Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This coming from someone who never served in the military to protect HIS country. Or..................is the US really "his" country??? What's next - bring back the draft???
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.
Note: Reserve members are also eligible for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay.
Are you of the opinion that service members should receive such hazard premiums when they are not in a hostile environment?
There will be no need to bring back the draft in these troubled economic times. The millitary is a paid job with benefits that many would like to have.
Or you of the opinion that service members should receive such hazard premiums when they are not in a hostile environment?
There will be no need to bring back the draft in these troubled economic times. The millitary is a paid job with benefits that many would like to have.
Anywhere where military is stationed in a country that there is hostile activity deserves more than someone stationed in Germany where there is no threat - risk factor. Are you saying that those who were stationed in Iraq as mechanics weren't at risk of being attacked because they weren't on the front line? Or those mechanics stationed in Afghanistan aren't at risk because they would be located away from the battle? Would the medical personal also be included as not being subjected to hostile activity as hospitals are positioned away from hostile activity?
Is that the reason people voluntarily join the military because it's such a great paying job with such great benefits? If that's the case, why aren't more people voluntarily joining?
I guess you don't have a problem with the benefits that are so generously given by the government to illegal immigrants, but you think it's OK to take away from those who serve in the military.
Anywhere where military is stationed in a country that there is hostile activity deserves more than someone stationed in Germany where there is no threat - risk factor. Are you saying that those who were stationed in Iraq as mechanics weren't at risk of being attacked because they weren't on the front line?
There is list of "DESIGNATED HOSTILE FIRE OR IMMINENT DANGER PAY AREAS", table at the end of this document:
Anywhere where military is stationed in a country that there is hostile activity deserves more than someone stationed in Germany where there is no threat - risk factor. Are you saying that those who were stationed in Iraq as mechanics weren't at risk of being attacked because they weren't on the front line? Or those mechanics stationed in Afghanistan aren't at risk because they would be located away from the battle? Would the medical personal also be included as not being subjected to hostile activity as hospitals are positioned away from hostile activity?
Is that the reason people voluntarily join the military because it's such a great paying job with such great benefits? If that's the case, why aren't more people voluntarily joining?
I guess you don't have a problem with the benefits that are so generously given by the government to illegal immigrants, but you think it's OK to take away from those who serve in the military.
Why?
They know what they're getting into when they join.
Duh, we're in a war.
Why?
They know what they're getting into when they join.
Duh, we're in a war.
Duh, the countries that we are at "war" with are the makings of the US. The countries considered hostile didn't declare war on the US, the US declared war and invaded them. In spite of that, Americans joined the military with the belief that they are serving America.
I guess your attitude is that for every American soldier killed or injured it's is just another American who knew what they were getting into. Tough luck, they drew the short straw and didn't get shipped out to a resort post in Germany but to some "hostile" country that didn't declare war on the US, but has an active military US presence, and the price they pay is risk of life or injury and why should they be given combat pay?
The breakdown is "hostile" and "imminent". Hostile is active, imminent is potential.
There is the perception of being hostile and there is being actively hostile. Many military are deployed on what the US refers to as "peace keeping" missions, and apparently the US seems to have alot of those missions in place. Obviously if there is no active combat, military should not be compensated with combat pay.
It's the right decision. Calm down and look at it rationally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.