Well, the government is partially to blame, but not for the reason you think.
The case written about (and I assume most of the others) does not concern an 'active military member' in the sense that most people think. It involves the activation of a National Guardsman to serve in the military.
National Guardmen were not originally covered under the Soldiers and Sailors Act. This changed when the Government changed the rules to allow the use of National Guardsmen as part of active duty military for extended tours abroad. Some banks did not realize the change had occurred. Others ignored the change when it was to their advantage.
So, it is not really about US military pay. It is more about National Guardsmen being pulled off of their jobs and not being able to earn the previous income they had. I am sure there are rules governing business paying Guardsmen on active duty. However, for example, I am sure it would only cover base pay, which would have an adverse affect on someone who received a lot of commission income.
to post a reply:
login - or -
register