+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 20
  1. #1
    4Q
    4Q is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    238

    Military: Why not offer MGIB at 15-year CSB point?

    When Career Status Bonus (CSB) election time rolls around at a member's 15-year mark, the services should offer a "second chance" to enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) for those who didn't do it during boot camp.

    I've seen many, many enlisted servicemen deeply regret their decisions not to enroll in the MGIB while in basic training. It reinforces my belief that boot camp is the wrong time and place for a typical 18-year old to make long-term, irreversible yes/no decisions. It would be absurd to for recruits to make binding reenlistment decisions during basic training; it's equally absurd having them make critical decisions concerning future educational benefits there as well.

    When offered the MGIB at the 15-year CSB point, a member's maturity and personal situation should enable him/her to make a more sound decision concerning educational benefits.


    I look forward to reading the comments on this topic.

  2. #2
    PhD2B is offline Dazed and Confused
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,275
    I have often wondered why this rule exists in the first place. The MGIB requires a $100 per month deduction for 12 months. Lets face it, when people first enter the military; they are not making much money. At this point in a young military member's life, the decision to commit $100 per month is a very hard one.

    Personally, I think the rule exists as a way to keep people from taking advantage of the MGIB. The military gets to go on advertising the MGIB as an education benefit, but the decision [and sometimes ability] to take the military up on the offer is not an easy one. And, if a person doesn't take the offer when they first enter the military, the military does not allow them to take advantage of it later [when people can more easily afford it]. By not taking the military up on the MGIB, the military gets to keep the money that would have been spent on a military member's MGIB. JMHO.
    BS, Mathematics – Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP)
    MS, Operations Research – Florida Institute of Technology (FIT)
    MS, Information Systems – Dakota State University (DSU)
    (in progress) PhD, Leadership - University of the Cumberlands (UC)

  3. #3
    SteveFoerster is offline Resident Gadfly
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia & Dominica, West Indies
    Posts
    10,853
    Not having been in the military, I didn't know that you had to pay $100/month for a year to get MGIB; I thought you got it just for enlisting. It's bad enough that enlistees have been so abused by a rogue administration, they certainly don't deserve a raw deal like that!

    -=Steve=-
    BS, Info Sys concentration, Charter Oak State College
    MA in Educational Tech, George Washington University
    PhD in Leadership, U. of the Cumberlands (in progress)
    More at http://stevefoerster.com

  4. #4
    PhD2B is offline Dazed and Confused
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,275
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveFoerster View Post
    Not having been in the military, I didn't know that you had to pay $100/month for a year to get MGIB; I thought you got it just for enlisting. It's bad enough that enlistees have been so abused by a rogue administration, they certainly don't deserve a raw deal like that!

    -=Steve=-
    Yep, $100 per month for 12 months. I took advantage of the MGIB when I entered the active Army as a second lieutenant with a baby on the way. Money was tight enough for my wife and me let alone for a young private.
    BS, Mathematics – Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP)
    MS, Operations Research – Florida Institute of Technology (FIT)
    MS, Information Systems – Dakota State University (DSU)
    (in progress) PhD, Leadership - University of the Cumberlands (UC)

  5. #5
    originalbigjim is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    278
    It must have been rough being a O-1 minus a hundred bucks, cry me a river, Im just kidding, But as a E-1 it really is hard but when I finished paying it off man did i feel rich, i could afford real meat! no more SPAM for this guy!
    When I enlisted I strongly urged everyone to do it and I think there was only one guy who didnt, He ending up getting kicked out of boot camp anyways. I do not think that the 15 year mark should be a second chance to get the MGIBILL I think you should be able to enroll in it whenever you want. It doesn't make any sense to me why they do it this way. My supervisor has been trying for a long time to get enrolled in it but for some reason he hasnt been able to, he retires next month. so i guess that ship has sailed. I think the whole program needs to be reformed, for one they only give you 36 months of school, most people take 4 years, plus that is only enough for undergrad, this makes grad school expensive and it is almost like you dodged bullets for 4 years for nothing. I think that all service members should get free school regardless of how much it cost and how long it takes.

  6. #6
    TEKMAN is offline Semper Fi!
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    3,685
    I agreed with PHD2B. I am not sure, but another reason I see that... at least 15 percents of the service member screw up their first term enlistment. It is either get discharge for drugs, abuses, misconduct, and etc. Therefore, if a member paid $1,200.00 for the first 12 months..after he gets out of the service with BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge); that $1,200.00 is not refundable nor he can use MGIB.

    I am not sure about others, but MGIB and the kicker is not enough for me to attend part-time at SMU.

