Foibles of Assignment Incentive Pay

On March 8th, 2006, the four star general in charge of U.S. forces in Korea present a speech to a House of Representatives sub-committee. In it, he promoted the results of the Army's "Assignment Incentive Pay" program, whereby soldiers could extend their tours in Korea by one year in exchange for an extra $300 a month.

As of December 2005, he said, the Army had saved $56.8 million because of fewer change of station moves, and "the benefits of this program are immeasurable." [Source]

Today, the AIP program is still in place, though with a few restrictions. First term soldiers may not take advantage of it, and it is constrained by budgetary concerns. People only receive the $300 per month for the extension period, not the original assignment.

Yet the biggest problem with the program is who gets approved, and why. Some soldiers have been recommended by their chains of command for approval, only to be denied. Others have been recommended for disapproval by their chains of command all the way up to the brigade commander and then been approved (this I know from personal experience).

Was this a mistake? No -- apparently, one's approval or disapproval for AIP has more to do with the fill strength of their career field than the quality of the soldier or the opinions of their chain of command. So if, on one day, the army in Korea is short Wheeled Vehicle Operators (88Ms), an 88M will get approved, no matter whether they deserve it or not.

This is crazy. Why even have units handle the paperwork if commanders' opinions are going to get ignored anyway?

I grant that AIP is a good idea -- if a good soldier wants to stay in Korea, they should be able to -- but this should not be a division-level decision.