Sham Marriages, DADT, and BAH

Here's an interesting little story from yesterday's WaPost website.  It seems a lesbian Marine in Southern California and her civilian partner both fraudulently married male Marines, starting the gravy train rolling for the higher level of compensation paid to service members "with dependents".  This emolument--known as "Basic Allowance for Housing"--is just part of the convoluted and much in need of reform world of personnel costs to the US military.  BAH is a figure paid (un-taxable and on top of "base pay", which presumably is what a service member is paid for his or her labor) to service members in order to defray costs such as mortgages, rent and utilities.  The kicker is that the rate of this benefit is tied to rank, presumably under the assumption that one's "needs" increase as one moves up the socio-economic scale.  Additionally, the rate paid dramatically increases when one marries or reproduces.  Anyone who has spent any amount of time in or around the military knows that this fact alone plays a significant role in the decision for many couples to marry.

Several interesting questions are worth podering.

1.  With the repeal of DADT and the as yet still not widespread legal acceptance of gay marriage cause pressure on the military to extend "married" BAH to monogamous gay couples?  If so, would it then have to extend the same courtesy to straight couples living monogamously?  Or same gender roommates co-habitating in strictly non-sexual ways?

2.  Does the payment of "married" BAH contribute to military divorce?  Are military members likely to marry earlier than their civilian counterparts, in part because their employer compensates them for doing so?  Does the military incentivize marriage among those unsuited for the rigors of the institution (marriage, that is)?

3.  Is the notion of "married" BAH outmoded and sexist in a day of dual earner families?  Put another way, when I married as a young man, my economic status dramatically increased with the salary my wife brought to the table; why should I have been compensated more for doing so? 

4.  Why compensate married people--or those who have reproduced--more than those who are unmarried and childless?  Is there not an elemental fairness issue here?  Some will say that a "housing allowance" is not "compensation"--but I say, "bunk".  It all rolls up into what is available to buy the things one needs to live--and so I ask again--is there not a fairness issue?

I remember being in command and studying this issue very, very closely.  I don't remember what the reports are called, but I regularly was called upon to review records from my Disbursing Officer--the person charged (along with the Admin Officer) that dealt with the routine and mundane world of how much leave did people have on the books (interesting one for CO's to look at--some of your folks need some time off!), who is participating in the military's 401-K like vehicle, etc.  One of the reports available is a listing of who on your ship is receiving BAH and what the zip code associated with that person's "residence" is.  Take a look at this sometime, Skippers.  It will amaze you how many of your Sailors are maintaining residences in some of the highest rent districts in the country.  And it will amaze you to find that some of the seemingly most "successful bachelor" Sailors under your command happen to be "married" in the first place. 

The plain truth is that the system is riven with abuse, and it is so pervasive that stories like the one above make the news not because they are newsworthy, but because they are even investigated at all.  I had an NCIS officer come down to my ship and talk to me about this issue, but he told me that I needed hard proof to start an investigation--not just anecdotes and suspicions.  If the Sailor had a lease and a marriage license, well then, that's all they need.

Any reform of the military compensation system (go for it, Leon) should include the elimination of any difference in "allowances" paid due to the marital or parental status of those serving.

Oh, and reduce "fogey" raises (raises paid every two years within the same pay-grade) big time, while applying the balance to dramatic "promotion" raises. 

Bryan McGrath