USA Network Forums > Natalie's Back Story Problems

bekr451

Jul 29 2005, 10:51 PM

I have some problems with Natalie’s back story. Her husband was a Naval Officer who died on active duty. As a spouse of a deceased military officer she would be entitled to military survivor benefits regardless of the circumstances in which he died.
I am a retired Navy Counselor and a qualified Casualty Assistance Officer. It is unlikely that she would not be in the financial problems she has complained about in the first couple of episodes. A surviving 30-year-old spouse and a life expectancy of 80 years may receive Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits of $600,000 based on current rates. The total could be much more if young children are also eligible for benefits. This total does not include insurance and other benefits. Not only would she be receiving the below but she would also have military medical and dental coverage along with commissary and exchange privileges.

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) pays a tax-free monthly amount to an unmarried surviving spouse of a Service member who dies on active duty or from a service-connected disability. The basic spouse DIC is a flat-rate annuity of $967 per month (increasing to $993 effective December 1, 2004). An additional $241 ($247 effective December 1, 2004) is paid for each dependent child until age 18.
Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) - Service members are automatically insured for $250,000 through the SGLI program. What has Natalie done with this money?
Death Gratuity – A $12,000 tax-exempt death gratuity provides immediate cash to meet the needs of survivors. This is indexed by any pay raise after October 28, 2004
Government Housing or Allowances and Relocation Assistance - Survivors receive rent-free Government housing for 180 days or the tax-free Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) appropriate to the member’s grade for any portion of the 180 day period while not in quarters. Survivors are also entitled to transportation, per diem, and shipment of household goods and baggage.
Burial Costs - The Government reimburses up to $6,900 of expenses for the member’s burial, depending on the type of arrangements and will provide travel for next-of-kin under invitational travel orders.
Unused Leave - Payment is made to survivor for all the member’s unused accrued leave.

RomanSoldier

Jul 29 2005, 10:55 PM

Quote:

I have some problems with Natalie’s back story. Her husband was a Naval Officer who died on active duty. As a spouse of a deceased military officer she would be entitled to military survivor benefits regardless of the circumstances in which he died.
I am a retired Navy Counselor and a qualified Casualty Assistance Officer. It is unlikely that she would not be in the financial problems she has complained about in the first couple of episodes. A surviving 30-year-old spouse and a life expectancy of 80 years may receive Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits of $600,000 based on current rates. The total could be much more if young children are also eligible for benefits. This total does not include insurance and other benefits. Not only would she be receiving the below but she would also have military medical and dental coverage along with commissary and exchange privileges.

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) pays a tax-free monthly amount to an unmarried surviving spouse of a Service member who dies on active duty or from a service-connected disability. The basic spouse DIC is a flat-rate annuity of $967 per month (increasing to $993 effective December 1, 2004). An additional $241 ($247 effective December 1, 2004) is paid for each dependent child until age 18.
Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) - Service members are automatically insured for $250,000 through the SGLI program. What has Natalie done with this money?
Death Gratuity – A $12,000 tax-exempt death gratuity provides immediate cash to meet the needs of survivors. This is indexed by any pay raise after October 28, 2004
Government Housing or Allowances and Relocation Assistance - Survivors receive rent-free Government housing for 180 days or the tax-free Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) appropriate to the member’s grade for any portion of the 180 day period while not in quarters. Survivors are also entitled to transportation, per diem, and shipment of household goods and baggage.
Burial Costs - The Government reimburses up to $6,900 of expenses for the member’s burial, depending on the type of arrangements and will provide travel for next-of-kin under invitational travel orders.
Unused Leave - Payment is made to survivor for all the member’s unused accrued leave.

Yes, for a show about an obsessive compulsive detective who notices everything there are quite a bit of unforgivable goofs.

One explaination is that she was a gambling addict in Las Vegas, so that may have been how she lost much of that money.

fan4sure

Jul 30 2005, 12:06 AM

With this show, I try not to dwell on details too much cause that spoils the fun. Lots of things don't really add up or make sense sometimes. But didn't Natalie pull Adrian aside in, I think,"Election" and confide in him that her husband ran off after being shot down and was labeled a traitor or something along those lines? She didn't want Julie to know. I don't think she would get any benefits if that was the case. And maybe he is not really dead. Doesn't that make for an interesting little twist?

RomanSoldier

Jul 30 2005, 12:45 AM

Quote:

With this show, I try not to dwell on details too much cause that spoils the fun. Lots of things don't really add up or make sense sometimes. But didn't Natalie pull Adrian aside in, I think,"Election" and confide in him that her husband ran off after being shot down and was labeled a traitor or something along those lines? She didn't want Julie to know. I don't think she would get any benefits if that was the case. And maybe he is not really dead. Doesn't that make for an interesting little twist?