    Well, I guess I have to return back to Aspen University again.
    Ph.D| Nova Southeastern University (W/D)
    MPS | Georgetown University (2012)
    MS | Southern Methodist University (2010)
    BS | Troy University (2006)
    Cert | Marine Corps University (2008)

  7. #7
    PhD2B is offline Dazed and Confused
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,275
    Quote Originally Posted by originalbigjim View Post
    It must have been rough being a O-1 minus a hundred bucks, cry me a river, Im just kidding, But as a E-1 it really is hard.
    Jim, I know being paid as an O1 does not compare to being paid as an E1, but it was hard enough paying out $100 per month with O1 pay let alone E1 pay. Honestly, I have no idea how anyone at the pay grade of E1 can afford the MGIB. I suppose it may be easier if a person lives in the barracks, eats at the dining facility, and had no spouse or family to support. But, a lot of the soldiers I had had spouses, families, bills, etc… IMO, the military should just offer the MGIB to anyone that enters active duty.

    The way the military advertises the MGIB as a big educational benefit is almost deceiving. They should just say, "You get the MGIB if you can afford for fork over a significant part of your paycheck for the first year of service."
    BS, Mathematics – Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP)
    MS, Operations Research – Florida Institute of Technology (FIT)
    MS, Information Systems – Dakota State University (DSU)
    (in progress) PhD, Leadership - University of the Cumberlands (UC)

  8. Advertisement

  9. #8
    Ryan IV is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Coastal North Carolina
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveFoerster View Post
    Not having been in the military, I didn't know that you had to pay $100/month for a year to get MGIB; I thought you got it just for enlisting. It's bad enough that enlistees have been so abused by a rogue administration, they certainly don't deserve a raw deal like that!

    -=Steve=-
    Another good conversation ruined by someone who wants to argue politics. FYI Steve, this was the policy long before either Bush was president. And I personally feel much less abused under the current administration than I did under Clinton and the days of no money to even buy cleaning supplies, much less train to defend our nation.

    I agree that servicemen should be able to enroll in the MGIB at anytime in their career. As a recruit in bootcamp I remember saying to myself "I'm never going to college; I'm not smart enough. Why spend $1200 for something I'll never use." Do I ever regret that decision... :(

  10. #9
    buckwheat3 is offline Master of the Obvious
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    358
    [QUOTE=Ryan IV;264677] Another good conversation ruined by someone who wants to argue politics. FYI Steve, this was the policy long before either Bush was president. And I personally feel much less abused under the current administration than I did under Clinton and the days of no money to even buy cleaning supplies, much less train to defend our nation.

    Cheap shot indeed, I'm not going down the political road to hijack this thread but I'll say I'm not a big fan of the current president, nor of too many in the recent past.

    Man was this a rude awakening! I had no idea the MGIB worked like that! I was always under the impression that if you were active in the military you were on autopilot for educational benefits.....but as an outsider looking in, I was taken in by the fine print too.

    Yea, 18 years old, with low pay is not the best time to make a critical decision. Doesn't a vast majority pull a 4 year hitch and get out?

    Well for those who reenlist, it would seem resonable to offer the MGIB opportunity each time at renlistment....afterall 4 years service is 4 years whether you are on your first hitch or your 5th.
    B.S. Thingy" in Business Administration, 2002
    M.A. "Thingy" in History, 2008
    Waiting on the "word" from UNISA to begin the doctoral thingy in History.

  11. #10
    PhD2B is offline Dazed and Confused
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan IV View Post
    Another good conversation ruined by someone who wants to argue politics. FYI Steve, this was the policy long before either Bush was president. And I personally feel much less abused under the current administration than I did under Clinton and the days of no money to even buy cleaning supplies, much less train to defend our nation.
    I don't think Steve was blaming the Bush administration for the MGIB policy. And, to be quite honest, had Bush been a commander in the Army, he would have been relieved a long time ago.

    I agree that servicemen should be able to enroll in the MGIB at anytime in their career. As a recruit in bootcamp I remember saying to myself "I'm never going to college; I'm not smart enough. Why spend $1200 for something I'll never use." Do I ever regret that decision... :(
    I'm sure a lot of service members feel the same way when they first enter the military. It's too bad that the military has to have service members make up their mind about the MGIB during their first month of active duty otherwise they forfeit the MGIB. This policy was in effect long before the current administration and it should be corrected to allow for service members to enroll at a later time.
    BS, Mathematics – Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP)
    MS, Operations Research – Florida Institute of Technology (FIT)
    MS, Information Systems – Dakota State University (DSU)
    (in progress) PhD, Leadership - University of the Cumberlands (UC)

  12. #11
    SteveFoerster is offline Resident Gadfly
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia & Dominica, West Indies
    Posts
    10,853
    To clarify, no, I wasn't blaming Bush for MGIB policy, but Ryan's right, this wasn't the right thread for my editorializing. Sorry!

    -=Steve=-
    BS, Info Sys concentration, Charter Oak State College
    MA in Educational Tech, George Washington University
    PhD in Leadership, U. of the Cumberlands (in progress)
    More at http://stevefoerster.com

  13. #12
    Daniel Luechtefeld is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan IV View Post
    Another good conversation ruined by someone who wants to argue politics. FYI Steve, this was the policy long before either Bush was president. And I personally feel much less abused under the current administration than I did under Clinton and the days of no money to even buy cleaning supplies, much less train to defend our nation.
    (
    A Limbaugh-esque red herring. During my days as an NCO in the '90s I, too, saw a number of deficiencies with respect to training and operations .

