RV'ing at the Naval Station in Key West

Wow I am really surprised how little is know about Govt. Civilians... I currently work for the Corps of Engineers an also retired Coast Guard. Trust me I am not working for the retirement, it is not that great. It works out to around $50 for every year u work so a 30 year civilian is looking at maybe $1500 a month before taxes..

Reading some of these post on here I am sure some of you will come up and say that the Coast Guard does not deserve to be able to use the campgrounds either.

If you are upset with your benefits being changed or taken away Vote!!!!!!! And speak up.
Happy Camping

Regardless of "DoD classifications ... Military campgrounds are NOT housing, and most of the federal laws put limits on 'continuous' days stay, which are abused. These are recreation facilities ... period.

And correct, not every DOD gets housing allowance, for permanent employees, it's like any other job. But a lot of DOD do when the job is contract and short-term specialty employment. Those are often the ones that use the MCG and keep the funds.

When we arrive at a MCG, and want to use it for its purpose it was intended (originally for AD recreation, and secondary for retired), and DOD workers are filling the campground day after week after month, it's abusing that MCG, no matter how you cut it.

Right, personal opinion that CO 'evolved' into using the MCG as a revenue builder to support other activities (like golf) and each MCG (like other MWR activities) is supposed to support itself. But, it turns out (and this info comes direct from Kings Bay MCG manager) the "extra funds this MCG generates" are taken back into the general MWR fund and used to support other MWR activities that don't support themselves.

Balancing budgets always seems to get manipulated so the users and therefore the supporters of one program lose maintenance and development revenue to other components. I'd like to see how much MCG revenue goes to support the golf course at MacDill, for example.

Anyone know why the Kings Bay MCG (A great campground) was designed and built the way it is?? The sub-base CO at the time it was built was a RV / CAMPER, not a golfer. We happened to camp next to him in Kings Bay some years later, after he retired and began full-timing. SO, he explained the process for the KB camp. That's the only reason I know this info ... direct from the CO.

He also explained that most successful MCG's get the funds drained into other activities. So, the cash cows continue to produce milk, and it often gets diverted - particularly in the more desired areas ... Like Florida camps in winter. MacDill is a nightmare unless you're one of the "returning in crowd" ...

Would make more sense to use MCG funds in successful areas to renovate MCG's in other, less successful areas, so the campers that produce the MCG funds get use in areas that don't generate as much, and maybe upgrade those so eventually more RV'ers might use those and make them more successful on their own.

The only real issue we have - equal use for those that earned the benefit. And we should not be forced to share that benefit with a civilian employee for the purpose of that civilian 'saving money' ... that's not MCG mission.

monkey44 wrote:
What I find a bit interesting - the DOD civilians make a pretty good paycheck, and a pretty good retirement, plus other benefits. Including Housing!!!

DoD civilians do not get a housing allowance. As with everything, there are exceptions: if they are serving overseas on military orders, they are reimbursed for housing receipts. What may have you confused is that some DoD civilians serving OUTUS receive housing as part of their overall compensation package, or at least they did until last year. Report from the Stars & Stripes
LQA FAQs

monkey44 wrote:

US military worked for peanuts - especially those that enlisted before the huge pay increases a few years back. My highest pay rate in the navy was $870 a month (plus benefits - food, bed, clothes, a base vehicle) - NOT $870 a week. Part of that obligation was gaining some benefits, like medical, commissary, and inexpensive camping - ext.

Our medical is disappearing, our commissary is on the 'out-shelf', so at least leave us the campgrounds. Although they'll eventually go to contract, like the UFS campgrounds - raise prices - and become a cash cow instead of a benefit for those that earned it ...

Benefits - In other words, use of the facilities. Now, it's pretty often we go to a busy or desired area campground, and can't use it - or get stuck in "dry camping' for a week or so, even overnight, when DOD stay full-time and haven't earned it.

However, it is only your opinion that DoD civilians haven't earned it. Congress and base commanders do not agree.

monkey44 wrote:

There is NOTHING in the DOD contracts that says a DOD gets to use MCG's .. NO where does it say that. So, DOD finagles into the MCG, and pockets housing allowance. Housing allowance is for rental housing - period, not for DOD to camp in a military campground.

Do I respect the work DOD does for our military and protecting this country? Absolutely, no doubt, for sure. But DOD gets a good paycheck, gets benefits they earn, and one of them is NOT crowding the MCGS. That's one that retired military, AD, and disabled vets earned. Leave us with it.

One the other hand, I also believe any disabled vet (or maybe 50% and above) should get camping. But it not in the law - I think it should be, and would vote yes if it came up. The law says only AD, retired, disabled 100% vets. Pressure from DOD and cam funding pushed the CO to get authority for DOD, and the CO took the cash. That makes me sad, that it came to that. But now it's abused, and that makes me sadder.

And now back to my original statement, you really have no clue about how DoD civilians are classed. :R Please go back and read the post by 2 chiefs, you are confusing DoD civilians with base contractors. Biggest difference is that DoD civilians carry a Geneva convention card and are subject to the UCMJ, base contractors do not work directly for the government and have full freedoms, including freedom of speech.

