Wounded soldiers asked to return signing bonuses

[jkulysses 10+ year member]

It doesn't have to be worded like that. You breached contract by not staying the term you agreed to. Once a contract is breached by one party then the other party can take recourse.

I agree, and when the solider is trying to stay in and the military makes them get out then the military just breached the contract and should not then be able to ask for their money back. Thats basically like saying O we caused him to get all jacked up so we better kick him out before his contract is up so we can get some of our money back. Just is dirty and not right imho.

 

[req 5,000+ posts]

If you lost your eyes you wouldn't even be able to read the letter.

And if you can not make a correct sentence, how are you supposed to understand what you are reading?

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

That's majorly screwed up... Some of the soldiers that were severely wounded are unable to care for themselves, and they, on top of that, are forced to come up with the money they want back?? That's... cold.. cruel...

Thanks for the recap.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

And if you can not make a correct sentence, how are you supposed to understand what you are reading?

Did you mean to say "how am I supposed to understand what I am reading"?

Mine was a simple typo, an omission of the letter R, while yours was the misuse of a word that indicates a lack of understanding.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I can understand what i am writing because i am the one who wrote it, but YOU might might not be able to understand it if it is full of typos.

Nonetheless, if you aren't able to decipher my intent without the letter R, you probably have bigger problems in life.

 

[crunktimes.com 5,000+ posts]

Don't they give you a pretty fat monthly check if you are injured and unable to work after being hurt in war?

As far as this particular issue I can see how he did not finish his contract but I can also see how they should have a clause where if you are hurt while on a tour of duty you should not have to pay it back.. if you drop out then it is a different story.

 

[jkulysses 10+ year member]

Don't they give you a pretty fat monthly check if you are injured and unable to work after being hurt in war?
As far as this particular issue I can see how he did not finish his contract but I can also see how they should have a clause where if you are hurt while on a tour of duty you should not have to pay it back.. if you drop out then it is a different story.

Depends on the % of disability they give you. My cousin got hurt in Iraq and I believe he has 70% disability and gets around $1300 tax free every month.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Depends on the % of disability they give you. My cousin got hurt in Iraq and I believe he has 70% disability and gets around $1300 tax free every month.

loL.

sort of hard to live on $1300 a month.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

loL.
sort of hard to live on $1300 a month.

Yeah, but he is only 70% disabled.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I am sure there is legal recourse for the soldier. By agreeing to the contract there was an inherent risk.

Think about it this way: If a person signed a contract to perform a dangerous duty for a sum of money. In this case, it is front line battle where the risk of death is high. You could offer these people large sums of cash and reclaim it when their efforts to complete the contract causes them to not be able to fulfill the terms of the contract. The DoD could know full and well that many of the soldiers would be unable to fulfill the terms of the contract...It would be in their best interest to put the soldiers with the highest bonus in the most harm so they could reclaim the bait.

There are laws against lendingg money to those who cannot pay. What is the difference here?

I am sure there is legal precendent against such things

 

[crunktimes.com 5,000+ posts]

I wonder how they come up with the %? If you loose both your arms are you 50% disabled because you have your legs?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I wonder how they come up with the %? If you loose both your arms are you 50% disabled because you have your legs?

Actuaries come up with these percentages. The way they teach is to do it, is the difference in potential net present value.

Say you work in a factory, we compare the net present value of cripples to the net present value of able-bodied people. Subtract the two and that is the settlement. It isn't difficult to turn the settlement into an annuity.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

I agree, and when the solider is trying to stay in and the military makes them get out then the military just breached the contract and should not then be able to ask for their money back. Thats basically like saying O we caused him to get all jacked up so we better kick him out before his contract is up so we can get some of our money back. Just is dirty and not right imho.

The military isn't pushing them out though. They got hurt and can't finish the agreed to term. Why should the military keep em around if thy can't do their job now? If I could no longer perform my duties at work, they would show me the door. I don't enter into contracts with the devil though, so I am clear.

 

[DBfan187 5,000+ posts]

I am sure there is legal recourse for the soldier. By agreeing to the contract there was an inherent risk.
Think about it this way: If a person signed a contract to perform a dangerous duty for a sum of money. In this case, it is front line battle where the risk of death is high. You could offer these people large sums of cash and reclaim it when their efforts to complete the contract causes them to not be able to fulfill the terms of the contract. The DoD could know full and well that many of the soldiers would be unable to fulfill the terms of the contract...It would be in their best interest to put the soldiers with the highest bonus in the most harm so they could reclaim the bait.

There are laws against lendingg money to those who cannot pay. What is the difference here?

I am sure there is legal precendent against such things

I'm pretty sure you have to ask the govt if you can sue them.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

I wonder how they come up with the %? If you loose both your arms are you 50% disabled because you have your legs?

The way I always do it is I assign a disability rating for the limb(s) and from that to the body as a whole. For example, if I see a b!tch out at the clubs with no legs, I will say that she has a 100% impairmant rating to her legs, and then, because I don't like b!tches with no legs, I will give her a 100% disability rating for the body as a whole.

Tha Army may do it differently though.