GROUP A (PICTURE ID)

-MILITARY DEPENDENT ID/DRIVER’S LICENSE OR ID CARD ISSUED BY FEDERAL STATE

OR– LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR ENTITIES (INCLUDING PHOTO) / U.S.

PASSPORT/US COAST GUARD, MERCHANT MARINER CARD/SCHOOL ID WITH PHOTO/SPONSOR DOD ID CARD/GREEN CARD.

GROUP B (NON-PICTURE)

-CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP OR NATURALIZATION/FOREIGN PASSPORT/VOTER REGISTRATION CARD/US SOCIAL SECURITY CARD/CERTIFICATION OF BIRTH ABROAD/ORIGINAL OR CERTIFIED COPY OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE/DAYCARE OR NURSERY SCHOOL RECORD /CLINIC, DOCTOR OR HOSPITAL RECORD/SCHOOL RECORD OR REPORT CARD/FOREIGN NATIONAL ID/w PHOTO.

Bookmark TO:

GREETINGS FROM THE USAF RAO, ANGELES CITY….

THE U.S. NAVY RECRUITERS WILL BE AT OUR OFFICE BETWEEN 0930-1600HRS ON OCT 22, 2008 (NOT 0800 AS LISTED BELOW)… REQUIREMENTS LISTED BELOW… PLEASE NOTE OTHER LOCATIONS THEY WILL BE DURING THEIR VISIT 2008…

HAVE A TEXAS DAY

Bookmark TO:

The DEERS/Rapids workstation located at the US Embassy in Manila will be closed on 21 October 2008. Normal operation will resume 23 October, thank you.

V/R

SPC Babcock, Jeremy L

DEERS/ADMIN/SUPPLY

JUSMAG – Philippines

United States Embassy

1201 Roxas Blvd., Ermita

Manila, Philippines

Bookmark TO:

Aviation, Administration, Accounting, Computers, Engineering, Electronics, Intelligence, Telecommunications, Hotel Restaurant Management, Construction, Medical

To qualify applicants must:

1. Be U.S. Citizen or have an alien registration (ins/I-551 greencard).

2. Have a U.S. Social Security Number (SSN Card).

3. Be between the ages of 17-34.

4. Be high school diploma graduate.

5. Meet Navy height & weight standards.

6. Have no felony convictions.

7. Meet Navy medical requirements.

8. Be able to pass the ASVAB with a score of 35 or better.

9. Be willing to travel.

For more info meet the U.S. Navy recruiters in the Philippines during their scheduled recruiting trip 21-31 OCT 2008. Their itinerary is:

• OCT 22 – RAO Office Angeles City (0800 – 1600) at 1925 Macarthur Hi-way., Balibago, Angeles City 2009 Tel: [45] 888-2748 • OCT 23-24 – RAO Office Subic Olongapo City (0800 – 1600) at 34 National Hi-way (i.e. Beach Blvd.) in Barrio Barretto, Olongapo City Tel: 47-222-2314 • OCT 27-28 – RAO Office Baguio City(0800 – 1600) at Red Lion Pub, 92 Gen Luna, cnr Leonard Rd & Brent Rd. Baguio City 2400 Cell: 0915-361-3503 • OCT 29-31 – RAO Office Manila (0800-1600) at Unit P, Manila Bay Arcade, 2150 Roxas Blvd. Corner Quirino Ave. Malate 1004, Metro Manila Tel: 524-2164/2169 Cell: 0920-677-4299.

Bookmark TO:

• From 1957 through 1967, the Social Security Administration will add the extra credits to your record when you apply for Social Security benefits.

• From 1968 through 2001, you do not need to do anything to receive these extra credits. The credits were automatically added to your record.

• After 2001, there are no special extra earnings credits for military service.

Here’s how the special extra earnings are credited on the record of those who received active duty military service earnings from 1957 through 2001:

1. Service from 1957 through 1977: You are credited with $300 in additional earnings for each calendar quarter in which you received active duty basic pay.

2. Service from 1978 through 2001: For every $300 in active duty basic pay, you are credited with an additional $100 in earnings up to a maximum of $1,200 a year. If you enlisted after 7 SEP 80 and didn’t complete at least 24 months of active duty or your full tour, you may not be able to receive the additional earnings. Check with your local Social Security office for details or refer to the Social Security Administration’s website http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/military.htm.

