AASP - Single Soldier http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/single-soldier.

html

Single Soldier Discrimination

by Vernon Gutenkunst

Glaring details of overt discrimination against the single soldier abound.

Too bad today's ethics are not the same as they were during the Civil
War as is shown here in the following account.

"In July 1862, the War Department ruled that Negro

soldiers would receive $7 a month, plus $3 for clothing, as
compared to white soldiers' pay of $13 a month, plus
$3.50 for clothing. On September 28, 1863, Corporal
James Gooding, a soldier of the 14th Massachusetts
Regiment 54, all of whom were Negro volunteers, wrote
the following letter to President Lincoln asking for equal
pay. The Massachusetts 54th had been refusing any pay
as a protest against this inequality. According to the
opinion of Attorney General Edward Bates in July 1864,
"all volunteers competent and qualified to be members of
the national forces, are entitled respectively to receive like
amounts of pay, bounty, and clothing from the
government." In the same month, Congress equalized the
pay scale for Negro and white soldiers, and in September,
the soldiers of the 54th Regiment received all their back
pay."

All you have to do is exchange "single soldier" for "Negro soldier" and the
same type of pay discrimination has been experienced by the single
soldier for decades! Plus, you sure don't find any of the mollycoddled
married military refusing their pay on account of the injustice.
Furthermore, this is conducted with brass' full knowledge and full
malicious intent!

Concrete evidence of this attitude is displayed in the following sentence

included in a communication by Thomas W. Waugh, Colonel, USAF,
Deputy Director, Compensation (Military Manpower & Personnel Policy)
dated November 21, 1986 in response to Congressman Byron L.
Dorgan's inquiry into this injustice.

"We realize that many single Service members view this

as unfair and we agree in keeping with a fundamental
principle of a good compensation system, that pay should
be based on work performed, and that pay distinctions
based on dependency status should be an exception
rather than the rule."

When will they ever learn that discrimination just doesn't pay?

Following is an anonymous letter written to the Army Times sometime in

the 1980s. What more does it take until everyone gets the message?

"Yesterday I picked up the April 16 issue of Army Times

and thought I would read a good article on the benefits of
being single vs. married in the Army. Your article 'With
pay, tying sweetens the pot,' however, missed the real
issue. I've never in my seven years in the Army heard
anyone complain that single rate BAQ is less than married

1 of 2 2/18/2009 3:51 PM
AASP - Single Soldier http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/single-soldier.html

BAQ. The real problem is that the vast majority of single

soldiers don't receive BAQ or separate rations at all. As a
single staff sergeant, I'm ineligible. I cannot invest my
BAQ in property and build equity in a house like my
married counterpart. Instead the Army has done it for me
and provided me with a wonderful place called the
'barracks.' In the barracks I have no real privacy. My
hobbies include shooting and riding dirt bikes. In the
barracks I cannot keep my guns or reload ammunition. I
cannot work on my dirt bike or store it. As a result I have
to store it at a friend's house (a married that is) or pay for
a storage building off post. Because I live in the barracks I
live at my workplace 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I
never get the chance to escape from my work when I am
off (unlike my married counterpart). And when last minute
details come up who do you think gets stuck with them?

"In 13 years I will be eligible for retirement. If I were to

remain an E-6 for all of that time and live in the barracks,
the Army would save approximately $42,888 in BAQ that
they would otherwise have had to pay out. That is $42,888
that I could have put into buying a house. Yet my married
counterpart can have a house almost paid for by the time
he or she retires and it would be paid for by funds that
many other single soldiers cannot even get.

"The Army spent a fair amount of money training me to be

a Special Forces weapons sergeant. Now it stands a very
good chance of losing its investment because of this
issue. If you told a civilian that you were going to take
away part of his/her pay and provide them with a room to
live in at their place of work, and then told that same
person that you were going to do this to save the company
money but this policy only applied to single men and
women, that company would very quickly find itself facing
an equal opportunity lawsuit.

"I enjoy my job a great deal but I'm not willing to live in a
virtual state of poverty anymore. In 14 months I get to
make my decision on whether or not I will reenlist. This
issue and the bonus for Special Forces weapons sergeant
will determine that. I already have job satisfaction, but if I
can't afford to live, it does me no good."

The overt discrimination against the single soldier continues to this day,
resulting in the loss of excellent soldiers, poor morale, inevitable
repercussions from soldiers marrying only to get the benefits, and a
drastic reduction in military readiness. The human and material costs
have been and continue to be criminally enormous.

Home Page What's New About AASP Contact AASP

Members Join AASP Guestbook

2 of 2 2/18/2009 3:51 PM