Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: January 27, 2008

February 2, 2008

H&I Fires* 2 FEB 2008

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

Time to add a new caveat, because from email it's not clear to some folks (mind you, if you don't read this it won't matter...) Being an open post, people (collectively, the Denizens) other than I post in the H&I. They sign their work (most of the time) - keep that in mind when you want to flame someone in email please - if it doesn't say "The Armorer" or "John" then I didn't write it! And honestly - if you don't like something said or posted... leave a comment, and hash it out (within the context of The Rulez which are clearly posted on the comment form, I would add).

Your feel-good story for the day: What happens when a grenade lands in your Humvee?

The non-feel-good story? British educators now actively discourage teaching of patriotism and show their "sensitivity" to British Muslim schools by not inspecting them as they do other educational institutions. It may take a generation, but stick a fork in her, Britain is done.

The caves and tunnels of Najaf--history and happy memories.

This sounds like a good book for deploying personnel and their spouses. - FbL

*****************************

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... �

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

You must stop reading the headlines in UK right-wing blogs and newspapers. If only for the sake of your blood pressure.

The UK government has authorised a new Inspectorate (which will be routinely vetted by OFSTED - the Office of Standards in Education). This new Inspectorate will cover about 110 private schools (roughly 50 private CHRISTIAN and 60 private Muslim schools. Please note that it's going to cover CHRISTIAN schools as well as Muslim

The fact that it's still overseen by OFSTED is reassuring - 50% of private schools have an arrangement where they don't get vetted by the state.

As for the "British educators now actively discourage teaching of patriotism". This is another ... um... possible misinterpretation.

The UK government is about to introduce a new curriculum for British History which will promote patriotism via an examination of certain aspects of British history (including immigration, the Commomwealth, Empire, the extension of the vote and women's rights). One report - the one that generated this hysteria - has recommended against promoting UNQUESTIONING patriotism (repeat unquestioning)

Muslims represent only 2.8% of the UK population (1.5 million). We're not very worried about them taking over.

posted by Matt W on February 2, 2008 11:13 PM

I didn't say anything about them taking over, I was thinking in terms of a disintegration of common values and a love of country.

I'll go back and take a look to make sure I understood, but I read more than headlines. I clicked on the embedded links in the link I gave, and followed everything right back to original articles.

posted by FbL on February 2, 2008 11:29 PM

I just gotta ask...is Matt like the official British government agent for combating (mis)information on the internet?

posted by kat-missouri on February 3, 2008 2:08 AM

Heh. It occurred to me to wonder...

posted by FbL on February 3, 2008 2:20 AM

Matt - thank you for the input... I suspect that your advice works well applied both directions, too!

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 3, 2008 1:11 PM

Heh. Inserting comments from the email causes me to not see all the comments before I insert my own.

So, you two are wondering if Matt is InfoOp'ing us, eh?

Well, it seems a rather tedious and retail approach to take - unless Mike is like a rash over all the blogs that brought up the topic.

He's very good at it, if he *is* a gov't shill. Most of them sound like Public Affairs geeks.

I think he's doing here what I do on foreign blogs... provide context where there is none, or it's hard to get.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 3, 2008 1:17 PM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by Denizens on Feb 02, 2008 | General Commentary

The SuperBowl

The Chief has a funny joke in the post below about an uberfan. However, some of the New England Patriot's biggest fans will not be on the sidelines tomorrow in Arizona.

As a matter of fact......the best of the best are in Camp (NewEngland) Patriot, Kuwait.

There is some awesome video over at DVIDS with shoutouts from Pat's fans and Giant's fans.

My favorite is here.

GO PAT'S..........Princess Crabby

by Denizens on Feb 02, 2008 | General Commentary

Countdown

Three more hours and I begin the trek to Ft. Benning, Jaja. And, while I'm TSIRTing my fingers to nubs on Sunday (and all the rest of the week, too, but this joke happens to refer to Sunday), you guys can watch The Game with your minds at ease, knowing I'm out there ~~cussing a blue streak~~ stoically preparing to defend your ~~sorry butts~~ right to nacho your LDL numbers into low Earth orbit.

Ummmm -- save me a couple of chili-dogs, John. Extra cheese.

A Patriots fan has 50-yard-line tickets for the Super Bowl. As he sits down, another Pats fan comes down and asks if anyone is sitting in the seat next to him.
"No," said the firstcomer, "the seat is empty."

"This is incredible!" said the second fan. "Who in his right mind would have a seat like this for the Super Bowl, the biggest sporting event in the world, and not use it ?"

Somberly, the first Pats fan says, "Well, the seat actually belongs to me. My wife usually accompanies me, but she passed away. This will be the first Super Bowl we haven’t been to together since we got married in 1967."

"Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. That's terrible. But couldn't you find someone else -- a friend or relative, or even a neighbor -- to take the seat?"

The man shakes his head, sadly, "No. They're all at the funeral…"

Heh. A present for Maggie from her neighbor, Baby-san.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

What is this "Game" of which you are speaking, Chief? Is it the one during the watching of which, (according to Ms. Dworkin and her ilk) the men beat the hell out of the wimminz, and the normally weird people like me can enjoy mostly empty roads, free from the usual a-holes, said a-holes being at home, staring at TV sets depicting stupid ball games, with their mouths hanging open.

Hmm, having no emotional investment in this, maybe I could be a cold-blooded dispassionate bettor on the outcome!

It's late to start learning, though, I'd prolly bet like a sucker, and it ain't legal where I live, anyway.

Owhell.

posted by Justthisguy on February 2, 2008 3:04 AM

P.s. I've written about this before, but I'll say it again:

I remember reading the Tom Clancy novel, "The Sum of All Fears", I think it was, in which the Super Bowl got nuked. I thought, eww, what about the poor bandsmen?

