January 31, 2010: Although Haiti isn't a combat zone, U.S. troops serving there are given additional "special duty" pay for being in a disaster zone. Single troops get an additional $430 a month (Hardship, Temporary Duty and Imminent Danger pay), while married troops get an additional $250 a month for Family Separation.

This additional pay for a disaster relief mission arose from the several different special duty pay programs implemented since September 11, 2001. As a result, the Pentagon has been having difficulty in sorting out who qualifies for what. Some of these program ran into problems with technology. For example, the air force, faced with morale problem when pilots were switched to operating UAVs for three year tours, allowed them to still get flight pay. Some of the problems were bureaucratic. For example, active duty and reserve troops are entitled to different types of benefits. But when the reservists were activated, it was found that, while they were doing the same work as the active duty troops, especially in a combat zone, they were getting paid less. Worst of all, their dependents were eligible for fewer services. This has been a sore point for years, and now the Department of Defense has been under pressure to do something about it.

One of the more irritating problems has been some troops gaming the system. For example, a soldier can fly into a "special pay" zone, stay or a day or two, and qualify for a months worth of special benefits. This annoys the troops who are there all the time, as well as those who could exploit the system like this, but don't.

The current "special duty pay" system began during World War II. Back then, the average enlisted soldier got paid (adjusted for inflation) about $500 a month. They received an extra $100 a month if they were overseas, and an extra $100 if they were in combat. Sailors were also given extra pay for being at sea, and flight crews got a similar bonus. Paratroopers did best of all, getting the equivalent of $500 a month extra. Ironically, paratroopers ended the war with a lower casualty rate than most regular infantry units. That was mainly because airborne units were pulled out of the fighting to be rebuilt and train for their next jump, while regular units just kept getting replacements while they continued fighting.

The "hazardous duty pay" concept continued after World War II, with more categories being added. We now have "family separation allowance" ($250 a month for being away from your family), "imminent danger pay" ($225 for being in a combat zone) and "hazardous duty incentive pay" for particularly dangerous jobs ( Parachute Duty, Carrier Flight Deck Duty, Demolition/handling explosives Duty, Experimental Stress Duty, Handling Toxic Fuels or Propellants Duty, Handling Toxic Pesticides Duty, Dangerous Viruses or Bacteria Lab Duty, Handling Chemical Munitions). For some very dangerous jobs, like high altitude parachute (HALO) jumping, you get an extra $220 a month. This all adds up, increasing the pay of many troops by more than fifty percent.

Many senior officers are OK with dangerous duty bonuses, but don't want to set a precedent for extra pay for those who are inconvenienced. This "inconvenience pay" is a pet project among some politicians. The other side of the argument is that the dangerous duty pay IS an "inconvenience pay" issue. Getting shot at is an inconvenience, and bad for morale. So is being away from your family and in a combat zone for extended periods of time. What is often forgotten in all of this is that soldiers have always received "combat pay." It's better known as plunder (given permission to loot enemy territory). In times past, the prospect of plunder was more of an incentive to join an army, than the promise of regular pay. It was like the lottery, and many soldiers got very rich. During the 14th century Hundred Years War between France and England, many English farmers joined up as archers, and came back wealthy men (after capturing a French aristocrat and holding him for a huge ransom). Since the 18th century, Western armies have gradually decreased the opportunities to loot, at least on a large scale and with permission. The whole "distress pay" concept says, in effect, "if some of you can't strike it rich, at least all of you will be a little better off," for going to war. Times change, but many customs don't go away.