# Prorated Imminent Danger Pay:  Good Idea?



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2012)

source:  an email I just got in my AKO account

To sum up:  you will now only get paid for the days you're actually in combat, not "1 day a month gets you full benefits."  If during the days within the month you're under fire or get attacked with an IED, you get paid for the whole month.  

Personally, I think this is fair and is a long time in coming.  This will eliminate "war tourists" who find a way to creep onto a flight going to Qatar or landing in Iraq on the last day of one month, and then flying out again the first day of the next month.  It will also ensure people don't overstay the actual time their units need them forward in order to get that "last month" of pay.  In short, it will cut down on abuse of the system.  The email didn't say if the new policy affected the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion, but I think that should be prorated also, for the same reasons.

Your thoughts?




> A new law may affect the pay you receive when you are on duty in an imminent danger pay (IDP) area.  About 27 locations world-wide have been designated by the Secretary of Defense as IDP areas.
> 
> The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA 2012), signed on December 31, 2011, requires we begin prorating IDP so that members are paid for only the actual days they perform duty in an IDP area.  Before December 31, members received the full $225 a month even if they performed duty only one day in an IDP area.  Now service members will receive $7.50 for each day they are on duty in an IDP area up to the maximum monthly rate of $225.  Members who are exposed to a hostile fire or hostile mine explosion event are eligible to receive non-prorated Hostile Fire Pay (HFP) in the full monthly amount of $225.  Members cannot receive both IDP and HFP in the same month.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 2, 2012)

I agree with this.  The only downside I see, is that now it will take more paperwork to ensure that individuals are paid.  I know that we used to bitch and moan about how those of us who were getting shot at and blown up were getting paid the same way that the guy eating doughnuts in the chow hall was.  So yeah, this is a good thing.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 2, 2012)

fox1371 said:


> ...*The only downside I see, is that now it will take more paperwork to ensure that individuals are paid.* I know that we used to bitch and moan about how those of us who were getting shot at and blown up were getting paid the same way that the guy eating doughnuts in the chow hall was. So yeah, this is a good thing.


 
I agree that it is a good thing.  

I am a bit concerned with the paperwork issue as well and can see how an S1 will just submit everyone for it monthly so he doesnt have to weed through MFRs to get it taken care of.

I wonder if this will effect CTZE any?


----------



## Brill (Feb 2, 2012)

Mountain, this is molehill...fire mission over.

Really?  How many people does this REALLY impact?  Is it really worth the cost of tracking it?  If "they" are watching this, who is going to check my sideburns?


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 2, 2012)

I think they should work on keeping track of those war tourists and tell them to fuck off back to their desks. If they want to see what's going on, tune into CNN like every one else or sign up for an actual job that would take them into theater.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 2, 2012)

How much is it a Month now? $60.00 per month in 1967


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 2, 2012)

This would be a pretty big money saver. 

Right now the Marines have about 20,000 troops in Helmand Province.  I would say it's a safe bet to say that only about 20% of these Marines will actually see combat.  With 20,000 troops deployed, that would mean that our government is spending $31.5 million for a typical 7 month deployment on IDP alone.  With this new policy, and using 20% of the Marines actually seeing combat as an example, that would mean that the government will only pay out $6.5 million on IDP over that 7 month period.  Do I think that our troops should get shorted any money?  Hell no.  I would rather see them bump up the pay for troops that are seeing combat.  Hopefully they can take these newly saved funds and put a lot of it towards assisting unemployed Veterans.


----------



## Brill (Feb 2, 2012)

So IDF is no longer in effect?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2012)

fox1371 said:


> This would be a pretty big money saver.
> 
> Right now the Marines have about 20,000 troops in Helmand Province. I would say it's a safe bet to say that only about 20% of these Marines will actually see combat. With 20,000 troops deployed, that would mean that our government is spending $31.5 million for a typical 7 month deployment on IDP alone. With this new policy, and using 20% of the Marines actually seeing combat as an example, that would mean that the government will only pay out $6.5 million on IDP over that 7 month period. Do I think that our troops should get shorted any money? Hell no. I would rather see them bump up the pay for troops that are seeing combat. Hopefully they can take these newly saved funds and put a lot of it towards assisting unemployed Veterans.


?????

Everyone in Afghanistan will still get paid.  The guys leaving on the 1st of the month will only get one day of pay.

I think the war tourists could have been weeded out by requiring 6 consecutive days in the zone to get a months pay, otherwise you only get paid for the days you are there.

It'll make it easier for the AF and Navy to strand guys now, as the expense of stranding someone just went down.


----------



## CDG (Feb 2, 2012)

I think it's a good idea.  I always felt ashamed and embarrassed that I was getting IDP for cruising through a certain area of the ocean, or being stationed on a nice safe camp in HOA, when dudes were in ground combat making the same amount I was.  I didn't feel like I deserved it, although most of the people in the command liked to think we did.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 2, 2012)

SOWT said:


> ?????
> 
> Everyone in Afghanistan will still get paid. The guys leaving on the 1st of the month will only get one day of pay.
> 
> ...


Ok I just got the email as well and re-read the stipulations for receiving IDP.  Disregard my well thought out post hahaha.  I thought they were going to only pay out IDP for troops that see combat during their deployment.  My bad!


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 3, 2012)

I'm good with the changes. It was always a hoot, telling the AF guys that we were mechanic's or drivers in the DFAC at Sather AFB.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 3, 2012)

18C4V said:


> I'm good with the changes...


 
Same here.  About time the playing field was leveled.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 13, 2012)

Agree with this so hard.  Also, the folks who are trying to spin this as "Obama doesn't care about the troops!" need to unstick their heads from their asses.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 13, 2012)

X2 what deathy said!


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 18, 2012)

Several years back, I was dating an 18E.  About eight or nine months into it, he was offered one of those hefty bonuses to keep him from retiring right at twenty years.  He and his unit spent quite a bit of time trying to get him on a "turn and burn," just so said hefty bonus would come tax free.  While that's a nice gesture for your buddies, that's a huge waste of time and OPM (other people's money).  I'm glad to see the change.


----------



## talonlm (Feb 18, 2012)

Glad for the change, too.  Don't get to see the abuses from the average door kicker's point of view . . . but it was always embarassing to me to see the C-5 and C-17 (et al) aircrew stan-eval folks hop on a plane heading into Bagdad or Bargram at the end of the month to get their extra pay.


----------



## Scotth (Feb 20, 2012)

I have been out so long it is hard to to judge the changes.  It seems like a solid idea.  As long as we aren't wasting more time and money "tracking" the issue then we are saving.


----------



## abn373 (Mar 12, 2012)

When you come in to theatre through the normal gateways, like Manas AF and Camp Buering, they scan your CAC card. I had always thought that was how they tracked your IDP and such. Maybe aircrews are done differently. I should probably get back in my lane because I am not a finance guy, but I just figured they were already tracking days in theatre.


----------



## Brill (Mar 12, 2012)

racing_kitty said:


> Several years back, I was dating an 18E. About eight or nine months into it, he was offered one of those hefty bonuses to keep him from retiring right at twenty years. He and his unit spent quite a bit of time trying to get him on a "turn and burn," just so said hefty bonus would come tax free. While that's a nice gesture for your buddies, that's a huge waste of time and OPM (other people's money). I'm glad to see the change.


 
I actually disagree, RK. 35P and 18-series SRBs are almost the same now and I consider the above as just another avenue to keep a soldier in the service vice having them leave for the HEFTY cash available on the outside via various contractors. It's a win-win for us: we keep good soldiers and they in turn get some bank to help make Momma happy (edit: or Ramone happy...you can say that now, it's ok).


----------