I think that there are no bandsmen at the Stupor Bowel these days, so, uh, I don't think I'll complete my exposition here but y'all can catch my drift, and so froth, and forth.

In general, all of the places which the Feds define as prime terrist targets, such as feetball stadia, shopping malls, New York City, Miami, Boston, Atlanta, New Jersey, Chicago, large public gatherings of any type, etc. etc., are places which require considerable effort of will on my part, if not coercion by other people, for me to visit them.

posted by Justthisguy on February 2, 2008 3:33 AM

Wow,
I'm almost 66 years of age and this is a really old joke. Started, I believe, during some 50's World Series game.
Those were the years, only off-field booze, sex and bribery, none of the on-field steroids,amphetimines,cocaine and off field rape, dog torture,and, corrupting endorsements of today's worthless pro/collegiant "sports".
mike

posted by Mike Daley on February 2, 2008 7:38 PM

Sport is cool if that's all it is, just fun. American football at its best is both very cerebral and very physical.

That's why so many guys get a charge out of playing it. Sadly, it seems to have gotten all warped and distorted, lately, into something like the chariot-racing factions in the last days of Byzantium.

I believe both Jerry Pournelle and David Drake wrote stories which recycled a justifiable massacre done in Constantinople, against sports fans in a sports stadium.

posted by Justthisguy on February 3, 2008 5:36 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by CW4BillT on Feb 02, 2008 | I think it's funny!

February 1, 2008

Okay, this has been a pretty chewy week...

...with lots of meaty, portentous posts and comments - and not enough silliness.

So. Silliness! There is a photo below the fold in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry provided by Boquisucio. It's pretty much safe for most work environments, but... it's down there so no one is embarrassed when they go to a co-worker, "Hey! Lookit this cool website I found, that got lots of good military stuff on ...GAAAAAAAACK!"

Boq proposes a caption contest. I'll get you started, with a caption that will give you a clue, too.

"An Israeli General Staff officer, mistaking the movie "300" for a documentary, introduces proposed changes to the IDF combat uniform..."

That oughta do it. Whoa! Don't get between the Flash Traffic and Werekitty and Princess Crabby! Dangit. Now I'm going to have to replace the door!

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... �

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

by John on Feb 01, 2008 | I think it's funny!

Next time an anti-war protestor confronts you...

...and tells you they're only concerned for the troops.

Ask them where they were during the Clinton Administration?

• During the Clinton presidency total military deaths from all causes were 13,417 whereas during the Bush presidency total military deaths through 2006 from all causes were 9.016.

Emphasis mine - that includes combat deaths.

That disparity is as much a condemnation of the Service's leaders at all levels and their safety record and the off-duty discipline of the soldiers as it is an indictment of either President.

But it's instructive. Ask them, when the war winds down/ends, if they'll be anywhere near as interested in the dead soldiery then.

I'm guessing not. Just keep 'em honest.

Source? Congressional Research Service (link via FAS.org)... neither group are known as shills for the Administration.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �

Just curious, John, what is that number written in # of deaths per 1000 solders?

If I recall correctly, the military was significantly larger during at least the first years of the Clinton administration, so just reciting raw numbers could be a bit misleading.

posted by Jack on February 1, 2008 11:16 AM

Jack - only have numbers for the Army, but they are the biggest component.

1993, 572,000
1995, 513.000
1996, 493,000
1998, 479,000
1999, 468,000
2000, 472,000
2004, 492,000

And the numbers vary up and down, of course, and the wartime year numbers do *not* account for activated Guard and Reserve personnel, while their casualties while are included in the totals.

My point still stands, regarding the antis, and my point regarding the Services and their leadership (of whom I was one during the Clinton administration) still stands, given the level and intensity of combat operations during the Bush administration.

But it would be an interesting exercise, if you could get compatible data sets to run the numbers to answer your question. I don't have time to do it right now, though.

And Jack - back up and open a new comment window to see if your stuff posted - don't keep posting! 8^ D

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 1, 2008 11:32 AM

that's brilliant, John... thanks for linking it!

posted by AFSister on February 1, 2008 12:55 PM

Interesting that the numbers dropped each year under Clinton. I know that there was a big drawdown in 1995 as I was affected; I was assigned to 25th ID(L) in Hawaii that went from three to two brigades on island. Also, We lost a good number in Somalia, not too many in Haiti, so the op tempt probably kept the number of deaths down. I would have expected a spike at the time of the The Balkans, even if from accidents due to the strenuous nature of the operation, but we didn't lose anyone to enemy contact until 2001.

I think that most telling is that the number of self inflicted and homicides went down once we went to war. Soldiers don't do well with too little to do.
"Support the troops! Keep them busy!"

Great post, interesting numbers.

posted by Adam on February 1, 2008 12:58 PM

I'd like to see how they got that 13,417 number. The linked PDF contains the same data which may be found on this site, more specifically in this table titled U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths 1980 through 2006.

Then scan across to the column labled Total Deaths, and add up the years 1993-2000. You'll get 7,500. That's precisely the same number I get from the CRS document. So where did that 13k number come from?

Jack, the site in my first link contains all sorts of data, if you are of the mind to do some crunching. For example, the death rates PDF I linked includes service numbers by year.

There is a chart for death rates by 100,000 serving. Oddly enough, the chart doesn't include total per 100k numbers, but only by category. For example if one adds up the various numbers for 1993, you get 65.6 per 100k. Compare this to 110.7 for the year 1980, 49.5 for 2000, and 144.6 for 2005.

The three biggest factors are accidental deaths, deaths due to hostile action, and deaths due to illness. Deaths due to hostile action were essentially non-existent during Clinton's administration, which also enjoyed the lowest accident and illness rates. Lowest was 26/100k for 2000, compared to 2005's 38.7. Average accidental death rate for the Clinton administration was 30.1625/100k. Note that the first year of the Bush administration showed an accidental death rate of 28/100k, comparable to the late Clinton era.

According to the data -including preliminary data through 2006- there have been 9,747 active military deaths under the Bush administration.

Still, John's main point stands. 7,500 dead is not inconsiderable. Compare this to the mindlessly chanted "over three. thousand. dead!"

So where were the Professionally Concerned back then?

posted by Casey Tompkins on February 1, 2008 1:18 PM

My son went into the USMC in 2004. The SDI at his Boot Camp grad told us to keep an eye on the boys on leave. At that point, there was some pretty good fighting going on in Fallujah and elsewhere and the Corps STILL was loosing more young (1st enlistment) Marines to fatal traffic accidents than to the enemy.

posted by Karla (threadbndr) on February 1, 2008 3:39 PM

Carp, Casey - I got this from a trusted source, and now yer gonna make me go do the math.

posted by John of Argghhh! on February 1, 2008 4:43 PM

It's false.

posted by Antimedia on February 1, 2008 10:04 PM

It very opportune that if you add up the deaths for years 1993-2000 you get exactly 7,500.

It is not 7498 or 7501 it is 7500 on the dot.

When auditors see round numbers like that their eyes narrow and they dig deeper.

posted by Ledger on February 1, 2008 10:22 PM

Well, gee, Ledger, I'm so sorry that I took the actual, honest-to-gosh statistics from the Department of Defense, added them up, and got a round number. Too bad the result isn't a multiple of 666; you'd have a rock-solid argument, then!

Sorry, John, I know I'm skating close against Da Rulez here, but Ledger's argument is just plain silly. What's next, argument by numerology?

Ledger, if you can produce evidence that data provided by Department of Defense is suspect, knock yourself out. I got the numbers from the links provided, all of which are straight government-issue. You did follow the links, didn't you?

John: sorry if I cause some number-crunching down there; I guess you need something to do while waiting for local Ice Age to thaw. (ducking and running for cover) We are, BTW, currently experiencing some occasional flurries in southwest Ohio. :)

I didn't cross-check every single table, but the tables quoted in the CRS study seemed to match quite nicely with the tables I found with the above-linked site. I repeat: I would dearly love to see how they found 13,417 deaths from the provided data. I made a point of checking the Reagan administration numbers, and they come out to 17k and some change, so it shouldn't be a case of swapped "eras."

This seems to be spreading thru the blogosphere as I recently encountered what seemed to be the same meme over at Blackfive.

posted by Casey Tompkins on February 2, 2008 3:11 AM

John,

Sorry...but this dog don't hunt. To get to the 13714 one needs to include the Bush Sr years of 89 thru 92.

Somewhere in DOD they have a dyslexic doing the statistics. If one follows the weekly wounded numbers closely, the WIA and WIA-RTD numbers are frequently reversed. Which make comparing the weekly reports interesting...lets see ...this week we had 600 additional WIA, but but minus 550 WIA-RTD...

DOD isn't very good about posting "Last weeks report was wrong again...this is a corrected version".

I emailed Jack at OSD one time...a day later he e-mailed back "The Numbers look fine to me"...and sure enough...the online report had been corrected.

posted by Soldiers Dad on February 3, 2008 11:39 AM

Of course, any discussion like this about numbers like these is wrong anyway. I understand the original point (that people need to take a look at all the historical data, not just the data that makes G.W. Bush look bad), but comparatives miss the point. Some people died meaningless deaths, some didn't. Some died because a President made stupid decisions (Desert One-Carter) or because the President (or someone) didn't make the right decisions or was given bad advice (Vietnam-Kennedy/Johnson, Somalia-Clinton, Khobar Towers-Clinton), and some died because a tough job had to be done and they were the ones who were doing it (Afghanistan, Iraq-Bush) etc.

To me the question should not be "Which President?" but "Why?" The meaningless deaths of a few dozen soldiers that result from poor leadership is more "wrong" by orders of magnitude than the deaths of thousands who die doing what soldiers are supposed to do, for good, sound reasons. The people who died at Khobar Towers and in Somalia died because leadership did not pay enough attention to the warnings of subordinates or because leadership was doing dumb things for political reasons. The people who've died in war since 9/11 were doing what they volunteered to do, for reasons they felt strongly about. How can anyone compare the deaths under G.W. Bush to the deaths under Carter or Clinton!?!

As far as I'm concerned, both of those men (and Kennedy too for that matter), deserve far more tarring than Bush. Had either Carter or Clinton done their jobs properly, we would likely not today be dealing with either a terrorist nightmare or a nuclear Iran run by Muslim zealots.

Bush didn't start this war, he is just fighting it the way he deems best, and whether we agree with him or not doesn't mean squat. As far as I'm concerned, if people are going to compare military deaths attributed to Presidential decisions as an indication of character or worth, then Lincoln, Wilson, & Roosevelt would be near the top of the list. But I defy anyone to claim those men did anything wrong (in this, at least). More to the point, I wouldn't care if 50,000 American soldiers had died since 2001, nothing done by our current President to date will ever equal in my mind the wrongs of Carter, Clinton, and Kennedy. Who cares how many died when? The real question is why, and as I see it, Truman was the last Democrat who didn’t have anything to apologize for on that score!

And finally, I have to say that it just really puts me off that people make such a big deal about numbers as small as what we're talking about here. Yeah, yeah, I know: every life is important, and every death is painful to someone (I do know that, trust me), but some folks seem to have no sense of perspective. Tens of thousands of people have died in Bhopal India as a result of a leak at a Union Carbide plant in 1984. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers (North and South) died in the American Civil War; millions of people died in the battles between Germany and Russia, with over 1.5 million casualties at the Battle of Stalingrad alone; and over 6M people are estimated to have been killed or died of famine during the Chinese Civil war from 1945-1949.

All told, more then 72 million people are estimated to have been killed or died between 1939 and 1945 as a result of WWII and another 8M or so in post-war China and the Soviet Union; yet, we find people arguing today about which President was responsible for how many of the fewer than 10,000 American deaths in all the conflicts since Vietnam!

What happened to everyone's perspective? Is this really worth the argument?

V/R

posted by SangerM on February 3, 2008 8:19 PM

ummm... I didn't hit the button twice, it burped. Honest. Really.

really

posted by SangerM on February 3, 2008 8:25 PM

Ah, is there a Godwin's Law equivalent for Joe Stalin?

No?

Ok, then; "The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million men is a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin.
.

posted by Justthisguy on February 4, 2008 1:47 AM

� Dismissed, Soldier!

by John on Feb 01, 2008 | ~~GWOT~~ Whatever it is...

The Fog of War: Doctrine at the Crux

[Kat]

First, I want to thank Cannoneer 4 for directing us to the blog by Jennifer Hlad who is blogging and reporting the "court of inquiry" into the incident on March 4 where Marines were attacked by a suicide vehicle bomb, believe that was followed up by small arms fire (SAF), returned fire and a number of Afghanis (19 killed, 34 wounded) were killed and injured, either by the blast, by small arms fire from Marines or insurgents and, even possibly, self inflicted wounds based on testimony from one Afghan physician.

According to Hlad, this is the first Marine "court of inquiry" since 1956 "after a drill instructor marched a platoon of recruits into Ribbon Creek". The hand out that Hlad received describes a court of inquiry as this:

According to the release from Gibson, “the convening authority wanted the facts and evidence available to be evaluated by a panel of senior officers with combat experience in order to get as complete an understanding as what occured and where responsibility may lay before making any further decisions.”

Basically, before they start laying charges, they want to know if there is anything that really needs charged and who. The original and subsequent investigation were hampered by time, space and security issues that precluded any real investigations as a civilian would perceive in a civilian situation. By the time that the first team to respond arrived at the scene (only 30 minutes after incident), most of the bodies of the wounded or killed had been removed. What remained were a few vehicles, some debris and some blood.

The PRT commander and an investigator noted that Afghan tradition was to bury the dead before sunset and that the attack took place on Rte 1 which was paved and led to a hospital in either direction. The investigator also noted three other frustrations in trying to ascertain the details:

1) They were not able to get to the site until well after the incident (thus, hard evidence and witnesses could be gone or tampered with)
2) They did not get to interview any Afghan witnesses until after "solatia payments" had been made ("solatia" as it sounds is "solace" payments for injured, dead and damage to property).
3) They were only allowed 60 minutes on the ground due to "security" issues in the area.

It's difficult to make any assumptions as yet as to what and who might be responsible, if anyone, outside of the persons attacking the Marines. However, within the testimony there are important issues that are reflected in the struggle to date by the Marine Commandant to get Marines into Afghanistan. It's all about doctrine and who rules the turf. Plus a little thrown in about the brand new Marine Special Operations Forces and whether they are supported or accepted among the many Army, Navy and even Air Force SOCs.

[continue in flash traffic]

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... �

The Marines are built to fight, according to the Commandant. You can ask any Marine what his primary mission is and get the same answer. The Marines believe that the fight in Iraq is about over and the fight in Afghanistan is heating up. They want to go where there is action. Of course, there is a lot of "Ooh-Rah" in that statement that misses the relationship building and training of indigenous forces in Al Anbar that, according to the latest intel summaries, has turned that area into Sunday morning in Maine. (H/T Michael Yon).

While the army is still struggling somewhat in the larger, more urban areas and in the north to quell AQI and various other "insurgents". Of course, each area presents its own problems from terrain to demographics, so comparisons on that scale are not applicable. Apples to Oranges, they say, and that is right. Yet, there is still pride in accomplishment and belief that what the Marines bring to the fight is the "lean and mean" of armed forces.

While the Army finally pushed out of large bases into COPs, PBs and smaller FOBs in order to accomplish COIN, the marines have been living in and eating dirt with their Iraqi counterparts for sometime. The conditions, Michael Totten once explained, that their grandfathers would have recognized on Iwo or in the Chosen. They are very quick and very deadly when necessary. As the saying goes, "best friend or worst enemy". The Marines believed in securing the territory and the people first, with force as necessary and that belief eventually won them the respect of the tribal leaders and sheiks. They believed the Marines when they said they wouldn't leave them to the mercy of Al Qaida. That trust translated into the development of the "Awakening" and the extension into other CLCs across Iraq.

Those are a few of the capabilities that the Marines believe they will bring to the fight in Afghanistan.

The Army, on the other hand, is not excited about the advent of the Marines on their turf. From their perspective, the Marines are the hammer in a field of operations that requires a scalpel and infinite patience. The PRTs (reconstruction teams), have divvied up Afghanistan into regions that they control along with their NATO counterparts. Their focus is largely on "reconstruction" and relationship building, leaving the "ops" to Army Spec Ops in those areas as much as possible along with very small patrol units.

Barring Helmand, of course, which remains largely in the hands of the Taliban with various treaties and agreements in place that keep down violence to a degree. Some of which the Afghan National Government is none too pleased about and ended with expelling a German and a British UN worker at the end of 2007. The Brits were forced to take Musa Qala back with force after the agreements fell through.

The Army sees themselves as the velvet glove, small foot print, light hand on the reins. In fact, the entire NATO force is appx 40,000 or 1/4th the force in Iraq covering an area slightly larger than Iraq with approximately the same population. Though, in Afghanistan, that population is spread out over a slightly wider area, there are still large urban populations as in Iraq. These urban areas, including Jalalabad, Kandahar and Kabul, have seen an up tick in attacks on NATO forces.

The army isn't interested in hammers unless they are building schools and hospitals. They see the Marines' penchant for "killing people and breaking things" as a disaster for their long term plans in Afghanistan. Those plans are to fight only if absolutely necessary, build the infrastructure and relationships to tie the Afghan people to the central government in hopes that they will eventually see that as a better alternative than supporting the Taliban and other extremists. At the same time, building enough strength into the central government and armed forces of Afghanistan that it can maintain some control.

The size and make up of the US and NATO forces presume the inability to fully secure the population. Several NATO countries have forces in country with a mandate to build and defend themselves only. They are not mandated for offensive operations. Those nations that are mandated for offensive ops, like Canada, the Dutch, Australia and England have very small contingents in place compared to the US forces, but have born the brunt of fighting along with US forces since 2001.

Even among NATO allies, doctrine has become a sticky subject. The recent dust up with Defense Secretary Gates and other NATO allies is just the latest permutation of a difference in strategy, tactics and expected outcomes. The advent of the Marines in Afghanistan is just the spice added to the pot.

And, while everyone argues about doctrine and attempts to protect their turf, in Afghanistan, there are whole populations still under control of the Taliban. More than half of the schools that are "opened" by the PRT are eventually closed by force, destroyed directly or students and teachers threatened until they don't go. The paved roads not only make it easier for legitimate commerce and security forces to traverse the country, but for the insurgents and opium traders as well.

The main complaint among tribal elders is not that the US or its allies are too aggressive, but that they come in to the area, make a bunch of promises and then leave. The Taliban arrives and the tribe is right back where it started or worse.

The whole issue of doctrine is present all over this court of inquiry. Coming into Afghanistan, the Marine Special Operations Forces look like the red-headed step child. On their way in, they discover they have little operations support. They have no radio technicians, no mechanics and lack various other support personnel and equipment. No one is willing to give any up and they are having to beg and borrow just to get by. Their commander reports this up the chain of command, but resolution does not seem to appear.

On arrival, they are greeted with a jaundiced eye. They actually have to explain to the AO commanders what they can do for them and why they are there. While they are already on the ground. After they sort that out, they are shown around the AO with apparent warnings that, while they could plan their own operations, they had to coordinate them, not just through the joint task force central command, but also with the PRT command as well and that the PRT command could veto those operations.

There is classified testimony that may be leaving out parts of the story, but there are overtones that suggest that the Marines did not follow this process. The PRT commander did not sound happy about it. On the day the Marines were attacked, the commander said he had no idea they were going on mission. The Marines said they coordinated with another unit and that they had submitted their operation plans to JTFC.

In the middle of all this, there are several situations described that highlight the difference in doctrine. While at Torkham Gate near the Pakistan border, the Marines witness an army unit going through their "fire response" tactics. The gunners are wrapped up in major armor in their turrets and they are practicing dropping down inside the humvee when they are attacked. One Marine points out that the Marines are not trained to do that. They are trained to fire back and push through the ambush. That's what they were doing in Iraq and that is what they did in Afghanistan.

During the drive to Torkham Gate, most cars get out of the way. Those that don't, the Marines throw rocks at their cars to make them move. In Iraq, they would have used flares, but the Marines say they don't have any in Afghanistan (part of their supply problem?) and the Spec Ops briefing said to use rocks so they don't have to fire at the cars. On the way back, the cars are not moving and attempt to weave in and out of the convoy, making the Marines more tense. Hand and arm signals aren't working and neither are the rocks. The Marines are contemplating firing warning shots. At this time, several cars drive towards them. The Marines throw a rock to make them move. The taxi swerves to the side, but a van packed with explosives does not. That's when the Marines were attacked.

Finally, on egressing the area, the Marines are much more aggressive about clearing traffic out of their way and use warning shots into car blocks to force cars back or away. They did as they were trained and left the area quickly to return to base "driving through the ambush". The PRT commander says this is not what the Army does. He said they would secure the area, check for civilian casualties to be evac'd and get basic information on the situation.

Is that last part always true? Or, is that the hoped for practice? Some reported instances from Afghanistan would seem to imply that securing the area and checking for civilian casualties directly after an incident instead of driving through the ambush or through to the next objective is not 100% true. In which case, you have to wonder why the PRT commander felt the need to expound on that.

In the end, the question of the Marines actions on March 4, 2007 seems to come down to doctrine and training. That question seems to be the sticking point for getting Marines back into Afghanistan this entire time. What are the Marines going to be doing in Afghanistan and where? The Army is interested in reconstruction and limited firefights. The Marines, as one notes, are trained to go into a "hot battle space" and "take control of it".

Last, though briefly touched on, the MARSOC might want to review the planned MSOFs and make sure that, when they go in, they are self sufficient or have a real support base to insure proper supplies, equipment and repairs.

There is a lot more to read and take away from the inquiry. Please read Jennifer Hlad's blog and subsequent updates at Court of Inquiry.

[On a separate note, re: rocks v. flares for warning vehicles away - its interesting to note how long it took the enemy to translate tactics from Iraq into Afghanistan, such as SVBIEDs, EFPs and the general make up of complex ambushes and then to see that our own ability to translate simple tactics and equipment into Afghanistan may be just as slow or worse]

� Secure this line!

by Kat on Feb 01, 2008 | ~~GWOT~~ Whatever it is...

Veteran's Affairs Update, Part II.

This is the TOC for the remainder of the Veteran's Affairs Update from the post below:

== VA Performance [01] ------------------------ (Future Concerns)
== Tricare Lap-Band Surgery --------------------- (Now Available)
== Veteran Charities [06] -------------------- (Hearings Scheduled)
== Veteran Charities [07] --------- (Congressional Hearing Held)
== Oklahoma Vet Insurance Plan ----------------------- (Suggested)
== Gulf War Vet Advisory Committee ---- (Request to Establish)
== DOD Disability Evaluation System [09] ------- (Improvements)
== Tricare EOBs [03] ------------------------------- (On Line Access)
== Military Deaths ----------------------------------- (By Year)
== CA & Federal Disabled Benefits (100% SC) ------------- (List)
== CA & Federal Pension Benefits ----- (Non-service Connected)
== Veteran Legislation Status 30 JAN 08 ------ (Where We Stand)

Download House Veteran's Legislation Update

Download Senate Veteran's Legislation Update

The details are in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... �

VA PERFORMANCE UPDATE 01: Few federal programs have seen the kind of turnaround experienced by the Veterans Affairs Department's health care system in the late 1990s. Formerly a poster child for substandard medical care and incompetent management, VA's health care system now is considered by
many to be the best in the country. Its ratings for quality of care and customer satisfaction have risen even as the patient load has increased. Major media outlets have credited the agency's use of electronic medical records, unprecedented even in the private sector, with improving medical care, and Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have held up VA's system as a model for nationwide health care reform. But the department's success is in jeopardy, according to Dr. Kenneth Kizer, undersecretary for health at Veterans Affairs from 1994 to 1999 and
the man many credit with leading the management reforms that ultimately fixed the broken health care system. Kizer now serves on the independent Commission on the Future of America's Veterans, which is examining demographic and budgetary trends, as well as changes in both warfare and health care, with an eye to providing the most effective programs and services to veterans. "We see a future that is not particularly bright for the VA," said Kizer, speaking at a forum in Washington sponsored by the New America Foundation, a nonprofit public policy institute. Rising medical costs, aging infrastructure and an increase in patients with serious, and expensive, medical needs all are
contributing to growing concern that medical care for veterans will deteriorate under the current system. "Economics are going to be driving some very difficult decision-making down the road," Kizer said. For that reason, the commission is planning to recommend later this year that Congress create a government-chartered entity, structured somewhat like the U.S. Postal Service, to manage
health care for veterans, he said. The entity's charter would detail its mission, funding, governance and assets, as well as requirements that senior managers hold specific skill sets and areas of expertise.

As a federal agency dependent on congressional appropriations, Veterans Affairs is increasingly ill-suited to manage health care for veterans, Kizer said. The annual appropriations process creates program instability and prevents strategic planning. In addition, the agency cannot exercise the kind of management judgment that corporations routinely exercise. For example, VA has found it extraordinarily difficult to close underused or outdated hospitals since no member of Congress wants to lose a medical facility in his or her district. As a result, the agency can't close hospitals in areas where they're not needed or build new ones in areas where they are needed. "The average age of VA hospitals is 50 years old," said William Diefenderfer, former deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget and now a commissioner. We haven't built a new hospital in 20 years. A government-chartered entity "would have the authority to buy and sell assets and borrow money against them," Diefenderfer said. It also would be able to create new sources of revenue. For example, it could provide health care to all veterans and their families who have the ability to pay
- something the VA cannot do currently. Arthur Hamerschlag, former chief of staff at the Veterans Health Administration, the health care arm of Veterans Affairs, said he was not necessarily opposed to the creation of a government-chartered health system for veterans, but that a number of issues would first need to be resolved, including how the new entity would negotiate drug prices and whether or not it would accept Medicare - something VHA does not do now. Veterans Affairs has been able to hold down drug costs because federal law allows the agency to negotiate below-market prices from pharmaceutical companies, something private health care systems would likely protest if a
new quasi-private entity were created that could compete for patients, as the commission envisions. "I think VA will find itself in the medical marketplace in a way it does not now," said Hamerschlag. "That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it will require a different skill set." [Source: GOVExec.com Katherine McIntire Peters 16 Jan 08 ++

TRICARE LAP-BAND SURGERY: Tricare beneficiaries whose weight poses a serious health risk now have available a new surgical alternative. For those who medically qualify, Tricare now covers laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, also commonly called Lap-Band surgery. Although the TRICARE policy change has only recently been made, coverage is retroactive to 1 FEB 07. Maj. Gen. Elder
Granger, deputy director of the Tricare Management Activity said, “We at Tricare are careful to only cover procedures that have been proven safe and effective, and are accepted by the medical community. We’ve added this procedure because, for some beneficiaries, it may be the right course of
action to preserve their health.” Granger added that, like gastric bypass, gastric stapling or gastroplasty, Lap-Band surgery is only for those suffering morbid obesity. In medical terms, that means their body weight is 100 pounds over ideal weight for their height and bone structure, and their weight is associated with severe medical conditions known to have higher mortality rates. Body
weight that is more than twice the ideal weight for the person’s height and bone structure may also indicate morbid obesity. In addition, Tricare will cover the surgery if a patient has had an intestinal bypass or other surgery for obesity and, because of complications, requires a second surgery. Details of the coverage are available in the Tricare Policy Manual, which beneficiaries can view
online at http://manuals.tricare.osd.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=TMAManuals.DisplayManualSeriesInfo&ManualSeries=POLICY&TP02=67#TP02.
A search for "morbid obesity" goes directly to the correct section. [Source: TMA News Release 16 Jan 08 ++]

VETERAN CHARITIES UPDATE 06: With scores of U.S. soldiers returning home from Vietnam, California businessman and Army veteran Roger Chapin founded a charity in 1971 dedicated to those troops recuperating in hospitals. Over the next three decades, Help Hospitalized Veterans would distribute
millions of therapeutic craft kits to make moccasins, wooden wind chimes and other trinkets and would win accolades from presidents and Hollywood celebrities alike. Yet, as the nonprofit enterprise has ballooned into one of the country's largest veterans charities, reporting $71.3 million in donations during the past fiscal year, its spending practices have drawn sharp criticism from
charity watchdogs. Between 1997 and 2005, the charity paid $3.8 million in salary and benefits to Chapin and his wife and spent more than $200 million on fundraising and public education campaigns, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal tax filings. The public records also show that the charity awarded at least $19 million in contracts during that period to companies owned by Richard A. Viguerie, a prominent conservative political commentator and advertising consultant based in Virginia.

