This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) inequities between services could do more harm than good. Differing terminology of Air Force “temporary duty” and Marine Corps “field duty”— here, Air Force personnel (above) and Marines (right) take a break during Operation Desert Shield—is used to justify great discrepancies of allowance, as well as living conditions.
BAS Is a Mess
By early next year, the Defense Department might ask Congress to end military tax-free food allowances. If so, sea service people should be ready to react—not with groans but with cheers.
Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) has been paid monthly for more than 45 years to help service members pay for meals not provided by the government. It sounds reasonable, yet no element of military pay has done more harm to morale. BAS creates indefensible disparities between officers and enlisted, deployed and non-deployed troops, seagoing and land-bound members, barracks dwellers and persons with families.
Pentagon pay officials have long described BAS as “broken.” Finally, they appear committed to doing something about it. The most logical option—and the most costly—is to end BAS and roll the cash into military basic pay. More modest options also under review include establishing a single BAS rate for officers and enlisted members, readjusting the allowance to reflect actual food costs, standardizing BAS entitlement and recoupment policies among services, and eliminating a dining hall surcharge that adds to the confusion surrounding BAS rates.
The moldy theory behind BAS is that the military is obliged to feed the troops. When it can’t, it’s obliged to provide cash so that the troops can buy their own meals. Such paternalism in the pay system made sense when ranks were filled by young, draft- induced bachelors who most often ate meals in mess halls or on board ship. Since the advent of all-volunteer force, however, the military has grown older, more married, and more reliant on the food allowance to balance the family budget. Enlisted BAS is typically $209 a month; officers receive $146 monthly. That disparity alone provides a clue to how convoluted the allowance has become.
Morale gets its biggest jolt, however, when BAS is cut off. That happens when an enlisted member is sent to sea or deployed to the field. Sea-service people are hardest hit. Sailors’ complaints have been muted because of other pays. For instance, as BAS ends, sea pay usually begins, resulting in a net increase. BAS inequities first grabbed national attention during preparations for the Persian Gulf War. Young Army and Air Force families wanted to know why family separation and the risks of war caused a drop in take-home pay. BAS inequities have been further exposed by the trend toward joint duty assignments. For example, Marine Corps squadrons sent to Aviano, Italy, to fly Bosnian relief operations found themselves serving alongside
Air Force crews who drew hundreds of dollars more per month in allowances. The Air Force, it turns out, protects its members from a drop in pay by having them deploy under temporary duty orders. That not only allows BAS to continue but also triggers per diem. Marines, by contrast, deploy routinely in a “field duty” status—which means tents, no BAS, and little or no per diem.
President Clinton signed an executive order last fall giving the services authority to pay BAS during deployments even when meals are provided. The change did not apply to shipboard personnel, however, and the Marine Corps, citing budget constraints, has failed to take full advantage to protect its own people. A new, partial per diem of $3.50 covers only half of what Marines lose in BAS. Merging BAS into basic pay would protect service members from such arbitrary slights in income. Basic pay does not change when members deploy, so sea- service people no longer would be forced, in effect, to partially subsidize their own operations.
But how far will the Pentagon really go? Not as far perhaps as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These governments provide free meals to deployed forces, viewing it simply as a cost of doing business. Salaries are high enough that there’s no need for a separate food allowance. Meals on base are relatively cheap thanks to government subsidies.
If the Pentagon decides to roll BAS into basic pay, it likely will charge for meals on board ship or in the field. Officials estimate the goal at $140 a month, about what officers now receive in BAS. Enlisted members, however, could pocket almost $70 extra a month. Pentagon officials are worried about the cost, however. Providing BAS to everyone, including sailors at sea, would add $380 million to the defense budget. Shifting tax-free BAS into taxable basic pay would kill a tax advantage for service members. That would have to be made up by raising basic pay an extra $35 to $40 a month, a total cost of $50 million. Finally, there are retirement costs to consider. Retired pay is based on members’ basic pay at retirement, so rolling BAS into basic pay would add millions more to future annuities.
Whatever BAS reform option the Pentagon embraces will be turned into draft legislation and sent to Congress early next year, say Pentagon pay officials. By the fall of 1996, service members could see their BAS improve or—better yet—disappear.
123
Proceedings / March 1995