The Air Force Times reports that pilots at Fresno’s California Air National Guard are under criminal investigation for

padding their salaries by getting paid for more than one shift on the same day.

(The Fresno Guard flies the F-16.) Guard and Reserve pilots are often paid based on how much they work (as opposed to active duty pilots, who are paid the same regardless).  According to the reports, the pilots may have been paid for “alert” time spent at home, and for more hours than they are allowed.

If the rules and claims are clear, it should be fairly simple investigation.  It is also possible there are enough ambiguities in the rules regarding this situation that it might be a “gray” area.  In either case, military members are held to the highest standards of conduct and ethics.  Even if they were only “milking” the otherwise permissible good deal, their conduct might be questionable.

In the military, obeying the letter of the law is often the easy part; it’s during the “good deals” that it’s tempting to stretch the spirit of it.  There is nothing wrong with claiming “good deals” that have been legitimately earned — the potential wrong comes in “milking” them beyond their intent.

As an example, when military members enter a combat area their pay for that calendar month is tax-free (up to a set limit).  There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of that rule and not paying taxes when deployed to a combat area, but ethical limits are stretched (or exceeded) by those who go out of their way to obtain that deal.

Most fighter units and many heavy units are deployed into combat areas and are thus entitled to that benefit.  Some transport units, though, make runs from outside the combat area to deliver men and equipment rather than actually being deployed into the area.  Some stories have been told of such units intentionally scheduling sorties so that they arrive in a combat area on the last day of the month and depart on the first, thus securing two tax-free months for themselves for the price of a single, overnight out-and-back sortie.  If such a sortie was necessary, then there is no dispute; but if the motivation behind the sortie was simply to garner tax-free money, then it is ethically questionable.

The same is true when units cram their aircraft with unnecessary crew members to give them access to the good deal.  Also, some commanders look out for their enlisted troops by allowing them to re-enlist while in a combat area — meaning their re-enlistment bonus would be tax free.  That’s often a substantial sum for personnel who generally have very small paychecks.  Again, if the enlisted person is there to do a deployed job, then there can be no argument.  But if the enlisted member spends only a few hours in the combat area — just long enough to get sworn in on the tarmac, accept the bonus, and get back on the plane — then the ethical boundaries are stretched.

Unfortunately, some military members who would never think of committing an illegal act think nothing about stretching ethical boundaries, whether it’s staying in an expensive hotel (reimbursed by the military) when a cheaper one is available, requesting reimbursement for taxis that took them to unofficial locations, or collecting free airline ticket vouchers by giving up their seat while they’re on official travel.  The conduct of officers in these situations may not necessarily violate any regulations, but they verge on the unethical.