Marriage is a choice. How is the recognition of it with increased allowances not a blatant form of discrimination against singles?

2015-07-20T23:51:20-04:00

There is a great disparity in benefits, allowances, opportunities, and direct compensation between equal members of the same rank, grade, and time in service differentiated simply over whether they are married or not. This runs to the tune of thousands of dollars of difference over the course of a career.

How does this not directly reflect a disproportionate inequality that runs counter to military values of uniformity, fairness, that effects unit cohesion and the sanctity of the act of marriage itself? As an example, a sham marriage or false marriage, is more beneficial per service member for the sake of compensation alone. Especially since the revocation of DADT, as well as the removal of section 3 of DOMA, and now with the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing same sex marriages to be conducted throughout the country, anyone can get married for any reason. Yet those who simply don’t believe in marriage or chose not to get married (say it’s against their religious beliefs), they don’t rate equal compensation or opportunities - how is this all not an Equal Opportunity violation?

Per example, in the Marine Corp’s Equal Opportunity directive MCO 5354.1D, it states, 'Unlawful discriminatory practices within the Marine Corps are counterproductive and unacceptable. Discrimination undermines morale, reduces combat readiness, and prevents maximum utilization and development of the Marine Corps’ most vital asset, its “people”. The policy of the Marine Corps is to provide equality of treatment and the opportunity for all Marines to achieve their full potential based solely upon individual merit, fitness, and ability.’

How is this not a clear form of discrimination taking place?

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 20 at 2015 11:54 PM

2015-07-20T23:54:31-04:00

Depends upon your viewpoint. There is certainly an apparent financial inequity, if that's what your looking for. The argument is presumably solved by saying the increased allotment is for the spouse, more if there are children. Logically speaking, that stands to reason. I was single the greater part of my career. I missed out on all sorts of financial bennies and perks by not being married. However, and this is at least one way of looking at the disparity, I also had certain perks and financial bennies by NOT being married. Eventually, the former lifestyle won out, but I can't say that I chose it because I was going to get a higher per diem. I am certain that thought was the furthest from my mind when I was proposing!!!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 5:21 AM

2015-07-21T05:21:19-04:00

It all comes down to the type of pay that differs. Your base pay reflects your rank and responsibilities. Changing this based on your number of dependents would absolutely be discrimination. But, that isn't what changes. The allowance for housing is what is adjusted, and only by a few hundred dollars a month, depending on rank. It is reasonable to say that a bachelor does not need as much space as a service member with a wife and two children. BAH is designed to keep you in a house equivalent to what your peers could expect in the civilian community. Contrary to your statement, it would seem to be discrimination if the DOD expected a man with 5 children and a wife to occupy the same space that a 22 year old bachelor occupies. (Although, BAH is either "with" or "without" dependents. So, 5 kids are expected to fit in the same space as 1 wife!) Again, you cannot count this as pay and compensation similar to base pay. It is an allowance to offset the differences between military members and the community they live in.

For the sake of argument, do you also disagree with incentive pay? For example, I chose my career field when I was enlisted. I could've chosen to self eliminate. But, I received incentive flight pay every month for the inherent risks associated with flying. Is this discrimination simply because it is a choice I made? Does the same go for jump pay and other forms of career specific compensation? What about reenlistment/retention bonuses? Is that discrimination against those who are in career fields that have decent manning numbers?

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 21 at 2015 6:41 AM

2015-07-21T06:41:09-04:00

Your base pay, based upon rank and time in service is equal with all others. You are looking at allowances. As a single Marine you likely have BOQ and Officers Mess facilities available to you that provide what the allowance the married person receives to cover those expenses for his family. If they live in base housing then the forfeit some/all of the allowance for housing. I was single my entire time in the Corps. I lived in a barracks and ate at the chow hall at no additional cost to me. I even lived out in town the last year or so but on my nickel as I was single and the Marine Corps provides single Marines a place to live and eat so no allowance. Pretty simple concept. Your definition of fairness might be a little skewed.

Response by 1stLt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 9:50 AM

2015-07-21T09:50:09-04:00

This chart represents the salary differences over the course of 1 year between two E-3s (Lance Corporals) in the Marine Corps. They both are stationed at Camp Lejeune, NC, and are identical to one another in every way (both have 3 years time in service) except one is single and one is married. Both Marines make as of the 2015 Military Pay Chart, approximately $24,663.60 per year before taxes. The single Marine is required to live in the barracks; he does not rate BAH. The married Marine rates BAH if no housing is available on base (which is not uncommon).

The single Marine making $24,663.60 will be taxed in the 15% tax bracket as a single filer; taxes for this Marine will amount to approximately $1,695. BAS, which is tax exempt, will amount to $367.92 per month or $4,415.04 per year. After taxes, that Marine will have taken home a total of $27,383.64 including his allowance.

