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:

After spending just two years in the Army in the mid-1980s, Moneymaker would later claim to be a decorated Army Ranger with more than 20 years of service that included tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Panama and Grenada. But during the years when he told of suffering post-traumatic stress disorder from seeing his fellow soldiers killed beside him, Moneymaker was actually attending college and working in the telecommunications field. And the scars on his back that he attributed to shrapnel wounds were actually the result of liposuction, federal prosecutors said. Moneymaker was “someone who obtained respect, sympathy and benefits based on the sacrifices and the blood of other veterans who went through what he claimed he went through but didn’t,” Jacobsen said. Although Moneymaker wore Ranger badges and a Purple Heart he never earned, the charges he was convicted of were limited to the paperwork he filled out to receive benefits from the U.S. Army and Veterans Affairs. The charges included five counts of making false statements on forms he filed or in claims he made while applying for disability benefits or inquiring about a military pension. He also was charged with theft for receiving $18,449.32 in disability payments to which he was not entitled.

Moneymaker, a 44-year-old who now lives in North Carolina, was ordered to pay the $18,449.32 back to the government, plus another $600. Moneymaker spoke only when asked by the judge if he had anything to say just before his punishment was announced. Looking across the courtroom, he apologized to Jacobsen, who as a veteran of the war in Iraq has said he takes the case especially seriously. Defense attorney C.J. Covati questioned Jacobsen’s statement that Moneymaker’s crimes were among the worst he has seen in his 17 years as a federal prosecutor. “To say that it’s one of the worst ever is to let moral indignation get a little bit ahead of the facts in this case,” Covati said. Following the hearing, Moneymaker was allowed to remain free on bond until he is ordered to report to prison, which Covati said will probably be in two or three months. [Source: The Roanoke Times Laurence Hammack article 6 Sep 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

The Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS, ranks among the worst federal agencies in terms of veterans in its work force. According to an Office of Personnel Management report on veterans’ hiring, only 10% of Treasury Department workers are veterans. Only the Education Department, with veterans making up 8.2% of its workforce, and the Department of Health and Human Services, at 7.8%, did worse. The Defense Department — led by the Air Force, which has veterans in 48.6% of its civilian positions — topped the list. The VA and Transportation Department also ranked high in the OPM study. [Source: Navy Times Rick Maze articlr Posted 9 Sep 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

Every hospital is now also required to publish a written policy on voter assistance, allowing patients to leave the hospital to register and vote, subject to the opinions of their health care providers. Patients unable to leave the facility must be assisted to register and to vote by absentee ballot. In their written policies, VA hospital are required to establish the criteria they will use to evaluate requests from outside agencies to register voters, and to determine where, when, and how such registration activities will be conducted. They will also develop procedures to coordinate offers of assistance from state and local governments and from non-partisan organizations, and how to work with VA’s Regional Counsel offices to determine whether or not groups offering registration help are non-partisan, as required by law. Voluntary Service Program Managers at each of VA’s 153 hospitals will be responsible for implementing the new policy, and for providing timely and accurate voting information to veterans cared for at their facilities. They will also obtain and maintain materials that are needed to assist veterans with voter registration requirements. [Source: VA Media Relations 8 Sep 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) has introduced the Frank Buckles World War I Memorial Act to renovate the memorial and rededicate it as a national shrine in 2018, when America observes the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War. Buckles said the 21st-century commitment was needed to make the memorial “what it should be” by honoring all who’d gone before him. “I just feel there should be some recognition,” he said. Buckles was born in 1901 in Harrison County, Mo. He lied about his age to enlist, telling a skeptical recruiter that Missouri didn’t keep birth records when he was born. He was dispatched to England, then France, where he served as an ambulance driver. After the armistice, he delivered German POWs back to their home country. Buckles spent the next 20 years as a merchant seaman before he was entangled in another world war. He was working in the Philippines in 1941 and was captured by the Japanese shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He spent the next three and a half years in Japanese prison camps. After World War II, he returned to the United States, married and settled down on a 33-acre West Virginia farm, where he still lives. His wife died in 1999.

The D.C. Preservation League and a newly formed World War I Memorial Foundation will take the lead in planning, designing and raising money. Refurbishing the monument is expected to cost just under $1 million but planners said it was too early to project a total cost. The circular memorial, composed of Vermont marble, was intended as a bandstand for memorial concerts to World War I participants. It stands on a 4-foot-high circular marble platform around which are inscribed the names of the 499 Washington residents who died in the war. Planners said they hoped to pay for much of the work through private donations. One priority, they said, will be to preserve and improve the existing monument as a “place of peace and reflection” without trying to rival or surpass the scope of more opulent monuments such as the World War II Memorial. [Source: McClatchy Newspapers Dave Montgomery article 9 Sep 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

U.S. Embassy representatives from the American Citizen Services, Non-Immigrant Visa, and Immigrant Visa Units of the Consular Section; Social Security Administration; and the Joint US Military Assistance Group will be in:

ANGELES CITY

Tuesday, September 30, 2008
12:00 n.n. to 3:00 p.m.
Hilltop Function Room
Mimosa Golf & Country Club-Monte Vista Villa
Mimosa Leisure Estate, Clarkfield
Angeles City, Pampanga
American Citizen Services personnel will answer questions and:

Accept applications for Passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad

Provide information on registering with the Embassy

Perform notaries and affidavits of legal capacity to marry in the Philippines

Non-Immigrant Visa (Tourist or Visitors visa) personnel will answer questions:

(Cannot entertain case/application specific inquiries)

Regarding visa application process

Immigrant Visa personnel will answer questions and:

Provide instructions for applying for U.S. Immigrant status

Field questions related to existing immigrant visa applications

Social Security Administration will answer questions and:

Discuss basic entitlement requirements for the different Social Security benefits;

Develop claims for benefits;

Process Social Security number applications;

Resolve Post-Entitlement cases, e.g., Change of Address, Report of Death, Medicare Enrollment, Direct Deposit enrollment, Non-receipt of benefits, etc.

