Pfizer recently transferred several hundred employees to Eastern Connecticut from Michigan. Many of these employees who owned houses in Michigan would have faced a loss on the sale of their home, if not for Pfizer's relocation package which included a "loss on sale" clause.  The clause is typical of many corporate relocation packages which allow employees who sell their home at a loss, to be reimbursed the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price.  This is especially important for those who bought their homes in the last couple of years, as prices have been flat or fallen in most parts of the country, with Michigan no exception.

Over the past few months, I've met with several military families stationed at the Submarine Base in Groton facing the possibility of foreclosure.  These families, in service to our nation, have been transferred from the Groton area, but unlike corporate transferees do not have the same protection with a "loss on sale" or other typical corporate benefits.  Any military family who bought a home since 2005 and is now being transferred is facing a dismal situation especially if they used a 100% mortgage product, like VA or the Veteran's Choice program offered by the local Navy Federal Credit Union. With prices flat and inventory building, these families are most likely looking at a loss after paying seller closing costs.  Foreclosure is becoming an option for too many. 

Somehow it doesn't seem quite right. Yes, I know military personnel have benefits; good medical coverage, use of the commissary, a housing allowance, but they also spend large amounts of time away from home, sometimes in dangerous situations.  

So I ask... If a member of the military is transferred as part of their service to the nation, shouldn't there be a military relocation program similar to that of civilians?