Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'combat zone'.
Found 1 result
-
President Obama’s latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his PayPal account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at. So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I’m constantly in a combat zone…it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense…come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here… Florida Marine Corp Soldier (We are not posting his name for obvious reasons) According to Military.com, as of February 1, 2012, this new measure went into effect, and soldiers who are to received the additional $225/mo. combat pay ‘must’ must be in immediate risk of harm. The measure is very specific in its criteria for receiving the additonal pay. The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012. A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was: *Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; *On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; *Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or *On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions. The last bullet point speaks volumes as to the sheer stupidity of this measure. The whole point of going to Afghanistan and Iraq was for combat operations- Afghanistan still is a hostile warzone, and both U.S. and NATO forces continue to suffer losses in and out of combat hot zones. Insurgent attacks have accured throughout areas that have been deemed ‘safe’, and in areas where hostilities were not forseen. http://patdollard.co...for-u-s-troops/ I must say, as a soldier myself, you should be entilted to the pay reguardless if you are shot at in a day or not. The indirect fire that is going off as well as the basic danger of just being on the fob. As well, if you are stationed in what is to be called a "safe zone" you will not receive the combat pay. Even though the safe zones still have a risk of insurgent activity and IED's. They keep taking more and more money away from the people who risk the most for the nation and its the damn desk SOB that are making this decision. How hard is it to sit behind a desk and ruin the lives of everyone else?