[Source: TogetherWeServed US Navy Newsletter Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

Kerry Baker, legislative director for DAV, said Chu sent out a memorandum in March redefining which injuries qualify as “combat-related.” The definition is important because Section 1646 of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act said service members with combat-related disabilities no longer must pay back any disability retirement severance they receive from DoD before they become eligible for disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, as has been the case under longstanding policy. The policy affects service members who receive a disability rating of 20% or less from the Defense Department, and thus receive a severance payment rather than lifetime disability retirement pay. Baker said he has seen cases in which, for example, a veteran receives a $30,000 severance payment from the Pentagon, uses it for medical care or education, and then, even if subsequently awarded a full 100% disability rating by VA, must pay the $30,000 back first before he can draw any VA compensation. Baker said this leaves many veterans who may not be able to work in a quagmire of debt. DAV and IAVA think no veteran should have to pay back money he or she earned before becoming eligible for VA benefits, but they still see the new law extending such waivers to veterans with combat-related disabilities as a step forward.

Under a separate program called Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC), which eliminates the offset in retired pay required of some retirees who also receive VA disability compensation, “combat related” is defined as any injury or illness incurred in a combat zone or performing tasks related to combat, such as training for deployment or hazardous assignments like jumping out of airplanes. But according to Chu’s memo, the definition of “combat related” for the purposes of the new severance pay waiver is limited only to those injured in a combat zone in the line of duty or as a direct result of armed conflict. In June, DoD spokeswoman Eileen Lainez told Military Times that Chu did not remake the definition to save money, as Baker has charged. She also noted that the law on repaying severance money left it to the secretary of defense to define “combat related.” But three lawmakers have told Military Times that their interpretation puts Baker in the right and Chu in the wrong — that they expected the Defense Department to adopt the existing definition used for the CRSC program. “The Department of Defense appears to be interpreting this law in the most narrow and tightfisted way possible,” said Rep. Timothy Walz (D-MN) a House Veterans Affairs Committee member. “I am disappointed that [the department] is implementing this policy in a way that makes as few veterans as possible eligible for the benefit.”

After Walz weighed in, DAV sent a letter to Chu asking for an explanation. William Carr, one of Chu’s senior deputies, responded in a letter dated 14 AUG by saying the intent “was to direct the enhanced benefit to those hurt in combat. Such an approach is consistent with our strong belief that there must be a special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise,” Carr wrote. But Baker, and the authors of the new letter, continue to insist that congressional intent was not to make a special distinction that leaves out service members hurt in activities defined as “combat related” under other programs. “The law defines such disabilities as those caused by armed conflict, instrumentalities of war, hazardous service and conditions simulating war,” Gorman and Rieckhoff wrote. “The [Defense Authorization Act] did not change these definitions; in fact, it reinforced them, and it added disabilities incurred in the line of duty in a combat zone. The letter states that Chu “lacks the authority to change the will of Congress.” In an interview with Military Times, Baker laid out cases of veterans already affected by the new memo:

• A female soldier in her 30s, who asked that her name not be used, dove for cover into a pile of rocks in Iraq during a mortar attack wearing full battle rattle — Kevlar and body armor that can weigh 20 pounds. Afterwards, she suffered a fused spine and had to have her hips replaced, all of which her doctors said was directly attributable to her dive to safety. “The rating was good, but they said it was not combat-related,” Baker said. “You can see Chu’s memo confusing the issue. This is a disease process that began in Iraq in the line of duty.”

• In a second case, Marine Cpl. James Dixon incurred a traumatic brain injury from a roadside bomb on his third tour in Iraq. He has headaches, insomnia, short-term memory loss, hearing loss and post-traumatic stress disorder. According to the Pentagon, “the disability did not result from a combat-related injury,” Baker said. Dixon’s ruling was changed on appeal, but Baker said there should have been no question to begin with about whether his injuries were combat-related.

• Army Sgt. Richard Manoukian served two combat tours, but when he was diagnosed with PTSD and bipolar disorder after he tried to commit suicide — as well as suffering a spine disability after a hard helicopter landing in Kuwait — the Defense Department called his injuries “not combat related,” Baker said.

“The list of cases like this is reprehensible and growing every day,” Gorman and Rieckhoff wrote in their letter. “Moreover, if cases like these are ruled not combat-related, then one can only imagine how many other less obvious cases are suffering the same fate.” They asked Congress to look into how many cases have been ruled not combat-related under Chu’s memo and have them reviewed by a group independent of the Pentagon. “Congress should then take immediate action to ensure DoD upholds the plain and unambiguous language of the law,” they wrote. “Most of these service members have no representation in the military disability evaluation system and are therefore unaware of the benefits stolen from them — they are depending on you. [Source: AirForceTimes Kelly Kennedy article Posted 29Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

1. Fares are valid on Greyhound schedules and those of participating interline carriers. Not available on Greyhound Canada routes.

2. This fare applies only to active and retired members of the United States Armed Forces, which includes the U.S. Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marines, and Navy; members of the National Guard, reservists and bonafide identifiable spouses and dependents of the above. A valid military picture identification card must be presented upon request.

3. A 40-percent discount for children of military personnel is available. This discount not available with $198 maximum military fare. No other discounts apply.