More of a coward than a traitor. I've also wondered about him being dead, but he probably is, unless he's a POW somewhere in Kosovo. I still like my theory that she spent a ton in Vegas, as she mentioned in Mr. Monk Goes to Vegas.

Og_Of_The_Jungle

Jul 30 2005, 04:11 AM

Quote:

I have some problems with Natalie’s back story. ... It is unlikely that she would not be in the financial problems she has complained about in the first couple of episodes.

You may have missed "Mr. Monk Goes To Vegas," in which it is explained that she was once addicted to gambling. This tends to leave one with large debts and an unhealthy attitude towards money.

Quote:

A surviving 30-year-old spouse and a life expectancy of 80 years may receive Dependents Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits of $600,000 based on current rates.

I seem to recall that some of that insurance was optional. Not everyone makes wise decisions, especially if they are young and expect to live forever.

Quote:

Not only would she be receiving the below but she would also have military medical and dental coverage along with commissary and exchange privileges.

IF she lived near a military base with hospital facilities. Letterman hospital, on the Presidio, closed during the 90's, as I recall...

Quote:

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) pays ... The basic spouse DIC is a flat-rate annuity of $967 per month (increasing to $993 effective December 1, 2004). An additional $241 ($247 effective December 1, 2004) is paid for each dependent child until age 18.

Again, was that an optional insurance? Because I don't remember that from my service days -- of course, I had no dependents, so perhaps I wasn't paying attention...

Quote:

Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) - Service members are automatically insured for $250,000 through the SGLI program. What has Natalie done with this money?

When I was in, during the 80's, I seem to recall that this was something like 50,000 -- but let's take the higher number. $250,000 is not a lot of money, especially if one had debts from prior overspending.

Quote:

Death Gratuity – A $12,000 tax-exempt death gratuity provides immediate cash to meet the needs ...

Okay, so that's $262,000... And if she had large gambling debts, some credit card debts, a mortgage on a house in an expensive area near a naval base, a car payment or two, some braces for Julie's teeth, the remaining residual restitution for that guy that she threw through a window in Vermont ... punitive damages, you know...

Quote:

Survivors receive rent-free Government housing for 180 days ...

And on day 181, what then?

Quote:

Burial Costs - The Government reimburses up to $6,900 of expenses for the member’s burial...

Without a body, one could not claim this expense.

Quote:

Unused Leave - Payment is made to survivor for all the member’s unused accrued leave.

It is possible to have a zero leave balance, or even a negative leave balance under certain circumstances. In my experience, married sailors tended to have very low leave balances. It is not inconceivable that Mr. Teeger might have gone into the red on his leave balance, with an imminent overseas deployment, and if there were some extenuating circumstances (family problems? marital issues?) a CO might well allow excess leave (provided that the EAOS date and imminent deployment made it likely that the balance would be brought to zero).

Don't get me wrong, the benefits that the military offers to Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines far exceed the benefits offered by most other businesses. I've never had any other job that offered 4 weeks paid vacation starting in the first year. And the men and women in our armed forces deserve every penny that is spent upon them, and more.

But if you think that a person simply can not get into financial trouble if they've had a large sum at one time, you need merely examine the lives of a few bankrupt child stars, or, for that matter, some recent lottery winners.

So, personally, I see nothing inconsistent in Natalie Teeger's backstory. And if she'd like to throw me through a window in a bar in Vermont... we can talk about it; my number's 555-1212... But I outweigh her by 2:1, so it's somewhat improbable.

Heathbar

Jul 30 2005, 07:10 AM

Wow, Og! Are you an attorney? If not, maybe you should think about being one! Before your post, my world was falling apart thinking the writers of a television detective series didn't think through and research military death benefits before inserting a few lines of script. I mean, COME ON! Why can't Monk writers be realistic, like the real pros on C.S.I.! Now THAT's realism! (barf!) However, after reading your fine post, the world has returned to normal and the sun is coming up fine! Thanks, Og, I can rest easy now.

Og_Of_The_Jungle

Jul 31 2005, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Wow, Og! Are you an attorney? If not, maybe you should think about being one! Before your post, my world was falling apart thinking the writers of a television detective series didn't think through and research military death benefits before inserting a few lines of script. I mean, COME ON! Why can't Monk writers be realistic, like the real pros on C.S.I.! Now THAT's realism! (barf!) However, after reading your fine post, the world has returned to normal and the sun is coming up fine! Thanks, Og, I can rest easy now.

No, I just read alot.

