not reasons for as they should of have.
the problem has been solved also.
many others have not gotten papers like this though, this, though a royal pain for him, is an exception, not the rule.
there are even exemptions for paying back if it can be proven it would provide undue financial hardship, no matter the reason for early discharge.
i got something a year after discharge stating i owed some money because i took 10 days more leave than i had, the discrepancy was because a year before discharge i applied for leave but did not take and they were suppose to cancel but never did, but granted me separation leave to include the 10 days but that never got back to the head dudes where ever they are. one simple letter solved the problem.