4. Only totally unused tickets may be refunded to the location of the original purchase. A 15% penalty fee applies upon refund. No refund will be allowed if any portion of the ticket has been used.

5. Departure date and time may be changed for a charge of $10 per ticket provided that the advance purchase requirement is not violated.

6. Advance purchase tickets purchased over the phone require a minimum of ten days for delivery by mail and for online orders.

7. Casino, commuter, Discovery Pass, student or other special military fares do not qualify for the military discount.

8. Fares are subject to change until purchase and may be higher during peak holiday travel periods.

9. Ten-percent discount may not be used in conjunction with the $198 maximum fare.

[Source: NAUS website http://naus.org/benefits/travel.html 5 Sep 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

• Increase and means-test Tricare fees for retirees under 65

• Double retail pharmacy copays

• Establish an annual enrollment fee for Tricare Standard

• Establish an accrual accounting system to pay for health care for retirees under 65

The QRMC would establish an annual enrollment fee for Tricare Standard and set the fee at 15% of the Medicare Part B premium for single members. The enrollment fee for single retirees in Tricare Prime would be set at 40% of the Part B premium. The premium would be doubled for retirees with spouses or families. While those amounts would start out at lower levels than the Pentagon and others have proposed, it would represent a fundamental change in the philosophy of military benefits.

• First – Part B premiums by law represent at least 25% of the cost of delivering care to the elderly and disabled. MOAA doesn’t believe that standard is a proper one for establishing fees for people between ages 38 and 64.

• Second – Part B premiums can rise dramatically based on the family’s adjusted gross income as reported to the IRS. MOAA has a problem with that kind of means-testing of federal benefits in any event, but at least there’s some case to be made for it in social insurance programs like Medicare that apply to all Americans, regardless of their contributions to the country. But they draw the line at means-testing military compensation and benefit programs that are earned by a career of service and are supposed to be provided by the Defense Department as part of the employer’s compensation package.

Less than 1% of the health coverage plans offered by any other American employers vary with income. The U.S. president pays the same for his health care as the lowest-grade federal civilian. It makes no sense to MOAA to say that some military retirees who complete 20 to 30 years of arduous service somehow deserve a cut in their military health benefits if they inherit some money from a parent or if their spouse lands an outstanding job. Further, MOAA doesn’t support an enrollment fee of any kind for Tricare Standard or Tricare for Life (TFL). Tricare Prime has an enrollment fee because it guarantees access to care for those who enroll. There’s no such guarantee for Tricare Standard or TFL, and many military beneficiaries encounter difficulties finding providers who will accept Tricare – which doctors see as the lowest-paying insurance program in America.

Finally, hard experience has shown that establishing a health care accrual accounting system for retirees under 65 may be an accountant’s dream, but it’s a beneficiary’s nightmare. The accrual funding system established in 2001 for beneficiaries over 65 has proven to be a significant hindrance in making needed adjustments because of strict congressional budget rules for any benefit program governed by accrual accounting. That means benefit adjustments can be made relatively easily for retirees under 65, but making improvements for those over 65 is nearly impossible. That’s also the reason that it’s like pulling teeth to make even minor adjustments on concurrent receipt or the Survivor Benefit Plan, both of which are covered by accrual accounting systems. The last thing we need, given the many problems that we know exist in the Tricare system, is another budgetary roadblock in getting them fixed. [Source: MOAA Leg Up 5 Sep 08 ++]

Every four years, DoD is required by law to conduct a review of military compensation. As previously reported in the AUG Volume II of the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), testing a complex four-part retirement plan for the military on several thousand volunteers is recommended. But the final QRMC report makes other eyebrow-raising suggestions. Other than the Tricare recommendation addressed in Update 4these suggestions include:

• Paying federal impact aid money — now earmarked for local public schools near military bases — directly to military families as cash vouchers to attend alternative schools, including private or parochial schools;

• Prioritizing access to military child-care centers based on service needs instead of traditional waiting lists; (Children of servicemembers who are deployed or have critical skills would be given preference.); and

• Encouraging national and regional supermarket chains to offer discounts to servicemembers, particularly those who live far from a base commissary.

Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Jan “Denny” Eakle (director of the 10th QRMC) said in an interview, “We were allowed very broad latitude to think about anything that would enable us to better expend the valuable dollars we invest today in our compensation system. We really wanted to see what we could do, both for military members and taxpayers, if unconstrained by thoughts like ‘What’s the political climate on this?’ As a result, she said, some recommendations are very controversial and we know it. We knew it when we put it on paper. But we thought we had an obligation to give the department our best insight into what we thought might have promise. They’ve got to go study it now and figure out, in the political climate, if it is doable.” Elaborating on the other QRMC recommendations she noted:

• Dispersing impact aid money directly to families is important for allowing “them to choose where their children go to school.” Poorly performing school districts near some military bases, she explained, “make it very difficult for us to encourage people with school-age children to accept assignments to those places.” What are the political consequences of sending federal dollars, now earmarked for public schools, to military parents so children can attend parochial or private schools? “Remember this is the QRMC’s recommendation to the department.” What defense policy makers do with it, she suggested, is their concern, not hers.

