Facts are stubborn things.

I shamelessly lifted whole cloth from Cassandra's post over at Milblogs - (Mrs.G get those permalinks fixed!) because well, like Cassandra sez, facts are stubborn things, easy as they are to ignore.

I said in my initial, on-the-way-to-the-airport-very-shallow-post that the problem was likely more complex than the initial report indicated - and that the issue likely stemmed from regulatory guidance. Now, there are generally two places that kind of guidance comes from. Internal to DoD and external. Externally, it tends to come from... Congress (though the Courts can have their say now and again, but not that often). Hence why I chose the tack I did for my post. If nothing else, it will give Congresswoman Boyda's mil-affairs staff yet another opportunity to get educated on the subject (and will have them muttering under their breath and casting dark looks my way when next we gather 'round Ms. Boyda's VMAAC table...)

This is one of the biggest value-addeds of blogs - context and fact-checking, along with no commercially-driven inhibitions about linking to our competition. And while individual blog readership may not be huge... well, Google is our friend. And, conversation generated thereby may expand the envelope/understanding further, if we can avoid the trap of Congressional Debate, which seemingly more often than not consists of political posturing vice true debate.

Let us commence, then, and let Cassandra start her cannonade.

Apropos of Greyhawk's excellent post (which I agree with entirely) once again it appears the military is being blamed for following laws passed by Congress:

For the 448th time, the military cannot "scrap" a policy just because someone wants them to.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.***

So far, the most damning "evidence" of an evil Pentagon conspiracy seems to be the argument that it's too convenient for coincidence that the orders of Lt. Jon Anderson and John Hobot were written for 729 days - precisely one day short of the cutoff to receive benefits under the GI Bill. But unsurprisingly, the situation isn't quite that simple:

Almost half of the 2,600 Minnesota National Guard soldiers who deployed with the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division are getting shortchanged on their education benefits.

The 1,162 affected troops served just as long as their colleagues -- 22 consecutive months, the longest of any U.S. unit in Iraq -- but they are not eligible to enroll in the Chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill because they were demobilized before serving the 730 days of active duty deployment required by the bill.

How long before? From one to 12 days.

As Greyhawk points out, there is something a bit fishy about the reporting on this story:

Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.

Why? Did someone fail to inform them of their pay and benefits? Who, exactly, should have done so? (Heh – I actually know the answer to that one…) Or worse, did someone lie to them about their pay and benefits?

Now let's simplify the numbers. Instead of saying "730 days" when referencing the minimum, let's use the term "2 years" - because 730 days = 2 years. We can even convert that into months - two years = 24 months. Now that we've got everything converted to like terms, lets perform complex mathematics:

24 months - 22 months = 2 months. That's how far short their actual tour fell of qualifying for the benefits.

But is that the issue? Do you have to serve two years, or do you just have to have orders for two years to qualify?

This raises more questions, at least in my mind:

1. Which document actually created the problem? Was it orders generated before deployment (when the unit could not possibly have known their tour would be extended because of the Surge), or does the Army generate orders on demobilization?

2. If the Pentagon intentionally defrauded these soldiers -- who served "just as long as" fully half of the Red Bulls -- why in the Sam Hill didn't they go ahead and intentionally defraud the other half to save twice as much money? Few things enrage this Marine wife more than half-assed, incompetent jackbooted oppression of the proletariat.

Unless, of course, they affect her personally, in which case all bets are off.

3. If the motivation was 'to save money", who exactly is saving this money? Again, who benefits? What pot do GI Bill benefits get paid out of?

(a) It's hard to believe the command itself had any incentive, either positive or negative, for fudging the numbers. Do individual commands really have to foot the bill for anyone who earns GI Bill eligibility through service with them? Wow. Sounds like an accounting nightmare.

(b) Or is it the Pentagon who somehow had the incentive to "save money" by doing the orders this way? Does the Pentagon spontaneously generate the information on which these orders are based, or do they get it from some more organic source such as... oh, say, the command? See item (a). Lather, rinse... oh never mind.

(c) Or is it possible the Department of Veterans Affairs (otherwise known as the VA) has sinister operatives who have managed to penetrate all levels of the federal bureaucracy, spitefully changing half a unit's orders at will to "save money"? Ah... finally a plausible explanation!

Update: Damn... there are times when it *hurts* to be this good:

Eligibility for this program is determined by the Selected Reserve components. VA makes the payments for this program.

Mein Gott im Himmell! Their own COMMAND was colluding with the VA to save Uncle Sam money!

4. And then there's the pesky matter of exactly how much money these gentleman have been deprived of:

Those who qualify for Chapter 30 Montgomery GI Benefits can receive $894 per month to be used for education, after making a $1,200 down payment. The benefits are available up to 10 years after the soldiers leave the service.

Those who don't qualify, like the 1,162 from Minnesota who are recorded as serving 729 days or less, can receive $660 per month as full-time students through the Reserved Education Assistance Program (REAP). The benefits expire once the soldier leaves the service.

What this article fails to mention (and I had to do some research to discover) is that the service member cannot use both REAP and the GI bill for the same period of service; an irrevocable election must be made between the two benefits. I completely agree that if they are entitled to the GI Bill, these soldiers should retain that entitlement so they may choose between their REAP benefits and the more generous GI Bill.

However, my guess is that what people are erroneously referring to as "the GI Bill" may in fact be the highest bracket of the REAP program (in other words, the only benefit these soldiers qualify for):

If you were on active service for:

< 90 Days Selected Reserves 40% benefits¹ only if released from AD due to injury or illness²
IRR/ING 40% benefits¹ only if released from AD due to injury or illness²
National Guard 40% benefits¹ only if released from AD due to injury or illness²

≥90-364 Days Selected Reserves 60% benefits¹
IRR/ING 60% benefits¹
National Guard 60% benefits¹

≥730 Days Selected Reserves 80% benefits¹
IRR/ING 80% benefits¹
National Guard 80% benefits¹

Note: If Member entered on active service from the Standby or Retired Reserve, this benefit does not apply. Also, once active service is completed, eligibility is contingent upon Guard or Reserve member status.

So rather than being "deprived" of a benefit, it may be they have been placed in a lower qualifying category.

Update: spoke too soon. I was wrong. The MGIB - Selected Reserve program applies to the National Guard.

Your benefit entitlement ends 14 years from the date of your eligibility for the program, or on the day you leave the Selected Reserve.

To sum up:

Nothing wrong with complaining.

When you look at the facts, the situation appears a tad more complex than 99% of the news coverage would lead one to believe.

So again the question arises -- why the necessity for an officer to publicly accuse fellow service members of wrongdoing?

On what evidence does he do so? Especially as, before the article in question was written, the Secretary of the Army was already doing what they asked him to do?

Geren told the senators he was recommending that the Army Board of Corrections, which has the authority to award the benefits, expedite the review process so the soldiers could get their benefits in time to enroll for spring semester. Usually, each soldier would each have to file a personal appeal, but Geren requested the Army review them as one group.

*** Widely reputed by unkind people to be the answer to that eternal question, "How do you keep a Jarhead in the shower for a week?"

Answer: "Hand him a bottle of shampoo that says...."

[drum roll]