(BTW, were you being sarcastic or sardonic? I used to think that I knew the difference, but then I found out what Irony means...)

All seriousness aside, I've found that the best way to answer a "pocket expert" is to be more of an "expert." So I know a lot of useless stuff about pointless trivia... Want to hear the house numbers of all the houses I've ever lived in? If I played Lotto, I'd use those numbers...

br1ngbackbitty

Jul 31 2005, 04:23 PM

Those are excellent points re: the new person's background, and to me just more examples of how they put her in last minute to cover the void left by Bitty. They clearly did not think the replacement through and tossed this in, expecting fans not to notice/care. My biggest gripe is that the show is so new, and people are so attached to the characters as they are, that the "cookie cutter" approach is just disregard for the fans. I want to like Monk, even with the new character, but it just isnt the same and I cant help but say "it would've been done better with Sharona". I urge USA to bring her back!

Og_Of_The_Jungle

Aug 1 2005, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Those are excellent points re: the new person's background, and to me ...[yada yada yada yada yada yada] ... character, but it just isnt the same and I cant help but say "it would've been done better with Sharona". I urge USA to bring her back!

In the immortal words of Sharona ... Suck it up.

Puffy_Foam

Aug 1 2005, 09:08 AM

"And it's too late, baby, now it's too late
It was Bitty's choice, and she made it
She got greedy inside and she said bye
If she was paid it

There are good times again for Monk and cast
But we must forget Sharona, and the times she sassed
Still I'm glad for what they have, but Bitty is the past

But it's too late, baby, it's too late
'Cause Sharona's gone, she won't come back
Just suck it up, you guys, she's broken all ties
And the show's still on track"

My own adaptation of "It's Too Late" by Carole King.
Maybe you complainers will 'get' it if it's written in song form.

annajones

Aug 1 2005, 12:47 PM

So the assumption is that she did not apply for all the DIC benefits? The medical and dental health insurance is someting optional? Don't know anything about how military benefits works, but I do know that some of the medical knowledge this show has about OCD is true.

Og_Of_The_Jungle

Aug 1 2005, 04:08 PM

I would just assume that whatever benefits she received have been spent.

And the Cost of Living is very high in the SF area; during the Dot-Com boom there were single BR apartments going for $2000/month or more. No, I'm *not* kidding.

And maybe she went on a Lotto binge right after Mitch was declared dead -- stranger things have been known to happen...

Cheechawker

Aug 1 2005, 10:18 PM

I was too stupid to take advantage of the Montgomery GI Bill. I figured I wasn't smart enough to go to college because I totally blew off high school. I guess I was right.

memebeck49

Aug 1 2005, 11:55 PM

I'm probably going to get alot of flak for this, but I just can't keep it to myself any longer------WHY CAN'T YOU JUST ENJOY THE SHOW AND STOP CRITICIZING EVERY LITTLE TINY THING??? Isn't the idea of watching a program the fact that you will have a short time of enjoyment and a small escape from the humdrum of regular life? If you don't like the show, or find it so terribly incorrect, then why do you watch it? And why are you on this BB? To let us all know how stupid we are because we like the show regardless of the flaws you find?This program is ENTERTAINMENT. That means you can enjoy it while not quite believing every aspect of it.
I realize that people are all entitled to their own opinions, but, some of this just gets beyond mere opinion. Picking apart each tiny nuance of every episode--- it makes me tired. I watch Monk for the sheer delight of watching the show. To quote someone MOST of us love "You're bringin the Monkman down."
Meme

RomanSoldier

Aug 2 2005, 12:48 AM

Quote:

I'm probably going to get alot of flak for this, but I just can't keep it to myself any longer------WHY CAN'T YOU JUST ENJOY THE SHOW AND STOP CRITICIZING EVERY LITTLE TINY THING??? Isn't the idea of watching a program the fact that you will have a short time of enjoyment and a small escape from the humdrum of regular life? If you don't like the show, or find it so terribly incorrect, then why do you watch it? And why are you on this BB? To let us all know how stupid we are because we like the show regardless of the flaws you find?This program is ENTERTAINMENT. That means you can enjoy it while not quite believing every aspect of it.
I realize that people are all entitled to their own opinions, but, some of this just gets beyond mere opinion. Picking apart each tiny nuance of every episode--- it makes me tired. I watch Monk for the sheer delight of watching the show. To quote someone MOST of us love "You're bringin the Monkman down."
Meme

Do you know where you are? This is Monk, the show about the guy who notices every last thing and can't stand anything being out of place! Of course we can't stand it when the writers goof! And we complain because we love (or used to love) the show and hate to see it go down the tubes.

tsfan1

Aug 2 2005, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Do you know where you are? This is Monk, the show about the guy who notices every last thing and can't stand anything being out of place! Of course we can't stand it when the writers goof! And we complain because we love (or used to love) the show and hate to see it go down the tubes.