• Giving children of deployed servicemembers and those with high-demand skills first crack at on-base child care also is sure to be controversial with families used to a first-come, first-served arrangement. But she suggested it is time child-care dollars are used to enhance service priorities. Besides, she said, another QRMC recommendation is to begin a child-care voucher system — taking money now earmarked for military child development centers and giving families cash to help them afford other child-care arrangements, perhaps nearer to their homes.

• Eakle didn’t dispute the notion that encouraging commercial grocers to offer military discounts could be seen as a first step toward eliminating the prized commissary system. Her intent, however, only is to ensure that active duty servicemembers and reservists living far from commissaries can enjoy grocery shopping discounts, too. “I’m a military retiree who has access to a commissary. But I will tell you, the concept of having discounts in lieu of driving to the commissary will have a lot of appeal to retirees and to military members who are not near a commissary. Think about reservists. So we’re not suggesting that we close the commissaries; we’re suggesting that this be an alternative that perhaps we pursue.”

The freedom she was afforded to propose any ideas that would enhance the value of military compensation, both to servicemembers and taxpayers, is “one reason why this report will ultimately be viewed as rather different from previous reports,” Eakle said. The 10th QRMC report can be viewed online at www.defenselink.mil/news/ qrmcreport.pdf . [Source: MOAA News Exchange Tom Philpott article 10 Sep 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

Certain senators want cloture to be invoked, so that the bill will move faster through the Senate, into conference committee, and to the President’s desk for signature into law. They may want to protect language they have already inserted, or limit discussion on amendments they wish to offer. With adjournment slated for September 26th, time is of the essence. Others senators do not want cloture to be invoked, for a variety of reasons. They may feel pressured into certain limitations on amendments they want to offer to the bill. They may desire to insert an earmark for their state or for a particular project. They may want to debate a provision of the bill for which they disagree. If the cloture vote fails, debate may continue without limit. Usually the bill is set aside rather than having unlimited debate. Setting aside the NDAA would not have been in the best interests of anyone.

Some of the most important legislation for the military community on Congress’ agenda from now until it finally adjourns are the FY2009 Defense Authorization Act, the FY2009 Defense Appropriations Act and the FY 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. There was a flurry of activity in the Senate on both defense bills this week, but only time will tell whether or not they will actually pass the bills and then go to conference committees with the House of Representatives. On 10SEP, the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved a $487.7 billion spending bill, which is $4 billion less than the President requested but 6.2% above the FY2008 spending level. In July the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved a similar measure with the same total amount of discretionary funding but the full House Appropriations Committee will not vote on the final bill until the week of 15 SEP. That means the appropriations bill still has to go through both the Senate and House Appropriations committees and then go to each floor for a final vote. Whatever differences there are between the two bills will then have to go to a conference committee, and once agreement is reached there on one final bill, it must go back to the full House and Senate for a final vote before it can be sent to the President for his signature.

While the leaders of both the House and the Senate have said they want to finish the bill in SEP, the amount of time left, together with the workload still facing Congress, and the need they feel to adjourn so they can campaign, leaves many observers wondering if the bill will actually ever pass – at least prior to the November election. The full Senate was busy this week debating the annual defense authorization bill for FY2009. The House passed its version of the bill back in May. On 8 SEP there were reported to be at least 177 amendments to the Senate bill, but by 12 SEP that number had risen to 220. One of those amendments was by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, which would repeal a requirement that the survivors of military personnel killed in action have to offset the amount of benefits they receive from the Defense Department by the amount they net from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The amendment passed by a vote of 94 to 2 and is something Senator Nelson and others have sought for eight years to repeal. Although the Senate leadership had originally stated their goal was to finish the bill 12 SEP they have now scheduled the vote on the legislation for 16 SEP. A dispute over earmarks that are part of the bill has become the major obstacle to passage, and that debate is tied directly to the elections, with many Republicans campaigning against earmarks in general. Beyond that, President Bush has threatened to veto both the House and Senate versions of the bills because of provisions targeting the use of contractors in combat zones. [Spource: TREA Washington Update 12 Sep 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

• Army Guard: www.1-800-GO-GUARD.com

• Air Guard: site is www.GOANG.com

• Coast Guard Reserve: http://www.gocoastguard.com

• Marine Corps Reserve: http://www.marforres.usmc.mil/join/Bonus.asp

• Navy Reserve: http://www.navyreserve.com/?campaign=Reprise_YahooPI_Homepage_Homepage_Text

[Source: NGAUS Leg Up 5 Sep 08 ++]

Bookmark TO: