Military wants to suck and blow at the same time

[Rick]

Oh you've been in before then...

[Scooter]

I have seen, for example, servicemembers come home with PTSD and been told they are not eligible for VA benefits because their condition was "pre-existing". And then there are those who were admitted to the service with drug addictions and/or felony convictions, who did their time and then were discharged without benefits due to "disciplinary" problems that the military should clearly have been able to foresee when they were allowed to enlist.

And let's not even bother to go into the resistance of the military to recognize victims of Gulf War syndrome...

[Rick]

So it's really not about abuse of BAH.

It's about a deep seated hatred for the military...

[Scooter]

It's about one more example of the military trying to screw servicemembers out of benefits.

[Andrew D]

Is there a specific regulation requiring a married couple to live together in order to collect the housing benefit?

No. On the contrary:

BAH/OHA WHEN BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE MEMBERS AND SEPARATE HOUSEHOLDS ARE MAINTAINED
When both husband and wife are members and separate households are maintained at or in the vicinity of their PDS or PDSs, each is individually authorized BAH/OHA. Only one member may receive BAH/OHA at the with-dependent rate. In no case may a spouse who also is a member in receipt of basic pay be a dependent for
allowance purposes in this Part (37 USC §421).

(Joint Federal Travel Regulations, Volume 1, Paragraph U10202 (italics in original).)

However, actual support of the spouse is required:

Proof of Support. The statutory purpose of a housing allowance on behalf of a dependent is to at least partially reimburse a member for the expense of providing a private sector residence for the dependents when GOV’T QTRS are not furnished, and not to pay a housing allowance for a dependent as a bonus merely for the technical status of being married or a parent. Proof of support of a lawful spouse or unmarried, minor, legitimate child of a member is generally not required. However, when evidence (e.g., special investigation reports; record reviews; fraud, waste and abuse complaints; sworn testimony of individuals; statement by member) or complaints from dependents of nonsupport or inadequate support are received, proof of adequate support as stated in par. U10106-E is required.

(Id., Paragraph U10106-A (emphasis added).)

In a previous case which appears not materially distinguishable from the sailors case linked above, according to the DoD's own newspaper, the sailors were charged with "marriage fraud or conspiracy to commit marriage fraud." And according to "Capt. Jennifer Herold, the Navy's deputy assistant judge advocate general for criminal law policy":

Submitting a false BAH claim -- whether it involves a sham marriage or doctoring numbers to get a bigger payment -- is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice ....

In the most severe cases, the penalty is a dishonorable discharge and up to 10 years confinement ....

(Emphasis added.)

Thus, this:

Was there any legal impediment to the marriages they entered into?

does not appear to be the issue. Rather, the fact that the marriage is a sham makes the claim for the housing benefit illegal, regardless of what, if any, effect it has on the validity of the marriage itself.

(And the article does not mention anyone's having been charged with any violation of any immigration law.)

[Scooter]

Once again, those were marriages deemed fraudulent because they were used to commit immigration fraud, plus the area where the "spouses" lived was falsified to get a higher benefit, neither of which applies in this case.

[Andrew D]

Did you read the article?

It says nothing like "those were marriages deemed fraudulent because they were used to commit immigration fraud". And only "in several cases," not in all the cases, were the residence locations of the spouses falsified.

What the article does say, which I think is quite clear, is:

(a) that if the marriage is a sham -- not "if the marriage is a sham intended to effectuate a violation of immigration law," but simply if the marriage is a sham -- then the application for the benefit is false; and

(b) that submitting a false claim for the benefit is itself a crime.

In short, in the same-sex case, the military appears to be treating the service members involved exactly the way the military treats sham marriages in other housing-allowance cases.

[Scooter]

Yes, I did read the article.

Whether the marriage can be deemed to be a "sham" must be dependent on more than whether the participants are fucking each other or not. In this case, the fact that the marriages were entered into in order to commit immigration fraud put them in the class completely different from the marriages entered into by the lesbians, because contracting marriage for the purpose of immigration fraud is in and of itself an illegal act.

[Andrew D]

Under military law, a marriage is a sham if it is entered into for the purpose of obtaining housing benefits, and the spouses do not intend to live together as husband and wife. That is exactly what happened in this same-sex case, and the military is treating this same-sex case exactly the way it treats other cases.

Immigration has nothing to do with it. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Both are simply irrelevant.

United States v. Bolden, 28 M.J. 127 (Court of Military Appeals 1989) is dispositive. In that case, the defendant, an Air Force Technical Sergeant, conspired with an Airman and with the defendant's girlfriend to obtain housing benefits through a sham marriage. No issue of immigration was involved. No issue of homosexuality was involved.

The Airman wanted to live off base, but he could not afford to without a housing allowance. The Sergeant, the Airman, and the Sergeant's girlfriend entered into the following arrangement:

(1) The Airman would marry the Sergeant's girlfriend, but they would not consummate the marriage, and they would not live together.

(2) The Airman would obtain the housing benefit on the basis of the marriage.

(3) The Airman would rent an apartment in which the Sergeant had a one-half interest.

(4) The Airman would make monthly payments to the Sergeant's gilfriend.

On review, the Court of Military Appeals held that that arrangment was sufficient to uphold the Sergeant's convictions for larceny and conspiracy to commit larceny. The court stated:

(A) "Even if the marriage was valid under Alaska law, we believe the government evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings of guilty. In the present context, state law does not control. Instead, we must inquire whether Congress intended for a servicemember to receive a quarters allowance as a married person if the marriage was a sham."

(B) "[W]e are convinced that when Congress authorized a basic allowance for quarters for a servicemember with “dependents,” they intended that the “dependents” be persons who would usually be considered to fall in this category. If the claimed “dependent” is a “spouse,” then, in our view, Congress did not intend that the term include a person who was linked to a servicemember by only a sham marriage. Although Congress did not intend to impose criminal liability on persons who had failed to satisfy technical legal requirements but were living together as husband and wife in a good faith belief that they were married, it also never intended to encourage or subsidize the sort of arrangement into which Bahre and Willoughby entered—with appellant's encouragement and at his direction."

(C) "[T]here is nothing unfair in imposing criminal liability on a servicemember who seeks to obtain allowances from the Government by entering into a fake marriage; and ... we are convinced that Congress meant to impose such liability."

That should put the matter to rest. Under military law, the marriages involved in the same-sex cases are shams.

[Scooter]

How convenient for the military, then, that they will not recognize neither a legally conducted same-sex marriage nor any other legal marriage entered into by lesbian and gay personnel. As I said, sucking and blowing at the same time.

[Andrew D]

I agree that that is disgraceful. But as we know, DOMA prevents the military from doing so, even if it wanted to. The necessary change must come from Congress.

Anyway, I was just responding to your questions and comments about why the marriages are considered shams (about which I was curious myself).

[loCAtek]

Actually, in the military you can't even claim more benefits for your biological child, if that child doesn't share a primary residence with you.

The equivalent in the civilian world is those marrying to give an immigrant US citizenship for the money. That's a felony in this country, which is investigated regularly when citizens marry non-citizens. As part of the investigation, they can and do, go to your house and check to see if the 'married couple' are living together.

[rubato]

I don't see how 'getting around an unfair law' is an excuse for lying.

Granted the law is unfair. But the military does not lead on social issues, it follows; specifically it follows the C in C and the Congress.

yrs,
rubato

[Grim Reaper]

While I was in active duty I knew quite a few people who got married just to live off post and nobody really cared. These people being charged probably pissed off somebody who ratted them out to the chain of command.

[rubato]

While I was in active duty I knew quite a few people who got married just to live off post and nobody really cared. These people being charged probably pissed off somebody who ratted them out to the chain of command.

So lying was ok, then?

No one thought less of someone who was a liar for money? And not even very much money either.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Having been in the Army and worked for several years for DoD, I often felt that The Military reflected both the best and worst of America.

You have people who are willing to literally risk their lives to support the initiatives and objectives of the President and Congress (and implicitly the people). If we didn't have such people who are willing to make those sacrifices, who knows what sort of country we would live in now.

And yet, so many career military people (which is most of them now, right?) can be such petty, conniving schemers, trying to suck every possible dollar and benefit out of Uncle Sugar, from the day of enlistment until the day they die.

The soldiers and sailors who fight and who serve in dangerous positions in combat zones deserve every possible allowance we can give them, within reason, but the vast majority of soldiers and sailors are never under any serious threat of harm and are basically just holding down a "job," that - truth be known - is not very difficult or strenuous. OTOH, you can be forced to pick up and move on a moments notice, and can be taken away from your familes for a year or more at a time, and one can never forget that while you are on active duty there is no time clock; you can be called to work at literally any time of the day or night, and kept on duty as long as it takes to get the task done. In that sense it is more than any "job" that any sane person would ever accept.

Still, the pay and benefits are quite good, and you can retire in early middle age with a lifetime pension. So the tradeoffs are reasonable under the circumstances. Like being a cop or a firefighter - most people would never do it, but if you are the sort of person who WOULD do it, then the compensation is generally fair.

And lest we not forget, the Military is a realm where women and minorities get a better deal than almost anyplace else. Hell, they are even making it a nice deal for your Hoe-Moe-Sexuals!