ANGELES CITY

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 2485

381 Santol Rd., (corner Santol Rd., and Pinatubo St.)

Clarkview Subd., Balibago, Angeles City

Joint US Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) personnel will answer questions:

Discuss basic application process and entitlement requirements for military ID cards;

Discuss Tricare benefits;

Issue retired and dependent ID cards; and

Update DEERS records

Schedule of Fees:

PASSPORT APPLICATION FEES

Adult (16 and above) Passport Application fee: $100

Minor (under 16) Passport Application fee: $85

Passport Renewal fee (minor) $85

(adult) $75

Additional Passport Pages: no fee

Consular Report of Birth Abroad: $65

NOTARIALS

Ø Affidavit

(Subscribed and Sworn To) $30

Ø Extra Copy

Other doc. related to the same transaction $20

Ø Acknowledgment of Signature $30

Ø Voting registration card or absentee ballot no fee

Ø Savings Bonds no fee

Affidavit of Legal Capacity to Marry $30

Report of Death of an American Citizen no fee

v Fees will only be accepted in U.S. dollars. You must have exact amount, no change will be available.

v Non-Immigrant Visa matters cannot be handled at the Outreach. All

inquiries regarding Non-Immigrant Visas must be made at the U.S. Embassy in

Manila or call: 1-909-101-7878

Additional information can be obtained prior to the visit by contacting:

American Citizen Services Section of the American Embassy in Manila (02) 301-2000 ext. 2246

Bookmark TO:

2. Are military retirees and National Guard/Reserve servicemembers eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill? Yes, if they have post-Sept. 10, 2001 federal active duty service of at least 90 days.

3. Can currently serving members transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to family members? Those who qualify for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, have six years or more of service, and agree to extend their service for four years may be eligible to transfer their benefits to a spouse and/or dependent children subject to DoD regulations. Only currently serving members who agree to reenlist/extend after August 1, 2009 will be eligible. DoD may adjust the service criteria for Post-9/11 GI Bill transferability. Critical skill criteria no longer apply to the transferability program.

4. Will veterans, including military retirees, be permitted to transfer Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits to dependents? No. Post-9/11 GI Bill transferability is a force management tool that works just like a reenlistment bonus.

5. Are Service Academy/ROTC Scholarship commissioned officers eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill? Officers from these commissioning sources can qualify for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. But, time spent satisfying their initial active duty service obligation does not count towards the service necessary to qualify for the benefits.

6. How does the Post-9/11 GI Bill compare to the current Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)? The Post-9/11 GI Bill pays benefits based on active duty service performed after Sept. 10, 2001. Benefits are tailored to a veteran’s specific school and location. MGIB benefits, on the other hand, are elective upon enlistment and require a $1,200 payroll reduction. MGIB rates are based on the enlistment contract and the course load taken regardless of the institution’s tuition/fees and location.

[Source: MOAA Leg Up 15 Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

How much the January federal-military-Social Security COLA be depends on how much living costs rise (or not) this month and again in September. The COLA is based on the change in the Consumer Price Index from the third quarter of the current year (2008) over the CPI level for the third quarter of the previous year. In this case 2007. That means if the CPI holds steady for August and September the COLA payment will be 6.2%. If the CPI goes up either or both months the COLA will increase accordingly. If the CPI should decline the COLA will be adjusted according. Meaning it could, in theory, be less than 6.2%. But there would still be an increase. If you would like to run the numbers for yourself, check out this explanation from the National Active and Retired Federal Employees NARFE website www.narfe.org/departments/leg/guest/articles.cfm?ID=942 . It also gives the projected COLA increase for employees retired under the FECA program. [Source: Mike Causey’s Federal Report 15 Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

• The Specially Adapted Housing grant (SAH), currently limited to $50,000, is generally used to create a wheelchair-accessible home.

• The Special Housing Adaptations (SHA) grant, currently limited to $10,000, is generally used to assist veterans with mobility throughout their homes due to blindness in both eyes, or the anatomical loss or loss of use of both hands or extremities below the elbow.

• A third type of grant established by the new law, the Temporary Residence Adaptation (TRA) grant, is available to eligible veterans and seriously injured active duty servicemembers who are temporarily living or intend to temporarily live in a home owned by a family member.

While the SAH and SHA grants require ownership and title to a house, in creating TRA, Congress recognized the need to allow veterans and active duty members who may not yet own homes to have access to the adaptive housing grant program. Under TRA, veterans and servicemembers eligible under the SAH program would be permitted to use up to $14,000, and those eligible under the SHA program would be allowed to use up to $2,000 of the maximum grant amounts. Each grant would count as one of the three grants allowed under the new program. [Source: U.S. Medicine article 14 Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO: