I agree with your points on explicit and reasonable knowledge, but how does one prove it in this case? Was the eligibility (or lack thereof) clearly delineated in the contracts, or available in the public sphere? I ask this rhetorically, because I don't know.

If there was a clear and reasonable communication related to (what I assume was) an unconventional compensation practice, then there's probably a case for culpability. Otherwise, I don't see the average enlisted person being on the hook for a superior's poor decision.

ETA: Now seeing that slowguy and JSA have just addressed this.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

no idea, but the article mentioned certain roles (radio operators I think) and years of service (<20), so I would have assumed that the criteria were clear. I have no idea how that stuff is communicated, but obviously defer to SG and JSA.

This seems ripe for some sort of equitable, unjust enrichment argument. Notwithstanding the fraud as the intervening event, the Army is getting the benefit of a bargain without having to pay a material part of the consideration. Just as the Army should not be punished for conduct that should not have happened, neither should the soldiers, and the Army's in a better position to bear the impact of the fraud than the soldiers are. It's the old "fault" vs. "compensation" theory from torts class...:)

Ok, so then why isn't the National guard paying the money to the Army? The enlistees signed up because of the money, you can't then take that money back. That's complete bullshit.

Have the left pocket pay the right pocket and end this mess.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Yep, I agree. The issue is whether the plaintiff could prove that "but for" the bonus, those soldiers would not have re-enlisted. One could argue the Army was unjustly enriched by having these experienced soldiers. The flip side is, the soldiers received full pay and benefits for the services rendered. The soldiers received all to which they were entitled for providing continued services. The bonus was "extra" and not that to which the soldiers were entitled.

Personally, I would take that case on behalf of soldiers and would take that case to a jury. But, there certainly are grounds for kicking such a case on summary judgment.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Because the National Guard did not do anything wrong. The fraud was committed by individuals within the guard. If those individuals acted intentionally in a fraudulent manner, they cannot bind the National Guard.

I agree it is bullshit. I am not justifying the conduct by the Army or anyone. I am just telling you how the law looks at it.

In this case, people are quick to say the law is bullshit b/c we are talking about the deep pockets of the Army vs the soldiers who served our country. But, consider whether you would feel the same if your accountant bound you to a contract with a 3rd party that took most of your money. Assume your accountant hired a 3rd party contractor to build you a garage for $20k, but then also promised a $50k bonus in the contract. The contractor built you the garage. Should you have to pay the $50k bonus that you never authorized?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Individuals may have committed the fraud but I am sure that people higher up knew what was going on and let it happen. They were getting the numbers they needed.

How high does it have to go before it's not "individuals" and it's actually the people that run the National Guard, or just The National Guard?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

We're basically on the same page, though I think it would survive summary judgment. It's explicitly a re-enlistment bonus - it's expressly held out as part of an inducement to do something that you might not otherwise do. The bonus wasn't something added on in arrears for extraordinary performance the way a year-end bonus is in law firms; it was something held out to get them in the door in the first place, and thus something to which they were entitled as a condition to agreeing to provide those continuing services at all. Maybe some would have re-upped even without the bonus (and thus not met the 'but-for' bar), but it seems to me that there's at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether that's true which could support the soldiers' case at least past the SJ phase. But anyway, quibbling over SJ standards aside, Congress better get their shit together on this and not leave it to the silliness of litigation-land. It's a disgrace.

I agree that per the letter of the law/reg, the Army is in the right. From a public perspective and impact on future recruiting, this is a disaster.

With a lot of these bonuses, the Soldier is not eligible by the reg, but an exception to policy memo is drafted by the service chief or NationalGuard chief's office based upon current needs. It would be telling to see/hear what the recruiters were saying in regards to this.

It's frustrating- you spend a career working hard to retain good troops, then something like this happens and can influence a lot of good folks to leave.

---

******************************
If I don't, who will? -Me
It's like being bipolar in opinion is a requirement around here. -TripleThreat

Typically, when individually intentionally commit fraud, they do not bind the entity. The guys who were charged are pretty high ranking. I see nothing that shows anyone outside the CA NG knew about it.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Typically. Yet Volkswagen is paying out $bajillions because "individuals" decided to fudge emissions numbers.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

You hit an interesting point. When an order is handed down to improve failing performance (e.g. enlistment numbers), and performance takes a very sudden turn in the favorable direction, is no one higher up in the chain responsible for questioning how that happened? Or - much like the individual soldier's case - is it a matter of simply not questioning a favorable turn of events?

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

Apples and hand grenades. I'm not saying the conduct of an individual cannot be imputed upon the entity. I'm talking about binding the entity in contract.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Although the most cases are in CA (nearly 10,000), this wasn't limited to that State.


"The National Guard Bureau, the Pentagon agency that oversees state Guard organizations, has acknowledged that bonus overpayments occurred in every state at the height of the two wars. "

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

It should be recovered from the congressmen. Out of their salaries.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

What do they mean by "bonus overpayments?" These weren't "over payments." This was straight up fraud.

I ask b/c I don't know. I am only familiar with the CA situation.

Regardless, I am beyond dumbfounded that the Army would pursue repayment. Douche move, whether or not justified under the law. Also, last I checked, all branches were looking to increase recruitment. This isn't going to help those efforts.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I assume they mean, overpayment of bonuses relative to what they were authorized to provide, in terms of total budget allotted for this bonus program.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

and according to Reuters it is over

 
"The Pentagon is suspending the debt collection program it's been using to claw back bonuses that were paid to thousands of California National Guard veterans for re-enlisting in the war effort, with Defense Secretary Ash Carter calling the current situation "unacceptable."

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

x2

However, you may want to reconsider your position, since I seem to agree with you 100%. ;)

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Take that however you will.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?