![]() |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3335631)
Unless congress gets really stoopid, those leaving under this circumstance will have to repay any upfront bonuses.
Unless Congress gets really stoopid? That group of people has been relentlessly STOOPID for a long bloody time. What on EARTH makes you think this situation will be any different? |
Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver
(Post 3335975)
Unless Congress gets really stoopid?
That group of people has been relentlessly STOOPID for a long bloody time. What on EARTH makes you think this situation will be any different? https://i.ibb.co/vBnBnc3/AE4-A99-B9-...FA6-BBC801.jpg Their approval rating is only marginally higher than most STDs. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3335956)
So here’s an example. A kid finished UPT pre-mandate. Sees a way to curtail his ADSC of 10 years by saying he doesn’t want to get vaccinated. Gets discharged with 5 years remaining on his commitment. Gets hired by Delta and of course, gets jabbed.
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. Go read the NDAA. No back charges. Honorable discharge and access to all vet benefits. Why do you still continue to maintain your false position? Go read the damn thing. It ain't that hard. |
Originally Posted by Drum
(Post 3336796)
No
Go read the NDAA. No back charges. Honorable discharge and access to all vet benefits. Why do you still continue to maintain your false position? Go read the damn thing. It ain't that hard. Hint: it’s not in Sec 716, where it would be. Keep making up stuff. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3336903)
I have read it. But you can quote it, if repayments aren’t required.
Hint: it’s not in Sec 716, where it would be. Keep making up stuff. You didn't read it did you? The Democrats added it to the final NDAA BTW 1)Honarable 2)Full vet benefits 3)No paybacks Stop making a fool of yourself. If what you say is true, post it here. Cut and paste from the relevant section and post it here. I'd like to see it. Because I've been over the NDAA since 8 months ago to now and that thing to which you speak is not in the version that passed on Wednesday. there might be some other existing contractual payback in place for a voluntary separation (see the ACP for example) but NOTHING in the NDAA passed on Wednesday is mandating troops payback as a result of being separated for not taking the jab. That is and has always been my point that you seem to not understand. |
Originally Posted by Drum
(Post 3336975)
It's not in 716 you moron.
You didn't read it did you? The Democrats added it to the final NDAA BTW 1)Honarable 2)Full vet benefits 3)No paybacks Stop making a fool of yourself. If what you say is true, post it here. Cut and paste from the relevant section and post it here. I'd like to see it. Because I've been over the NDAA since 8 months ago to now and that thing to which you speak is not in the version that passed on Wednesday. there might be some other existing contractual payback in place for a voluntary separation (see the ACP for example) but NOTHING in the NDAA passed on Wednesday is mandating troops payback as a result of being separated for not taking the jab. That is and has always been my point that you seem to not understand. You and I agree on most things politically, but people not having to fulfill their obligation as a result of disobeying a direct order is not one of them. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3337429)
Yes, nothing is in the NDAA saying service members have to payback their commitment. I never said there was. What I said is there is no language in there preventing the services from a requirement to do so.
You and I agree on most things politically, but people not having to fulfill their obligation as a result of disobeying a direct order is not one of them. 2. An unwise quick fix hastily inserted in must-pass legislation. There ain’t no heroes here. Once a stupid order is given it MUST be enforced* - but you can’t avoid having to deal with the consequences of it BEING a stupid order. *See, “Light Brigade, Charge of…” |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3337429)
Yes, nothing is in the NDAA saying service members have to payback their commitment. I never said there was. What I said is there is no language in there preventing the services from a requirement to do so.
You and I agree on most things politically, but people not having to fulfill their obligation as a result of disobeying a direct order is not one of them. I also doubt that congress will prevent them from having to repay things like officer scholarship commitments. Scholarships and bonuses are very clear math... you get X money, you serve Y time and it might be dangerous. I kind of doubt anyone will make them repay less-quantifiable obligations like flight school. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3337577)
I seriously doubt the services will let them keep bonuses, not a chance, and congress is not likely to give them that either.
I also doubt that congress will prevent them from having to repay things like officer scholarship commitments. Scholarships and bonuses are very clear math... you get X money, you serve Y time and it might be dangerous. I kind of doubt anyone will make them repay less-quantifiable obligations like flight school. This is already a fuster cluck. Getting the JAG involved can very likely just make it worse. These were all issues that should have been considered from the get-go, not when those giving the orders were in denial about possible consequences and not at the last minute when an amendment was being tacked on to must-pass legislation. Not to mention what happens when the current congressional minority party comes back into the majority. That being the case, I’m not at all sure the most rational rules are going to apply. They sure haven’t so far. We have had - what?- about 75 COVID active duty deaths in the military in the last two years? Everyone is clearly a tragedy for them and their family, but we lose a h€|| of a lot more to other diseases, to suicides, to accidents. We lose more than 35 a year in field exercises. https://i.ibb.co/1qj9VYw/B5-F8052-A-...2-ED5-D419.jpg I think the original order was ill advised. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3337603)
I think the original order was ill advised. The mil would be crippled for routine operations and training if they had to go full lockdown and quarantine every time covid got loose on a ship, barracks, field exercise, etc. The mil itself could gut through it, but politically and bureaucratically they CANNOT infect a bunch of mil and then let them loose to expose civilian family, GS, contractors, etc. The problem isn't the mil itself, it's keeping it away from demographics who DO have at risk people. I think the majority of mil covid deaths were older reservists. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:21 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands