Jump to content

Veterans being required to pay back bonuses: What am I missing?


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

Okay, you are recruited by an agent of the US Government with the promise of X incentive. You are offered this incentive by an agent of the US Government with apparent authority to make such an offer. You have no reason to believe that this offer is in any way unauthorized. You accept the offer at cost to yourself and your family and go to dangerous places because of this offer.

Then, years after the fact, the US government comes and tells you that the initial offer made to you was unauthorized (something you had no way of knowing when the offer was accepted) and demands you repay the money its agent offered to you and that you acted in reliance upon.

Why is the person who received those funds obligated to repay them?

Is the U.S. Government excluding itself from applications of Agency laws that allow innocent third parties to rely upon the representations of agents of a corporate entity that act with apparent athority after innocent third parties act in reliance upon that authority?

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-pentagon-demanded-money-back-from-national-guard-soldiers-it’s-still-reviewing-what-to-do-next/ar-AAjltEz?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=msnHomepage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read this from several sources and it does seem like there is information missing somewhere.  All of the articles definitely suggest it's rather fucked up that these servicemembers are being asked to return money owed or promised to them.  Were documents signed?  Was it just a verbal promise?  If the former, then no way should they pay back.  If it was just a verbal promise, then that gets rather dicey.  

Either way, this seems like a command mistake and I don't think the individual servicemembers should be paying for that seeing as there are so many of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

oh no, scot, it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to say oh, i overpaid you when we mutually assented to the wage rate so gimme back the wages that i offered and you accepted.

You and I both know it's not.  I'm wondering if there is some statutory exception for the US Government to normal agency/reliance law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the review was triggered by actual administrative fraud on the part of some officer or another. As noted in the article, individual cases can be discharged for reasons that are essentially like laches in civil court, and they're willing to grant, but it has to be done on an individual basis unless Congress will get off its ass and pass the waiver they're asking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a layman and not a lawyer, but this is really messed up.  I've read that the armed forces are basically saying "We'd love to forgive these debts and let you keep the money, but it's against the law for us to do so.  We need congress to pass a new law so we can legally let you keep the money."  HuH? (Maybe Scott et. al. can elaborate?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a veteran who received a bonus when I re-enlisted, then left the army a year early on a hardship discharge, and was paid the full bonus amount, I was really scared when I saw this thread title.

I think as long as the service members accepted in good faith, they shouldn't have to pay it back. I understand that there is a fraud investigation, but it seems the service members themselves were not guilty of the fraud.

And I agree that Congress should step in and pass the waiver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ded As Ned said:

Only a layman and not a lawyer, but this is really messed up.  I've read that the armed forces are basically saying "We'd love to forgive these debts and let you keep the money, but it's against the law for us to do so.  We need congress to pass a new law so we can legally let you keep the money."  HuH? (Maybe Scott et. al. can elaborate?)

They're saying that they can keep the money, but have to file for overpayment forgiveness individually, and have it granted individually, unless Congress can pass the waiver and save everyone a bunch of paperwork, taxpayer money, and stress.

Any servicemember or veteran affected should contact their veterans service organization (DAV, American Legion, VFW, etc.) & they should take care of it for you, for free. Give them a copy of the article if they're not familiar. And try not to stress about it too much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

They're saying that they can keep the money, but have to file for overpayment forgiveness individually, and have it granted individually, unless Congress can pass the waiver and save everyone a bunch of paperwork, taxpayer money, and stress.

Any servicemember or veteran affected should contact their veterans service organization (DAV, American Legion, VFW, etc.) & they should take care of it for you, for free. Give them a copy of the article if they're not familiar. And try not to stress about it too much. 

Why don't normal agency principles apply?  Why do vets have to apply to keep what they were offered by government agents and upon which the veterans reasonable relied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why don't normal agency principles apply?  Why do vets have to apply to keep what they were offered by government agents and upon which the veterans reasonable relied?

The long answer is that common law principles are superseded by statutory and regulatory authority. The short answer is that since the principles are basically the same, they do, they just have to file for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

The long answer is that common law principles are superseded by statutory and regulatory authority. The short answer is that since the principles are basically the same, they do, they just have to file for it.

It just seems like making extra work for people who shouldn't be put to such work for sacrifices they've already made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It just seems like making extra work for people who shouldn't be put to such work for sacrifices they've already made.

Quite. DoD should probably think about amending the rules for overpayment to avoid this kind of thing. Maybe they are? But that'll take a few years, so they need Congress to act since they don't have the adjudicatory authority to rule on the whole class at once, that being a rule-making sort of thing.

But, strictly speaking, it should be more extra work for the VSOs more than the individuals affected. It's certainly extra stress for them though.

If only this was the worst thing DoD is up to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It just seems like making extra work for people who shouldn't be put to such work for sacrifices they've already made.

They should present the DOD with a bill for payroll/admin. services, as i'm sure this hassle/work is beyond the scale and type of services they agreed to when signing on. 

I personally have never agreed to any ceiling on my compensation, only a floor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As described by the LA Times, this looks like a bigger problem than I understood from DoD's statements in the article in the OP. Apparently people are filing without getting favorable results, and having to appeal up the chain to the ABCMR, something the VSOs are not prepared to do. 

Even between the two articles, one says claims should be filed with the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the other mentions the National Guard Bureau.

I hope the National Veterans Law Service Program is on this, since they do help with appeals all the way up the chain.

At least it is getting press. That usually puts the pressure on to solve the problem in these cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...