Collection agencies are starting to pull all sorts of tricks out of their little black bags. A reader recently wrote about the unbelievable situation where NCO, a large collection agency, sent a soldier’s Commanding Officer a “letter of debt” informing the CO of the soldier’s collection account. It’s true that the military frowns heavily on personal indebtedness. This notice could prevent this soldier to possibly be denied promotion unless debt is paid. NCO also wrongly informed the sailor that the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (more about this later in the post) does not apply to them because the debt was not sent to collections prior to enlistment.

For starters, NCO definitely violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending a letter to the Commanding Officer per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Under the FDCPA, a collector is allowed to call you at work (unless you send them a written request), but they are not allowed to discuss the particulars of a debt with an employer or co-worker.

Now let’s examine military code concerning debt. Willful non payment of debt basically is categorized as dishonorable conduct via Article 134 of the Punitive Articles of the UCMJ. However, you can’t just be negligent in payment, you must have used deception to dodge payment. Read the language:

Article 134—(Debt, dishonorably failing to pay)More than negligence in nonpayment is necessary. The failure to pay must be characterized by deceit, evasion, false promises, or other distinctly culpable circumstances indicating a deliberate nonpayment or grossly indifferent attitude to-ward one’s just obligations. For a debt to form the basis of this offense, the accused must not have had a defense, or an equivalent offset or counterclaim, either in fact or according to the accused’s belief, at the time alleged. The offense should not be charged if there was a genuine dispute between the parties as to the facts or law relating to the debt which would affect the obligation of the accused to pay. The offense is not committed if the creditor or creditors involved are satisfied with the conduct of the debtor with respect to payment. The length of the period of nonpayment and any denial of indebtedness which the accused may have made may tend to prove that the accused’s conduct was dishonorable, but the court-martial may convict only if it finds from all of the evidence that the conduct was in fact dishonorable.

What about the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (S&S Act)? In some cases, especially in multiple back-to-back deployment, it’s difficult for military personnel to earn enough money to pay the debts or to find a way to make the payments, especially for single members with no family. In this case, the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (S & S ) provids relief:

THE SOLDIERS’ AND SAILORS’ CIVIL RELIEF ACT The SSCRA can also provide some protection regarding loan interest rates and repayment of debts. However, this protection applies only if the debt arose before the soldier entered active duty and if the difference between his prior civilian income and his military pay has substantially harmed his financial position.

Therefore, NCO erred (on purpose? Say it ain’t so!) by telling the sailor that the act did not apply because the debt went into collections after he entered the service. According to the S&S Act, it’s the debt which must have been created prior to entered the service.

Don’t our young men and women have enough to worry about without collection agencies harassing them overseas?

Popularity: 17% [?]