![]() |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3335622)
While that could happen, it probably won’t and shouldn’t without having to pay back their obligation or something similar. That would be a horrible precedent to set.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3335631)
Unless congress gets really stoopid, those leaving under this circumstance will have to repay any upfront bonuses.
I could envision something similar (- the BCD), calculating the training cost for the remaining years of service to repaid. But even then, there are plenty of people who absent some negative characterization of their discharge, would look at that math and find it in their favor. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3335640)
I was really taking about the AD commitments for pilots. While not common, at the service academies, you would get a real POS that did something so egregious, but wasn’t a jail-time offense. The services didn’t want them to serve, so they would get a big chicken dinner and have to repay the service for their commitment.
I could envision something similar (- the BCD), calculating the training cost for the remaining years of service to repaid. But even then, there are plenty of people who absent some negative characterization of their discharge, would look at that math and find it in their favor. Go read the NDAA. |
Originally Posted by Drum
(Post 3335786)
Not gonna happen.
Go read the NDAA. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3335808)
What part of that is not gonna happen? Not going to have to pay back their service so basically they get free UPT - or - not going to get a less than honorable discharge which I realize is foolishly in the NDAA?
Focus, please. |
Originally Posted by Drum
(Post 3335811)
They are not having to "repay" anything as someone here was inferring in their post.
Focus, please. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3335830)
That's not addressed in the NDAA. I have no idea what they'll do of course as that is way in the rear view mirror, but it would be a huge failure of leadership to allow a grift like that to occur.
Go read it. You are lying here - again. So is the change in honorable versus LTH for jab mandate stuff. Got some professional advice; before you stick your foot in your mouth, again. Go do some reading. Take about a month, then come back here. I'd be happy to provide you a professional reading list to assist you. |
Originally Posted by Drum
(Post 3335857)
Yes it is.
Go read it. You are lying here - again. So is the change in honorable versus LTH for jab mandate stuff. Got some professional advice; before you stick your foot in your mouth, again. Go do some reading. Take about a month, then come back here. I'd be happy to provide you a professional reading list to assist you. Hopefully you’re not giving people advice of any consequence. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3335888)
You’re having a discussion in your head again that only you are having. The NDAA discusses the characterization of a discharge, not the need to pay back bonuses, commitments, etc, Even a PALACE CHASE participant has to pay back funds they received when they don’t fulfill those commitments and that’s a supported program.
Hopefully you’re not giving people advice of any consequence. Don't change the floor. |
Originally Posted by Drum
(Post 3335905)
Not talking about PALACE CHASE totally different animal.
Don't change the floor. A kid doing palace chase doing the exact same thing would have to pay down his obligation if he did not fulfill his commitment. You’d be cool with that? That’s nuts. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:21 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands