previous post next post  

Recouping bonuses from the wounded warriors...

By The Armorer on November 22, 2007 | | Comments (11)

...invalided from service.

Due to this story from KDKA in Pittsburgh, I've received *tons* (well, metaphoric tons) of email.

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.

Most of them accompanied by some form of outrage at those heartless bastards in the Defense Department. Which is only partially correct. The greater blame lies in the political process.

The reality is... DoD has no choice but to initiate the collections. Because the law authorizing the payment of the bonuses *requires* them to. A law written in peacetime, intended to recoup money from people who failed to complete their enlistments. The unintended consequence of that good intention - is that the wording of the law gives no wiggle room for combat wounded.

I've not been able to find out if or when DoD or the President approached Congress to make a change to the law.

Because it requires legislative relief for DoD to not have to recoup bonus payments.

I fired off a missive to Doug Matties, the legislative director of Congresswoman Nancy Boyda (D-KS2) who is my representative in the House. Doug's response follows:

It does require a legislative fix and there’s a bill out there now to fix it (which of course Nancy is on as a co-sponsor). It’s HR 3793 and it has 219 co-sponsors. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a candidate for floor action in December. The story you linked to isn’t the first one we heard about. This is just bad policy that DoD should have changed or requested to be changed. We’re all over this one!

That's a good answer, as far as it goes. My only issue with it is... the bill was introduced on October 10, this year. Which means collectively, DoD, the Administration, the Congress, the media (including the blogs) have essentially missed this story *since the beginning of the war*.

I'm sure people will point out instances where it was reported. Nonetheless, I feel like I've let down the troops, even though I personally don't have much contact day to day with enlisted soldiers (where this issue mostly resides, there are very few if any officer bonuses that aren't aviation or medical-related), the issue never hit my radar, nor the radar of the people I read and talk to - until Homefront Six popped into my email box followed by a torrent of others. I'm also grumpy that my feed for things legislative, the search terms of which *should* have caught this bill, didn't. But that's a grump for the guys who run that serivce.

The bill is H.R. 3793: Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007.

To amend title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to continue to pay to a member of the Armed Forces who is retired or separated from the Armed Forces due to a combat-related injury certain bonuses that the member was entitled to before the retirement or separation and would continue to be entitled to if the member was not retired or separated.

You can follow the link to get the full text - there was one thing I went looking for - a caveat that afforded the same protection to someone who was injured while in training, because getting your back broken at the National Training Center preparing for a deployment shouldn't count any less than breaking your back flipping your HMMWV evading an ambush. It looks like they used very similar language to that applied to repeal the requirement that retired servicemembers (like myself) fund their VA disability payments out of their retired pay...

`(d) Combat-Related Injury Defined- In this section, the term `combat-related injury' means an injury--

`(1) for which the member was awarded the Purple Heart; or

`(2) that was incurred (as determined under criteria prescribed by the Secretary of Defense)--

`(A) as a direct result of armed conflict;

`(B) while engaged in hazardous service;

`(C) in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war; or

`(D) through an instrumentality of war.'.

Homefront Six asked what can military spouses do? Kevin asked what can citizens do?

Contract your Congressional Representation and tell them to move the Bill expeditiously and not let it get wrapped around the politics of the war.

Click here for a list of the co-sponsors. If your Rep isn't on that list - ask them why?

A search of Thomas show that a similar bill has yet to be introduced in the Senate. So, contact your Senators and ask them to jump on the bandwagon. This is especially true if your Senators are on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Click here for a list of those Senators.

There are two presidential candidates on the committee, Mr. McCain and Ms. Clinton. Sic 'em.

As always - be polite and respectful. That gets you far more than vitriol and unchanneled anger.

This is the text of the note (with suitable personalizations) that I sent to Senators Brownback and Roberts:

Dear Senator Xxxxxxx (and the staffer who does the initial screenings, too!).

I'm John Donovan, a retired soldier, and a blogger who covers military affairs. I'm enough of a blogging gadfly to have been among the 10 milbloggers invited to spend an hour with President Bush this past September.

(I blog at www.thedonovan.com)

Even though I'm not of her political persuasion, I sit on the Veteran's and Military Affairs Advisory Council established by Ms. Boyda (and I've chatted with Mr. Ryun on the subject should he succeed on getting his seat back).

I'm writing concerning H.R. 3793: Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007, introduced in October of this year.

Simply put - the peacetime law written concerning bonus recoupment if a servicemember fails to complete the terms of the bonus are being applied to warriors separated from the service due to combat injury - surely an unintended consequence and an unintentional injustice.

That it only now has come to the serious attention of Congress is a knock on the Administration and it's agent, the DoD, the Old Media, and me, the New Media. Self-flagellation aside, it's out there, and I believe it needs fixing - which means someone has to introduce a bill in the Senate, as well. I know the Armed Services Committee is not in your bailiwick - but all those soldiers at Fort Riley, Fort Leavenworth, and the Kansas Army Guard are, as are the airmen of McConnell AFB and the Kansas Air Guard - and those soldiers of all serivces who entered the service from Kansas.

As a constituent, I'm asking you to work the levers of the Senate to get an applicable bill introduced, passed, reconciled - and sent to the President with all due speed and as little politics as possible.

My blog post on the subject is here:

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/it_does_require.html

It is an issue I will be following closely.

And have a Happy Thanksgiving, and I don't envy any of us the upcoming election cycle.

Respectfully,

John

Share This Article:

Categories:

11 Comments

By Barb on November 22, 2007 10:10 AM
I don't recall ever seeing a story on this before, and suppose that they are somewhat dollar driven. Meaning that the demand for repayment of a smaller ($5K) amount raised less ire and may have occurred many times with a story being written, but once the bigger dollar amounts kicked in, it became a good stick to beat the administration with ... deservedly. Either way - it's a shame that it has taken this long to initiate corrective action, and we can't blame this totally on the current do-nothing Congress. The problem has obviously been there for years.
 
By Heartless Libertarian on November 22, 2007 11:33 AM
If you want to think wheels-within-wheels...maybe the folks at DoD who have to do this feel bad about it, and brought it to the media's attention to get Congress to move. And if you're going to talk about injuries in training...and since I'm now at the home of the Airborne...how many paratroopers have been mustered out of the years due to injuries from bad jumps? IMO, it should really be expanded to any injury that is considered Line of Duty...or do you favor taking away the bonus from a soldier who was paralyzed by a drunk driver, through no fault of his own?
 
By John of Argghhh! on November 22, 2007 11:46 AM
The bill as written would cover the injured airborne soldier, HL. At least I believe so. That's one reason I highlighted that section. The other piece is a bit more difficult - but my fallback response is simply... the drunk's insurance company is liable. Or the drunk is. But arguably, not the government.
 
By Grumpy on November 22, 2007 5:09 PM
You should send a copy to- www.whitehouse.gov These people are partly responsible for this situation.
 
By HomefrontSix on November 23, 2007 2:57 PM
Grumpy ~ The original code, if I"m not mistaken (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) was written in 1949. In peacetime. Before we became adept at saving servicemembers who were severely injured. If your comment regarding the responsibility of the WH pertains to the fact that it's taken this long (i.e. since the beginning of The War Against Terror) to address this situation, I get that. If you're implying that the current administration is responsible for the Code itself, in that you are mistaken.
 
By Grumpy on November 24, 2007 2:26 PM
HomefrontSix, I don't want to surprise you, so please step back. I think you are right on target! This is in regard to the facts you state. Then, Grumpy, why did you make the suggestion? This gives the President a chance to write an executive order and make it right. Let's say the President is unaware, make him aware. This is the way we support the troops. Let's put you outside the "Castle's Walls", I know you know about this posting and the comments. Grumpy, how do you know that I know? I know this because you are somebody who actually does their homework, intel. As an outsider, the failure to send it to the White House, what would this say to you as an outsider? This is the reason our visible actions to the public, are so important. You raise the issue of "the code", he is not responsible for the code, but he is responsible TO the code. The was all included in his "Oath of Office". For you, it will probably mean going to the history books, I will not take a chance on assuming somebody's age. If not, do you remember Watergate? It taught us many things, The White House is very complex with the primary goal to protect the tail of the President. Watergate also taught us that "Plausible Deniability" is not a viable defense. Richard Nixon used his Presidential powers to break the law. In doing so, he brought dishonor and disgrace to the integrity of the The Office of the President of the United States.
 
By HomefrontSix on November 25, 2007 12:59 AM
I'm not quite sure how we managed to make our way from a section of the US Code to Watergate and "plausible deniability". I was born in '72 so maybe I'm missing something. I agree that the White House should be aware of the situation. I would like to think that they are already aware of it at this point. However, if that was the point of your comment, then by all means, I agree wholeheartedly. My concern was that you were implying the White House was somehow responsible for the section of the Code that is causing the problem.
 
By Grumpy on November 25, 2007 5:26 PM
Homefront Six, I must be getting mellow in my old age. You seem to be a neat character. I agree with you The White House is aware. I also believe Members of Congress are also aware. Let's take a long respectful observation of our leaders solving this complex situation.
 
By John of Argghhh! on November 25, 2007 6:48 PM
I guarantee that if the White House was somehow unaware, they are aware now, and from several different perspectives.
 
By Steve on November 25, 2007 7:59 PM
One question that I had was "who was in power when this was passed?" If it happened in 1949, then the President was a democrat (Truman) and both the House and the Senate had democratic majorities. Interesting.
 
By Grumpy on November 26, 2007 1:21 AM
Steve, does it matter who was in power? It is the LAW! We all swear an oath to the Constitution or the LAW, the same thing. If the law is not to be obeyed, it must be challenged in the courts. This is part of the role of the Judiciary. This is much like the military, many people say to the enlisted, if you're given an order, obey it. But at the end of the day, you are NOT to obey every military order. Again at the end of the day, it is the lowly grunt on the ground, in the heat of battle, he must ask and answer a question of every MILITARY ORDER. Is this order a LAWFUL MILITARY ORDER, because I'm the one who will bear the consequences. The wrong choice could cost me my life. To Steve and Homefront Six, You are both correct the laws on this subject were passed in 1949. They were based on 2 sets of trials at Nuremberg after WWII. The first set of trials were for the national and military leaders. There was a second set of trials, these were for the doctors and judges. Yes, these are the applicable law for 2007. They were reviewed in 2006. I went back into the U.S. Code and checked. The man who really pushed this idea was not a President, at the time, he was a 5-star General, Dwight D. Eisenhower.