What I find a bit interesting - the DOD civilians make a pretty good paycheck, and a pretty good retirement, plus other benefits. Including Housing!!!

US military worked for peanuts - especially those that enlisted before the huge pay increases a few years back. My highest pay rate in the navy was $870 a month (plus benefits - food, bed, clothes, a base vehicle) - NOT $870 a week. Part of that obligation was gaining some benefits, like medical, commissary, and inexpensive camping - ext.

Our medical is disappearing, our commissary is on the 'out-shelf', so at least leave us the campgrounds. Although they'll eventually go to contract, like the UFS campgrounds - raise prices - and become a cash cow instead of a benefit for those that earned it ...

Benefits - In other words, use of the facilities. Now, it's pretty often we go to a busy or desired area campground, and can't use it - or get stuck in "dry camping' for a week or so, even overnight, when DOD stay full-time and haven't earned it.

There is NOTHING in the DOD contracts that says a DOD gets to use MCG's .. NO where does it say that. So, DOD finagles into the MCG, and pockets housing allowance. Housing allowance is for rental housing - period, not for DOD to camp in a military campground.

Do I respect the work DOD does for our military and protecting this country? Absolutely, no doubt, for sure. But DOD gets a good paycheck, gets benefits they earn, and one of them is NOT crowding the MCGS. That's one that retired military, AD, and disabled vets earned. Leave us with it.

One the other hand, I also believe any disabled vet (or maybe 50% and above) should get camping. But it not in the law - I think it should be, and would vote yes if it came up. The law says only AD, retired, disabled 100% vets. Pressure from DOD and cam funding pushed the CO to get authority for DOD, and the CO took the cash. That makes me sad, that it came to that. But now it's abused, and that makes me sadder.

path1 wrote:
Right or wrong, again their park their rules.
Several years ago we were at a Famcamp on west coast and this couple with Canadian plates camped next to us. We thought maybe they were sponsored by their active duty son in law. Got talking and he was retired Canadian Army. He told us some Famcamps allow them depending on Base Commander policy. Also mentioned that that we could use their Famcamp system if we were up there.

Canada has some great Military campgrounds. Yes we can use them.

I looked into CGs near Fort Campbell, Ky. a while back. Some friends' son was stationed there and I thought I'd visit on the way by. If I remember correctly, there are two or three famcamps but they're restricted to Active duty families, DOD families and civilians in that order. It isn't like they're swamped with requests by civilians. There's nothing around there except Lake Barkley and Kentucky Lake, and they both have campgrounds available.

2chiefsRus wrote:
Remember there is a difference between a DoD civilian federal employee and DoD contractor. Either way, I believe it is a good idea to allow each Base Commander to set the policy as long as the policy is well designed and enforced. As mentioned already, there is a lot of differences in demand depending upon the location and facilities. When there is variation, there should be discretion.

There are scenarios where allowing an Active Duty member to "homestead" is reasonable. For instance, Active Duty member will be PCSing or going overseas alone in six months, puts their house on the market, it sells quickly, family goes on ahead to new base while the Active Duty member stays behind in the FamCamp until his own move.

Let the Commanders' have the flexibility to make decisions not just enforce rules.

Yes, agree with you almost completely. :) I think there is never an excuse to turn recreational facilities into housing, in your example the active duty member could stay at the barracks.

Lots of people snivel about wanting the privileges that retirees both DoD and military have, but were not willing to do the time to earn them.

The DoD civilian thing has always been a minor irritation with me, and not just in the case of famcamps. I was stationed in HI a thousand years ago, and it was damned tough to get a preferred tee time on the Kaneohe Clipper golf course on the weekend. The local dod employees overwhelmed the system.

Now, of course, some .mil golf courses are open to ANYONE. You don't even have to be a veteran or employed by the dod in any way.

As stated elsewhere in this thread, the local commander makes the call and his interests are in taking care of the troops and ensuring his MWR programs stay profitable. The requirement to be profitable forces policies that may otherwise not exist.

Old-Biscuit wrote:
I spent 6 yrs NAVY and then 25 yrs. working in a power plant (which are considered vital to the national security).......don't mean squat and shouldn't!

If retired from service and then DoD OK fine.......retired from service.
4 yr hitch in service and then retired DoD is no different than my service/job experience.

Lots of folks gaming the system and active/retired DoD civilian is still just a civilian.
The criteria should be retired service, active service, disabled vet.

Agree with you 100% on this issue. Civilians should not be allowed to use them. JMO

I spent 6 yrs NAVY and then 25 yrs. working in a power plant (which are considered vital to the national security).......don't mean squat and shouldn't!

If retired from service and then DoD OK fine.......retired from service.
4 yr hitch in service and then retired DoD is no different than my service/job experience.

Lots of folks gaming the system and active/retired DoD civilian is still just a civilian.
The criteria should be retired service, active service, disabled vet.