Help Hospitalized Veterans is one of several military-oriented charities whose spending practices are the subject of a congressional investigation. Chapin evaded U.S. marshals trying to serve him with a subpoena last month, said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Chapin, who has since been served, is expected to testify
today before the committee. Chapin, who has founded more than 20 nonprofit organizations over three decades, also is president and founder of the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes, a smaller charity that provides emergency financial assistance to veterans and their families. That group is also under investigation by Congress, according to committee staff members, and is expected to be a subject of the hearing. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a committee member, said in an interview the committee wants to find a way to distinguish between charities that truly serve veterans and those "committing fraud against the public."

Chapin, reached at his San Diego home last month, said watchdogs and members of Congress are misrepresenting his charities. No laws at the federal or state level regulate the amount of money charities spend on overhead, fundraising or charitable causes. The American Institute of Philanthropy, a leading charity watchdog, issued a report last month suggesting that Help Hospitalized Veterans and 19 other veterans’ charities manage their resources poorly, paying high overhead costs and direct-mail fundraising fees. Help Hospitalized Veterans spends 31% of its funds on charitable causes according to Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy. The
institute recommends that charities spend at least 60% of their funds on charitable programs. Critics have not contended that all veterans’ charities manage their funds poorly. Some charities, including the Fisher House Foundation and the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust,
consistently have received high marks from watchdogs.

High overhead costs can be expected for start-up charities, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA) said in an interview. But he said it is important to determine whether some veteran’s charities have been "a serial swindler in terms of taking people's money and not spending it." Help Hospitalized Veterans paid Chapin $426,434 in salary and benefits in the past fiscal year, The Post's review
of a tax filing showed. His wife, Elizabeth, received $113,623 in salary and benefits as "newsletter editor," the filing shows. In the filing, the charity reports that the Chapins each worked 40 hours per week. In a separate tax filing, the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes reported that Roger Chapin worked another 40 hours per week for his job there but did not collect pay. Mike Lynch,
executive director of Help Hospitalized Veterans, said the charity's board considers Chapin's wages "proper compensation." Help Hospitalized Veterans has spent some of its donations in the real estate market. The charity purchased a condominium unit in Fairfax County in May 2006 for $444,600, according to property records reviewed by The Post. Chapin said the charity purchased the Falls Church apartment because of his frequent travel to Washington. The charity also purchased at least nine properties in the past decade in California, where the group has its headquarters, records reviewed by The Post show. The charity has long had ties to Viguerie. Richard Viguerie has been dubbed the "funding father" of modern conservative strategy, having pioneered important tactics in computerized direct mail strategy in the 1970s and 1980s. He is considered the direct mail titan of the right. In the past fiscal year, Viguerie's companies received $3.9 million from the charity, according to its filings with the Internal Revenue Service. Viguerie has been asked to testify at the hearing. Reached at his office in Manassas this week, an assistant said Viguerie would not
answer questions from a Post reporter, citing a policy against commenting on clients. [Source: Washington Post Philip Rucker article17 Jan 08 ++]

VETERAN CHARITIES UPDATE 07: A congressional investigation 16 JAN uncovered new allegations of questionable spending practices at two veterans charities, including one that paid retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks $100,000 to appear in its solicitation letters using money the nonprofit raised to
help soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. At a raucous three-hour hearing House members questioned California entrepreneur Roger Chapin about his management of two charities. One charity, Help Hospitalized Veterans, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations that were to help
wounded soldiers on personal expenses for Chapin, executive director Mike Lynch and Richard A. Viguerie, to whom the charity has awarded millions of dollars in fundraising-consulting contracts, the hearing found. The expenses included at least $340,000 in meals, hotels and entertainment; a $135,000 loan to Lynch for a divorce settlement with his former wife; a $17,000 country club
membership; three airplane tickets to Hawaii; and a $1 million loan to Viguerie for a start-up initiative at his firm, several members of the committee said. Chapin said he later repaid the charity for the flights and said the golf club membership was a “perk” for board members. The second charity, the Coalition to Support America ‘s Heroes, used Franks in its solicitation letters, the House
Committee on Government Oversight and Reform found.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) chairman of the committee said Help Hospitalized Veterans raised more than $168 million from 2004 to 2006. The charity spent a quarter of those donations on the veterans, with the rest going to direct-mail fundraising, salaries and other expenses. Republicans and Democrats voiced outrage over what Waxman called an intolerable fraud. “Most of the millions they receive never reach veterans or their families,” Waxman said. “Instead, the groups waste those contributions on bloated overhead costs and self-enrichment.” There are no laws that regulate how much charities spend on fundraising and overhead costs. There also are no requirements that nonprofit groups disclose such breakdowns in their solicitations. Several lawmakers signaled yesterday that they may introduce legislation aimed at helping donors better understand the finances of nonprofit groups. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT.) asked Chapin what would happen if his charities told donors how their donations were spent. “If we disclose, which I’m more than happy to do, we’d all be out of business,” Chapin said. “Nobody would donate. It would dry up.”

