@Anonymous wrote:
Whatever- the OP is probably not getting back in in a lending capacity and I really doubt that comand influence would cause a Company to take back a Huge loss. They may have a military relationship, but they still have to be profitable.
I could see if it was an issue where the on ship ATMS were NFCU or NFCU was the only institution in an area- that for the needs of the service member they allowed the person to re open an account, but i doubt they were lending any more money.
And the Op's desire is to re open credit lines.
And just as NFCU is placed at a base at the pleasure of the commander, closing a NFCU branch because the bank would not re instate full priveledges to a debtor member would.... well..... NOT play out well in any means.- be it press, political or legal. I really doubt that a base gen could close a branch, voiding a contract, and inconvenience the other 8,000 on base members over a whim and one person.
I really fail to see how a E5 could be so crucial that he could get his commander to champion him to the BN CO to the Base CG and cause the Base CG to feel so strongly to restrict a Credit Union? Even a base offlimits list change gets some kind of thought before implemented. I could just imagine,"Yeah Navy Federal just won't take Carmichael back, I'm gonna have to pass at the next formation no one can do business with them, they all need to close their accounts and transfer finances to a new institution.....
But what do I know.
And I do not think the OP is still in the military.
Also, since DOD regulations prohibit commanders from involvement in debt collection / bad debt issues, it would be exceptionally unlikely NFCU's decision was related in knowing who they can call should there be any future problems.
check out
Army regulation 600-15, indebtedness of military personnel: time for an update.
Its a confusing Missmash but definately states that Commanders do have involvement of a sort.
Commanders' Responsibilities ADVISING SOLDIERS PATERNITY, CUSTODY
maybe things have changed but when I was in you bounced check on base, or incurred service fees- and you had it nicely taken out of your paycheck,
And from my personal experience NFCU does not extend new loans to people with less then a year to EAS. Or a year on their new job.
You must be confused.
First, you should not use outdated sources to formulate an uninformed opinion. The current controlling standard is the Hatch Act which has resulted in the service branches to update their regulations. Navy Regulations are specific:
MILPERSMAN 7000-020, Indebtedness and Financial Responsibility of Members
The Navy takes a simpler approach to the matter of servicemember indebtedness: The enforcement of private obligations is a matter for civil authorities. A commanding officer is without authority to adjudicate claims or to arbitrate controversies concerning debts or private obligations of naval members, or to act as an agent or collector. . . . The extent to which commanding officers may cooperate with creditors is limited to administrative referral of correspondence to the member.
Perhaps when you were an enlisted member the Marine Corps was different, but right now my Marine Corps is a part of the Navy Department and follows Navy Regulations to a "T". Absent issues such as child support, legal judgments, criminal violations or issues reflecting on a servicemember's actual performance of duty, commanding officers play no part whatsoever in debt collections. A CO does not take collections calls and is limited should one slip through to providing contact information for the servicemember and informing the creditor that calls of a personal, non-emergency nature are not allowed.
Referring to your bad check scenario, it is easy to see how those in the lower echelons could mistake command involvement as a form of pressure to simply pay a debt when in reality writing a bad check is a crime in most jurisdictions and is punishable under certain circumstances under the UCMJ.
Second, from the lower echelons it might be difficult for you to understand what a commanding officer can / cannot or will / will not do. Unfortunately this confusion exists amongst lower level personnel and even amongst staff NCOs. The fact is that there are cases which, although few and far between, do warrant command intervention. Will a ship's captain or a CG remove a financial institution from the base over an isolated instance or disagreement? No. But to believe that a base financial institution cannot be removed or that the institution's executives do not go out of their way to maintain goodwill with commanders is a fallacy that, again, most of the uninitiated do not understand.
Third, your understanding of contract law is lacking. There is not one single contract involving the service branches that as a matter of policy does not have a several contingency clauses as well as the obligatory military necessity escape clause. Without exception, any contract must pass through SJA for approval before a commander can sign and approval is not possible unless standard clauses exist. A CG does not simply have the authority to unilaterally rescind contracts, but also can order relocation to another location on base. NFCU has lost desireable real estate at MCRD San Diego and Camp Pendelton, amongst others, and relegated to locations inferior than other financial institutions. At each MCRD and also at the Naval Academy each base commander -- and often even commanders of subordinate units -- decide which institutions are recommended for new recruits / midshipmen who must set up direct deposit. It is simple naive to believe that NFCU does not have to appease commanders as far as practical.
I really doubt that comand influence would cause a Company to take back a Huge loss. They may have a military relationship, but they still have to be profitable.
You need to go back and re-read what was written. Nobody has stated that command influence has forced NFCU to take a loss. If even just by common sense standards, NFCU already took their loss before any commander attempted to intercede on the servicemember's behalf. Not by any stretch of the imagination is asking NFCU to reinstate a former member causing any financial loss. The only thing a commander does is ask NFCU to look at the surrounding circumstances and re-evaluate their policy -- in this particular instance -- of refusing services to an individual who has caused them at one point or another a financial loss.
I really fail to see how a E5 could be so crucial that he could get his commander to champion him to the BN CO to the Base CG and cause the Base CG to feel so strongly to restrict a Credit Union? Even a base offlimits list change gets some kind of thought before implemented. I could just imagine,"Yeah Navy Federal just won't take Carmichael back, I'm gonna have to pass at the next formation no one can do business with them, they all need to close their accounts and transfer finances to a new institution.....
A myopic statement, at best, though understandable from one with no command experience. Again, nobody has stated there is a direct **bleep**-for-tat act of retribution because NFCU has stonewalled a commander's attempt to reason with them on behalf of a member of his unit. The attempt is to reason with the financial institution and help them reach a reasonable conclusion either as a matter of equity or as a "favor." What sense is there in a financial institution to give the heave-ho to a GySgt who burned NFCU for well over $350k in bankruptcy directly because of medical and related debts resulting from a traffic accident killing 4 members of the servicemember's family and leaving one in a permanently vegetative state? Even when you were the lowest recruit you should have been able to understand that this individual's particular circumstances could in no way be construed to mean this indivdual was a "risk" for the rest of their life. Because of command influence, this individual is again a NFCU member.
And from my personal experience NFCU does not extend new loans to people with less then a year to EAS. Or a year on their new job.
Although not germane to the discussion, again you show a limited understanding. First, unrestricted line officers have no EAS, especially after being approved for augmentation. And it's simply untrue that NFCU will not lend to those with less than a year in service. Enlisted members do have an EAS and, in general, with less than a year remaining NFCU will not usually approve new lending. There are, however, a multitude of exceptions to this policy. For those enlisted personnel otherwise eligible for retirement, NFCU will waive the EAS requirements. For those individuals who a CO has certified as eligible for reinlistment and also likely to reinlist, again the EAS requirements can be waived. Perhaps in your personal experience your CO did not feel you were worth making the effort for or already had you pegged for an RE-3 or 4.
The fact remains, you cannot accurately state that NFCU will never allow back into the fold one who has caused them a financial loss.
Someone at NFCU is bound to notice. 