Speak for yourself. There are many of us who love the show the way it is and feel that it is better than ever. To constantly nitpick a show to death takes away from the pure enjoyment that the show brings IMO.

You know, it's funny, but I've read the same comments on this message board when season 3.0 started and again when season 3.5 started - the show is going downhill, jumped the shark, won't be the same without Bitty, yada, yada, yada. Memebeck is right - just sit back and enjoy an hour of what is IMO, the best show on TV. Forget the plot holes - they have always been there and probably always will. The show has never been about the mystery - it's been about Monk.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents worth.

Bev

RomanSoldier

Aug 2 2005, 01:45 AM

I guess if the weaknesses which have manifested themselves this season don't bother you then I don't know what to say.

Teresa1643

Aug 2 2005, 01:46 AM

I agree, Bev, except you didn't take it far enough back.

Anyone who was on the old board two years ago remembers all the lamenting that Monk was as good as dead because they'd change the theme song and the whole "tone" of the show wasn't the "same" and it would certainly be canceled in short order. And who were these new writers? Yada, Yada, Yada, indeed.

I might be inclined to take criticism like this more seriously if I hadn't seen the same sort of hysterical disparagement at the beginning of each seasonette.

Of course those critics either come around in the end or stop watching/posting in which case they become, NMP (not my problem.)

RomanSoldier

Aug 2 2005, 01:50 AM

There are plenty of people who agree with me. The only problem is that they stay here for about one post each.

Tami

Aug 2 2005, 02:13 AM

I agree with you, Teresa, but you didn't take it far enough back, either. Remember the post I wrote that chronicled the predicted demise of the show by posters at the old board going back to the close of the "Candidate/Pilot"? Here's an example:

Quote:

Monk has been "tanking" ever since "Billionaire Mugger" and he's wandering around the city counting the poles, he doesn't wipe his hands, except once. But in the pilot episode, he wipes his hands each time, even when he's being chased by a car! The writing has become so inconsistent! Oh! Wait!

I was just re-reading that and updating it, but I really got sick of it and decided to fugeddaboutit!

Teresa1643

Aug 2 2005, 02:24 AM

You're so right, Tami. I tried to find that post and couldn't so decided to stay on safe ground. Still, anybody making such criticisms that far back, couldn't actually have ever claimed to be a "fan", could they?

Tami

Aug 2 2005, 02:49 AM

Here's the link: CLICK HERE to go to the thread "Not more Bitty!" Here's one of my favorites:

Quote:

Monk has been on a "downslide" ever since "Vacation"! No Ted Levine! That's just wrong! Plus, there was so little affection from her side of the equation, that I wondered truly if the Body Snatchers had come to call. Tony Shalhoub carried this episode single-handed, but even he is only human.

memebeck49

Aug 2 2005, 07:11 PM

Thank you Bev, Teresa and Tami for coming to my defense, I guess, and stating what I wanted to, but much clearer and more articulately. Guess I was just frustrated. Was reading the threads, and there seemed to be so much negativism, I just blew a cork. I forgot the "lesson" you all so kindly provided on the old BB when I asked what trolls were. Not that I feel all the negative posters are necessarily trolls----but never mind.(Don't want to start any arguments.)
Just wanted to say thanks to the old "friends" from the other board for not jumping on me and giving me a good thrashing.
Meme

Og_Of_The_Jungle

Aug 2 2005, 08:36 PM

Quote:

There are plenty of people who agree with me. The only problem is that they stay here for about one post each.

No, then Bitty changes her screen name and re-appears as someone else.

@Becky: I understand, Becky, it's always just so tempting to feed to trolls...

Outside_the_Box

Aug 4 2005, 03:02 AM

A troll by any other name would still post "Bring Back Sure-thing-arona!!!!!!!!!"

OtB

bekr451

Aug 5 2005, 10:01 PM

You raised some good and valid points. The supposed act of cowardice would have not impact on Natalie receiving any of the entitlements or insurance. Natalie could have spent the first quarter of a million dollars and death gratuity in Las Vegas, NV. And yes the amount of SGLI has gone up from $50,000 in 1980 to $250,000 currently. The DIC is not optional but an entitlement. So the monthly payments are ongoing even now.

Yes, San Francisco has a high cost of living but that would be off-set her expenses significantly by the DIC. The commissary and exchange at the Presidio has been closed but San Diego Naval Base is a relatively short drive. Where did you come up with braces for Julie?

