1.21.2008

Way to make it tough

Right now, the object of my discontent is MTSS or Military Training Service Support.


MacGyver will be heading to Mother Rucker this summer for about 4 months of courses. Keep in mind, the man just returned from a 15-month deployment and, in approximately 12 months will be heading out on yet another 15-month deployment. All expected and no objections. However, the lovely MTSS guidelines state specifically that 21. Students are not authorized to bring dependents/family members to Fort Rucker. Facilities are not available to provide adequate support.


To which I say, "horse hockey!"


Used to be, under the old MTSA program a soldier could opt to stay off post with the understanding that the military would only reimburse them up to the cost of what it would have paid to house them on post.


Not anymore.


And while I understand the motivation behind the new program and the new regulations, it seems the Army is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. Something about being "penny-wise and pound foolish".


They are saving pennies by forcing soldiers to come alone and remain in the BOQ/BEQ but they are making it even harder on families that are already dealing with horrible OPTEMPOs and 15-month repeated deployments. Now add to that the fact that, even if they wanted to, they cannot join their husbands while they are away from home on training. It's not like he's going to NTC and we're looking to join him there. He's going to Fort Rucker for 9-5 classes. Yet the Army has throw yet another roadblock in the way of trying to piece together something that resembles family life.


We're already dealing with the fact that he's going to be gone for 30 months out of a 48-month timeframe. And now we are prevented from spending a few weeks with him while he's in a non-combat training situation. Doesn't seem to me to make a whole lot of sense. I would think that the Army would see that making it easier for families to be with their soldier when feasible would be good for the Army when it comes to retention.


Obviously not.




Pau.




- hfs

No comments: