By It appears there is a possibility the Army Incentive Pay (AIP) program may get cut in South Korea with the news that more command sponsored slots will be made available for servicemembers:
The U.S. Army is trying to decide what to do with a program that lets soldiers extend their assignments in South Korea for extra pay, following a decision earlier this month to normalize tours on the peninsula, an 8th Army spokesman said Tuesday.
“We don’t have an answer yet” about the future of the Assignment Incentive Pay, Lt. Col. Jeff Buczkowski said.
AIP offers soldiers an extra $300 a month to stay in South Korea for an extra year, and $400 a month to stay in South Korea for an extra two years. The program was intended to save money and minimize disruptions caused by the rapid turnover of personnel, most of whom are stationed in South Korea on one-year unaccompanied tours.
U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. Walter Sharp announced a tour normalization policy last week that eventually will allow about half of USFK’s 28,500 troops to bring their families to South Korea on two- and three-year tours.
Only 2,100 servicemembers are in South Korea on command-sponsored tours now, but that number is expected to triple in the next year. [Stars & Stripes]
AIP has long been jokingly known as the Avoid Iraq Program but if the program is saving the Army money then it should be something that should be continued. If the program is no longer cost effective then there really is no need to keep it around.
9:59 pm on December 20th, 2008 1
If Obama has his way, AIP will be called "Afghanistan is Postponed".
You heard it from me first.
Before I forget, why does Obama want to send 30,000 troops there again? Do we even have a goal?
11:50 pm on December 20th, 2008 2
DELETED – Not following comment policy
1:17 am on December 21st, 2008 3
I would like to see a comparision of how many troops extended in Korea before AIP and after AIP. Of course the Iraq War caused a lot of the later extension. I think AIP was a good deal for the Soldiers, but unnecessary to get folks to extend – especially at bases below area I.
2:41 am on December 21st, 2008 4
Yes, JAFO, the generals and admirals want to double our presence in Afghanistan, just like the British and later Soviets did.
As for AIP vs. command-sponsored, you will find that just as many if not more command-sponsored field grades and senior NCOs AIP'ed during 2004-2006.
Also, the onus of guilt should not be placed on the Soldiers for deferring their sandbox trips, because that's exactly what it is…a deferment. Branch managers at HRC do not look favorably on personnel who have AIP'ed in Korea and this usually earns them a top-priority ticket to the sandbox.
If anyone deserves guilt it should be the field grades and senior NCOs who have gone native and somehow managed to AIP in Korea beyond 5 years.
1:06 pm on December 21st, 2008 5
I have to agree with Pete (#3). Everyone I know that extended would have done so even if AIP wasn't available–although I'm sure it made the decision much easier.
I tried to extend / AIP in early 2006 but got rejected at the DA level (Priority assignment to a deploying unit, don'tcha know).
Wasn't trying to avoid deployment to OIF/OEF, just loved Korea and wanted to stay a while (had a staff assignment in Yongsan).
Spent the next two years in the 1st Cav, including a 15-month tour to Iraq. Now retired and back at Yongsan as a contrator. Whoo hoo!