The married Marine making the same initial $24,663.60 will be taxed in the 15% tax bracket as a married joint filer (not always the case, but for the majority of married individuals); taxes for the Marine and his spouse (in this example the spouse was unemployed for the entire year; she had no contributions) will amount to approximately $408. BAS which is $4,415.04 for the year, as well as BAH which is $1137 per month or $13,644 per year, will bring his total tax-exempt allowances to $18,059.04. After taxes, the married Marine will have taken home a total of $42,314.64.

Simply by being married, the married Marine will be ahead of his single peer by $14,931, or around 35%.

The discrepancy is greater in this case: BAH is intended to be allocated for housing but, Marines have the opportunity to choose where they live if base housing is full and furthermore can pocket leftover change if the full allowance is not required to be utilized in rent. Should the Marine have relatives or friends they can live with nearby, they can pocket the full allowance, or split it in a group living situation agreement. One of the greatest advantages a Marine getting BAH here has however, is the ability to use that BAH to purchase property and further put the monthly allocations down on a mortgage, rather than renting a place and burning the money away. In this case, no matter the number of years down the road when the Marine PCS’s or such, they will have an asset they can willingly sell at the least of which, they will get a return on the BAH put down. Bottom line is a portion of that money will come back to them. A single Marine has no opportunity to follow suit; they are restricted to the barracks, and there is no equal opportunity as such.

References:
IRS Tax Calculator:
http://apps.irs.gov/app/withholdingcalculator/index.jsp

2015 Military Pay Calculator:
http://paycharts.militarytimes.com/

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 4:59 PM

2015-07-21T16:59:48-04:00

I'm not quite sure where this great disparity comes into play, unless you are going to add up the estimated cost of health care provided. However many civilian companies offer healthcare for dependents so that takes out that argument. Or is the $200 difference in BAH that I receive over a single member the huge disparity? That $200 doesn't even cover the difference in my electric bill of single vs married. Now if you want to argue that people can use the system to get a ahead, sure. Many young Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and marines have gotten married to move out of the barracks. With the exception of mil-mil there is little financial gain. Look at the number of military families on food stamps, where is this huge benefit?
I counter that single members are much more able to benefit financially. Single members are allowed to continue receiving BAH despite being deployed and no longer retaining a domicile. A married member must not only maintain a domicile, but may also receive punishment for failure to. So right there if a single member is deployed for 6 months and receives $1000 BAH, they just made $6000 tax free just for being single.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 21 at 2015 5:01 PM

2015-07-21T17:01:55-04:00

You're totally focusing on the wrong thing - the money is really just an offset of benefits you're no longer allowed to access as you have a spouse. As a single soldier, 95% of my income was disposable, as a married one, I could barely make ends meet sometimes.

If there's ANYTHING unfair, it's the trolling of the barracks for "volunteers" when a duty or detail comes up. Being married was the get-out-of-jail free card while being single meant hiding half the weekend.

Response by SGT Christopher Churilla made Jul 21 at 2015 5:28 PM

2015-07-21T17:28:04-04:00

Servicemember who are married and/or have children are responsible for them, whereas a single Servicemember is responsible only for himself.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 7:40 PM

2015-07-21T19:40:17-04:00

For the simple fact that the military is required to care, not only for the soldier, but for their dependants as well. How can I support a family on 1000 a month? It just wont happen. So the Army allots money for housing and food extra. That's it. There is no actual pay bonus for getting married. And they really only give you JUST ENOUGH to get by unless you are a REALLY savvy financial planner..

Response by 1stLt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 5:40 AM

2015-07-22T05:40:25-04:00

For the record, after receiving a couple directed comments, this overall topic and the questions asked with it are completely impersonal and not reflective of my own viewpoint on the matter in the least. It is an objective sample where I am trying to gauge and entertain an general dialogue that will assist with some issues not directly related, however concerned. Being a supposed 'professional' military forum, the intent here is to receive open and honest feedback. Not insults and defensive slurs, or unnecessary trolling, I can go elsewhere if I care to find that. Respectfully, thank you.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 6:23 AM

2015-07-22T06:23:22-04:00

1stLt Private RallyPoint Member, maybe it is easier to explain if you don't look at the money, and instead look first at what is provided if the member remains in government quarters.

Let's assume you have your single E-3, living in a dorm room, sharing a room or, at least, a bathroom with another service member. Since the E-3 is a member of the military, command can dictate that s/he live in these conditions. They did in fact sign the dotted line. Adequate quarters are provided, and for the sake of staying on track with your original question and intent, let's not debate adequate. The E-3 has a roof over their head and a place to sleep.

Now, let's say that E-3 gets married. There is government housing available, so he moves into a house with his wife, and is afforded the ability to start a family of whatever size (BAH does not change when you add more dependents. It is either with/without. For the sake of this discussion, we will assume family and wife are interchangeable when discussing the allowance). His wife is now considered a "dependent" under military terms, and as such, he is required to provide adequate shelter. The military cannot just throw her out on the street and say tough luck. Would it be reasonable to expect that he continue to live with his old roommate in the dorms, and move his wife in with the two of them? Would it be reasonable to expect another service member to be in the room while the E-3 expands his family (use your imagination)? Would it impact the mission if said service member had a newborn who cried all night in the close quarters of the barracks? The reasonable solution here is to move the service member and his family to adequate quarters for raising and/or expanding their family. When you further consider the needs of a newborn or child, you can appreciate the need for a kitchen, private bathroom, play space, etc. If you still think it is reasonable for a member with a family to live in the same conditions as a single member, I suggest you visit the home of one of your Marines with a toddler.

Now, let's say that this particular base closes down a year later, and the government decides to make living quarters available to civilians. Would you expect that they charge the same amount for the dorm rooms, or would you reasonably expect that someone residing in a home should pay more? If you were the proprietor, what would you charge? Would it be more than the average $200 per month difference seen in current BAH rates?

Now, since government quarters may not be available, we can look objectively at BAH using the comparison of what is afforded to service members should they remain on base. Is it that the married couple is unfairly receiving $200 more a month? Or, is the government essentially just handing the money over to the service member to pay a third party for quarters equivalent to what they would receive if they had stayed on base? Here, you can see that it isn't discrimination. Rather, it is the monetary equivalent of what is reasonably provided to those who do not receive the BAH allowance.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 10:45 PM

2015-07-23T22:45:28-04:00

From reading on some of the other posts on this subject, you say that it isn't necessarily the monetary amount that you think is unfair, but rather the treatment of single soldiers/marines/etc. In most cases, this is only an OCONUS issue. From reading about your experience on Okinawa, it sounds very similar to that of Korea in which adjustments need to be made in order to satisfy the SOFA. In Korea, all soldiers non-command sponsored (with exception of Yongsan) are made to live in barracks, ranging from E-1 to the highest I have seen is O-4. Also, E-6 and below are made to remain on meal card and forced to eat at a dining facility unless they want to pay out of pocket. However, this changes once you go back stateside in which (for Army at least) many E-6 and above are not allowed to stay in barracks and are entitled to live either on post in housing or off post.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 7:36 AM

2015-07-27T07:36:34-04:00

It is discrimination but the service has broad latitude for good order and discipline.
Think about it. Most enlistees are 18 years old with zero experience as to how to take care of themselves when they have a steady paycheck. If you want to see an example of this, check out the rides with wheels and stereos.
Most are not cognizant of the requirements of paying bills and even less so of the consequences of paying the Xbox live bill vs. the power bill. To prevent issues of Joes/Janes being kicked out of their house or having the water cut off, they put them in the barracks.
It is not a perfect solution nor is it fair but it prevents a lot of off-post/camp/station issues.

Response by SSG Ray Strenkowski made Jul 27 at 2015 9:28 AM

2015-07-27T09:28:39-04:00

1stLt Private RallyPoint Member It's the Military - Does it need to be fair about everything? I don't think so. When your an E-1 - E-4 you generally get tagged with every crap detail. We all did it as enlisted personnel. Is that fair? Maybe not, but who else is going to do it? You?

The system isn't perfect, but families wouldn't survive without the BAH/BAS - they barely do now. So you can't take that away... The other option is to give BAH/BAS to every single soldier? Who's going to pay for that? I don't think there's a budget for it, and now who's going to do detail because the barracks are empty?

I don't think I expect the Military to be perfect - but I don't see another solution to this problem as warranted.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Jul 27 at 2015 10:08 AM

2015-07-27T10:08:44-04:00

1stLt Private RallyPoint Member I definitely understand where you are coming from. In the civilian sector, you get a set salary for your position, you don't get additional allowances just because you are married or have a family. Some civilian positions will provide healthcare for your family, but this is hardly comparable to the benefits military dependents get. There is unfavorable treatment directed towards single servicemembers in more than just this financial compensation. Most commands I have been at, single servicemembers would perform additional duties, because the other servicemembers 'should be spending time at home with their families'. There's also a negative stigma towards dating, such as a fiancée is not a spouse and is not entitled to attend command events that spouses may attend. I believe this is the cause of a lot of marriages in younger soldiers who get married before their relationship has reached the appropriate maturity level for this type of decision. Married soldiers also get more respect, from my perspective.

As much as I would appreciate these benefits if I got married, I believe that it should be equal across the board. If the servicemember is unable to support their family without these allowances, the spouse should get a job to make up the difference or they should look into a career that can support their families.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2015 7:13 PM

2015-07-28T19:13:59-04:00

I see where you are coming from and I have seen similar arguments in the Air Force times in the past. It would make sense to me for the military to give everyone the same amount of direct compensation regardless of marriage status. There would of course still be some disparity in benefits received though, when you add in healthcare, base housing costs vs the dorms, wight allowances when moving etc. In my service I haven't seen any differences in opportunities at all though... if you have observed actual differences in opportunities, I think that would be valid EO complaint.