In my 20 years I can only remember 1 officer with zero or negative leave balance. That was due to a death back in the States while we were on deployment in the Med. Also officers don’t have an EAOS only enlisted. An officer’s term of service is indefinite. They submit a letter of resignation that has to be accepted not by the CO but by SecNav.

With Adrian being OC he would find some of these discrepancies but not necessarily all of them. I have ignored other inconsistencies with the show and my experiences with officers. The point is that the writers did not do enough research to fully flesh out her back story or they have not yet brought out all the points to explain these things.

jedamomma

Aug 6 2005, 02:46 AM

I am sure natalie is a great actress.....but not on this show. She is too unreal. I agree with any negative comments on the replacement of Sharona. They needed to either give her more money, or find someone more dramatic and real. natalie seems detached from the show and Mr. Monk. Her back problems are just another thing that makes her undetached. I honestly believe viewers won't get attached to her.

Og_Of_The_Jungle

Aug 6 2005, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Yes, San Francisco has a high cost of living but that would be off-set her expenses significantly by the DIC. The commissary and exchange at the Presidio has been closed but San Diego Naval Base is a relatively short drive. Where did you come up with braces for Julie?

Well, if 11 hours by car is a short drive... I live about 2 hours So. of SF, and it used to take me roughly 9 hours to get home from 32nd Street. I'd usually hit rush hour traffic in LA, unfortunately, but following the 405 to the 101, it usually wasn't too bad, and once you get past Ventura, it's usually late enough that you can fly like a bat out of a warm place for the rest of the way.

Yes, I did know that officers must resign their commission, but a good CO would have some idea about his officers' intentions. And since the SecNav doesn't personally know every officer, I would speculate that the CO's recommendation would carry some weight. I have seen enlisted men go negative on leave balance, but only for family emergencies.

Julie's braces? Okay, I made that up. But if you have kids, you know that there's always something.

I didn't mean to rain on your parade, and as I said before, the men and women of our armed forces deserve every penny that is spent on them, and much more.

Og_Of_The_Jungle

Aug 6 2005, 04:46 AM

Quote:

I am sure natalie is a great actress.....but not on this show. She is too unreal. I agree with any negative comments on the replacement of Sharona. They needed to either give her more money, or find someone more dramatic and real. natalie seems detached from the show and Mr. Monk. Her back problems are just another thing that makes her undetached. I honestly believe viewers won't get attached to her.

Um... "Undetached?" That would mean, "attached," wouldn't it?

With any negative comments? Just any at all? Like, "Her nose is too big?" ('Cause it's obviously not...) Isn't that a bit of a blank check for you to be signing?

And I have gotten attached to her, myself -- I think she's cute. (and if she's reading this ... call me ... 555-1212... )

Really, Bitty, you've got to be more subtle. This blank check, "I agree with everything negative" is exactly what we would expect of someone with a grudge against the actress who replaced her...

RomanSoldier

Aug 13 2005, 03:04 PM

I was just reading that if you're dishonorably discharged you will most likely lose your benefits. Mitch running off with the radio would qualify as that, even though the Navy can't prove it.

Tami

Aug 13 2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

I was just reading that if you're dishonorably discharged you will most likely lose your benefits. Mitch running off with the radio would qualify as that, even though the Navy can't prove it.

If they couldn't actually prove that Mitch ran off with the radio, would Mitch have been "convicted" (I don't know the word for the outcome of a courtmartial)? Apparently, what's in Mitch's record is what the other two crewman "reported" and no other proof of Mitch's guilt.

If Mitch had been posthumously courtmartialed and Natalie didn't received any death benefits, however, that would certainly explain why she was so strapped, wouldn't it?

Either way, I don't have a problem with Natalie's backstory; all this hypothesis of how much, if any, death benefits she received doesn't persuade me toward thinking the writers are in error. As a matter of fact, the argument that she (and Mitch) probably had accumulated some or alot of debt to that point, coupled with the Bay Area's high cost of living, and the possibility that she was a non-income-producing spouse prior to Mitch's death, enforces to me that she had/has a bit of a cash-flow problem.

Og_Of_The_Jungle

Aug 14 2005, 04:19 AM

I doubt that Mitch would have been post-humously courtmartialed. There might well have been a court of inquiry or an "Inquiry Mast" to look into the situation, but those would be more concerned with figuring out what happened than with assigning blame.

Trials aren't much fun when the defendant is dead.

I do support the theory that Natalie is a poor money manager. I'd be glad to help her get it all sorted out. I have a technique for getting credit cards under control... she can call me anytime at 555-1212...