    1. The decision to take a peace dividend at the end of the Cold War was fully bipartisan. Recall that the post-Soviet era RIF was initiated by Bush 41, that the GOP controlled Congressional purse strings after the '94 election, and that a Republican served as Secretary of Defense after re-election in 1996.

    2. Shortfall in the service O&M budgets were not the result of ideological inclinations of the Clinton administration - which were centrist - but on the corrupting influences of military-industrial pork:

    -The services continued to view the nation's defense as synonymous with expensive weapons systems, even as it became apparent - post-Somalia - that future enemies would have technical capabilities far, far lower than those of the Soviets.

    -Then - and now - this serves the interests of both parties in Congress. There are well-paying weapons system contractor jobs in nearly every state.

    If the Clinton administration had failings with respect to our Nation's defense, it was in not going far enough to dismantle the 20th Century force with its requirement to simultaneoulsy fight two major regional conflicts, and build a 21st Century force equipped to fight several small ones. This required reforming the DoD, and reigning in the gravy train military-industrial complex. Neither the Democrats Aspin or Perry, nor the Republican Cohen made sufficient overture in this direction:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Asp...m-up_review.22
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...Defense_budget
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...Defense_budget

    -Moving resources away from expensive National technical intelligence systems (satellites), and Air Force and Navy weapons systems (ICBM and bomber fleet, fighter wings, carrier groups)

    -Moving resources toward the Nation's human intelligence system (State Department and CIA), the expeditionary elements of our Army and Marine Corps (medium weight maneuver brigades) and supporting elements such as Air Force airlift (resisted within the AF, as it's far less sexy than combat aviation ).

    On that last point, there is a long, long list of GOP accomplices - after '94, any bold move in that direction would have brought the pork barrel demagogues out in force.

    This continues to be the case - no Democrat can suggest modest, justified cuts or eliminations of wasteful, inefficient DoD programs lest the right wing charlatans crank up the Wurlitzer.

    Daniel
    Chief Warrant Officer, '87-'05

  14. #13
    CoachTurner is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    Posts
    832
    Some of us missed all the ed benefits simply because of the period we enlisted in. Too late for the Vietnam Era benefits and too soon for the MGIB... :(

    I did get other cool things though like free CLEP/DANTES and 90% tuition assistance.
    -----
    Carson Turner
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    BA, Coastal Carolina University
    BSLS, Excelsior College
    MA, MBA, MA, Webster University
    MAIS, Western New Mexico University (due 2013)

  15. #14
    airtorn is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    2,171
    Are there any statistics on how many Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines do not opt for the GI Bill when eligible?

    I have been in 13 years and have only met a handful of Airmen that have said they do not have it (excluding the VEAP turnover guys).
    Last edited by airtorn; 07-08-2007 at 12:21 AM.
    MPH, A.T. Still University - 2008
    BS, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - 2003
    AAS, Community College of the Air Force - 2012, 2007 & 2001

  16. Advertisement

  17. #15
    PhD2B is offline Dazed and Confused
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,275
    Quote Originally Posted by airtorn View Post
    Are there any statistics on how many Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines do not opt for the GI Bill when eligible?

    I have been in 13 years and have only met a handful of Airmen that have said they do not have it (excluding the VEAP turnover guys).
    It would be interesting to see the statistics on the number of military members that do or do not opt for the MGIB.

    Being an airman implies Air Force and being Air Force implies a bunch of smart people in uniform. That may not be representative of the military population as a whole. ;) [I'm joking here so don't take this comment out of context]
    BS, Mathematics – Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP)
    MS, Operations Research – Florida Institute of Technology (FIT)
    MS, Information Systems – Dakota State University (DSU)
    (in progress) PhD, Leadership - University of the Cumberlands (UC)

  18. #16
    Rich Douglas is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    11,356
    The MGIB is an enlistment incentive, not a benefit or a right. That's why it would be odd to offer it to members at the 15-year point.

    When I took the early retirement offered in the mid-1990's, the VA authorized each service to use the MGIB as an incentive to draw down their forces. If you took an "early out," and were not previously eligible for the MGIB, your service could offer it to you as an incentive to get out. The Air Force chose to offer it to the "early outs," but not the early retirees, like me. (The later offered it to everyone not yet eligible a bit later, but I was already retired.)

    The MGIB was a vast improvement over our program, the VEAP. I wish I could've gotten it.

    As for the impact on enlistees, I think they should spread out the payments over the first enlistment. If the member gets out early, then he/she would have to pay up the remaining amount to be eligible. This would ease the monthly burden, yet still accomplish the goal of getting members to commit their own money to the program (which, IMHO, has a positive impact on program participation).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15