October 24, 2007

Long-Serving National Guard Troops Were Denied GI Bill Benefits

More than 1,500 National Guard members in Iowa and Minnesota have been shortchanged on their GI Bill educational benefits, and members of Congress want to know why.

To receive the maximum benefit, soldiers must have been issued orders for 730 days or more of active duty, and have served 20 consecutive months. Those who qualify receive up to $894 per month toward their educational expenses after making a $1,200 down payment.

The Iowa and Minnesota troops had all served 20 months or longer—the Iowa soldiers, in fact, were members of the “Ironman Battalion,” the longest-serving combat unit in Iraq—but the affected soldiers had originally been issued orders for less than 730 days. In some cases, they had been given orders for 725 to 729 days, according to The Des Moines Register.

In a news conference this afternoon, Rep. Bruce Braley, a Democrat of Iowa, said the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee would investigate why National Guard members had been denied benefits and whether other troops had been affected as well. He said the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, David S.C. Chu, had assured him that the problem would be fixed in time for the spring semester. The promised benefits are a key recruitment tool.

Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation, S 2139, that would eliminate the 730-day requirement, basing eligibility solely on length of service. —Kelly Field

Comments

1. Personally, I am glad the Congress is looking into this. It makes you wonder how many other veterans have been denied benefits. These women and men deserve what they have been promised. This administration keeps expecting more and delivering less to our service members.

   — Brad G.    Oct 24, 04:04 PM    #

2. They need to have orders issued for 730 days, and some had been issued orders for 729 days? How could that be anything other than an obvious attempt to deny them their GI Bill rights from the outset…?

   — J.    Oct 24, 04:06 PM    #

3. Reprehenisble duplicity on the part of the Pentagon—what a shock! Gotta love the way the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness dummies right up with the “Gee, I had no idea. We’ll get right on this” response.

   Doubtless those 725 and 729 day orders were completely coincidental. Just like grievously injured troops have their disabilities minimized down to a lower level of compensation purely by happenstance.

   Support the troops. Yeah, right.

   — BertW    Oct 24, 04:11 PM    #

4. Prorate the benefits, for crying out loud. Maximun tour is supposed to be 12 months (my son and hundreds of his buddies spent 15). Give them $2.50 per month (for four years) for every day they spent in-country. That’s $900 a month for each soldier who spent 365 days in combat. Over four years that comes to $43,200 or about a third of what a Blackwater murderer gets for ONE year of comparatively safe service (pick your daily assignments; no rules of engagement, just shoot anything that moves and isn’t dressed like you.)

   Those soldiers who spent 547 days in-country; well, maybe they can afford to live in a decent apartment rather than some noisy dorm while they adjust to be surrounded by classmates who “had other priorities” when their nation called.

   Those who volunteered for second and third tours – give them the president’s house and a free ride.

   Those silly ribbon magnets on your bumper don’t do a damn thing for anybody but the Chinese kids who make them and the American importers who hawk them.)

   Let’s get truly patriotic and REWARD (the heck with “support”) our Vets.

   — 3d generation vet    Oct 24, 04:11 PM    #

5. I barely missed the same thing back in the Vietnam War days. I was a member of the Air Force Reserve’s 921 Combat Support Group of the 433 Troop Carrier Wing based at Kelly AFB, San Antonio, Texas. I was transfered to the 922 CSG two weeks before the 921CSG was called to active duty after the Gulf of Tonkin “incident.” Those called served just a few days less than were required to get any form of veterans benefits. And despite the pitch “train together -serve together,” they were shipped to every possible post the active duty folks wanted to avoid.

   My buddies had a wonderful time at the DEW line, in the Kurile (sic?) islands and in the northern reaches of Greenland.

   — John M. Hays    Oct 24, 04:32 PM    #

6. Isn’t this something like letting an employee go a couple of days before they become vested in the company pension plan. If this were a workforce issue there would be lawsuits and possibly govenrment intervention. Wait a minute, this is the government – what was I thinking. Back when, in Brooklyn, we would have called this the perfect scam.

   — Henry    Oct 24, 04:33 PM    #

7. Shame on you Mr. President…shame on you! Once again….send these kids off to fight and possibly die….but no sacrifice at home. There is no tax-cut too great for this president.

   — Mark    Oct 24, 04:36 PM    #

8. Listen Bush was AWOL hiding in Alabama and not reporting to his ANG unit in texas. Then Cheeney had seven deferments..he had other priorities…
   So we know they dont give a crap about our service members..not the stay the course draft dodgers…

   — russ james    Oct 24, 05:10 PM    #

9. In 2006, 700,000 (yes you read that number right) active duty military earned postsecondary credits, hinting strongly that the military is playing a larger role in postsec than most folks know. But failure to connect what servicemembers do in active duty with support in veterans status undermines the commitment and persistence of these folks, and breaks the momentum they have established. We complain about such short falls for the civilian population, but we don’t bring our passion to bear on behalf of those who have served. It’s about time we did.

   — Cliff Adelman    Oct 24, 05:20 PM    #

10. Most veterans and active-duty soldiers are familiar with the special snafus of the military bureaucracy. (Remember what the “n” in “snafu” stands for.) They happen frequently for reasons that are obvious to anyone who’s been in the service. In fact, it’s so common that fighting the bureaucracy is a major plot element in some of the funniest, as well as some of the most tragic, movies and TV shows. So only the details are new in this story.

    Getting a politician on your side can sometimes solve the problem — that part of the story is good. But Democrats are making news with this particular snafu primarily because it’s an easy drum for the longtime anti-military party to beat in advance of the 2008 elections. Let’s not be quite as pliable and naive as they think we are.

    — S. Britchky    Oct 24, 05:30 PM    #

11. Alas, responsibility in a military unit falls to the commanding officer. Lest I am mistaken, in this case it is the president. See also the
    Walter Reed mess and etc.

    — jcj    Oct 24, 07:02 PM    #

12. Come on, Britchky. This is not a partisan issue. There is outrage on both sides of the aisle – except from the “my party can do no wrong” crowd. And yes, both parties have them – and they should all be run out of office.

    And Cliff Adelman, you are right on target. I know that many faculties go out of their way to make the transfer of credits as obstuse and capricious a process as possible.

    And there is the wonderful vernacular trick the counselors play. Of course your credits transfer – they just don’t count toward any graduation requirements. Same text book, but we give that course a different number, you’ll have to take it over.

    — 3d generation vet    Oct 24, 07:39 PM    #

13. Based the experience of my son who has been activated 3 times in six years (Bosnia, Gitmo and Afghanistan), one of the other inequities in the excessive use of the National Guard is that, when Guard units are activated, their families are isolated in civilian communities. They do not have support such as on-base Px, medical care and the supportive environment of other military families that are deservedly available to active duty Army and Marines.

    Guess if you’ve never earned GI Bill benefits, they don’t matter too much!

    — Jake Daunton    Oct 24, 11:50 PM    #

14. Why is anyone surprised about this? Those in charge are immoral jerks who take care of themselves but not those iver whom they have power.

    — TDD    Oct 25, 12:43 AM    #

Previous: Campus Technology Survey Finds More Lost Data, Fewer Viruses
Next: 'Dream Act' Fails to Get Enough Votes for Senate Debate