A spokesman for Franks said the retired general made several speeches for the charity in 2004 and 2005, as well as allowing his name to appear on direct mailings for about a year. He ended his support “when he learned that the percentage of money raised that was going to the troops was less than 85%, a figure which was then and remains today, his criteria for supporting charitable
organizations,” said retired Col. Michael Hayes, Frank ’s chief of staff. Lynch told The Post this week that Help Hospitalized Veterans meets the Better Business Bureau’s standards, but bureau President H. Art Taylor said yesterday that both Chapin charities do not. A committee member, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), expressed anger over his colleagues’ harsh scrutiny of Chapin’s charities. “I
am deeply concerned that we’re whacking on groups that are supporting the military,” Cannon said. Chapin’s nonprofit groups are two of several veterans’ charities under scrutiny for their spending practices. The American Institute of Philanthropy, a leading watchdog group, has suggested that Chapin’s groups are among 19 military-oriented charities that manage their resources poorly. Some other veteran’s charities consistently received high marks from the institute and other watchdog groups... [Source: Washington Post Philip Rucker article 18 Jan 08 ++]

OKLAHOMA VET INSURANCE PLAN: Saying one out of eight veterans is uninsured, Sen. Andrew Rice (D-Oklahoma city) proposed 15 JAN creating an Oklahoma Veterans Health Insurance program. He said many people think all veterans qualify for free health care through the U.S. Veterans affairs Department. "Sadly, that's not true, and when the Legislature sets our priorities at the beginning of this session, Oklahoma's military veterans deserve to be at or near the top,” said Rice. The proposed insurance program would not be free. Veterans would be required to pay premiums and co-payments based on their household income. According to the latest census information, Oklahoma has 340,000 veterans. Under his proposal, the veterans' health insurance program would be administered by the Oklahoma Veterans Affairs Department. [Source: NewsOK.com 16 Jan 08 ++]

GULF WAR VETERAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE: A U.S. congressman is asking the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a committee that would give Persian Gulf War veterans a better and simpler way to access VA resources. In a 3 JAN letter to VA Secretary James Peake, U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards
(D-TX) requested the formation of a Gulf War Veteran Advisory Committee, writing that the current setup does not adequately address the range of issues facing those who fought in that 1991 war. Edwards also chairs the U.S. House Military Appropriations Subcommittee. Currently, the VA’s Research Advisory Committee (RAC) is the only “Gulf War-focused entity” within the department, Edwards writes, and that committee’s charter is focused on medical research recommendations. Kirt Love, a Gulf War veteran who served with the 1st Armored Division, asked for Edwards’ help in an effort to better communicate the needs of veterans from his war, which he feels are neglected. Love said in
an e-mail that he became “deathly ill” after the war and has struggled for answers. “Currently VA pretends that Gulf War veterans do not exist and is non-responsive to any request made of them,” Love wrote in an e-mail. “Things are worse than ever before and VA doesn’t seem to care about that
fact. So veterans like myself struggle with inferior care and minimal benefits, forgotten by the country we served faithfully in 1991.” VA representatives have not yet responded to requests for comment. But Josh Taylor, an Edwards spokesman, wrote in an e-mail that “In general, Chairman Edwards
felt this was an important issue to bring to the attention of the Secretary.” And as the legislative session gets under way, there will be opportunities to discuss the committee further, Taylor said.

Excerpts from the letter include, “As you know, many of these veterans have felt neglected by the government — both the VA and the Defense Department — and while there are a wide range of issues they would like to raise, there is no common venue within the VA for them to raise their concerns…While these issues are brought to the RAC, simply because its charter deals with Gulf War
Illness, the RAC is not equipped or authorized to address them. A committee focusing on Gulf War veterans would help identify and prioritize unmet needs while consolidating improvements to care and services for those veterans… In May the VA established the Advisory Committee on OIF/OEF Veterans
and Families, which provides support for veterans of those wars. A similar entity should be available for Gulf War veterans …Including veterans of the conflict in the committee would be “critical. I would hope the committee would have some autonomy, its own staff, and some members of the committee from outside the government. I believe this would help the committee build trust with Gulf War veterans and therefore improve the committee’s ability to succeed from the outset.” [Source: Stars and Stripes George Ziezulewicz article 15 Jan 08 ++]

DOD DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM UPDATE 09: The Army’s new Warrior Transition Unit led by Lt. Col. Chip Pierce is a brigade designed specifically to address the administrative needs of injured soldiers. In February, Army Times reported that soldiers languished for months — even years — in
the medical hold system, facing bureaucratic tangles as they worked their way toward the physical evaluation board to determine their disability rating for retirement pay. The stories, as well as reports from the Pentagon Inspector’s General and Government Accountability Office and testimony of injured soldiers before Congress, brought about a series of investigations and planned changes. And the new Warrior Transition Unit meant officials could immediately put some of those changes into effect. Since then, the Army has added staff, improved training for counselors and lawyers, and ensured every soldier has someone overseeing his or her progress through the system. And Building
18, Walter Reed’s dilapidated symbol of the breakdown in the system, no longer houses wounded soldiers.

While the number of soldiers medically retired — meaning they received a disability rating of 30% or higher or had at least 18 years of service when they went through the disability process — declined from 2005 to 2006, it increased by several hundred in 2007, according to figures provide by Col. Carlton Buchanan, deputy commander of the Army’s Physical Disability Agency. Moreover,
Buchanan said, while 270 fewer soldiers were medically retired in 2006 than in 2005, the percentage of those completing the evaluation process that were medically retired went up over that time, and has continued to rise in 2007:
• In 2005, 13,048 soldiers went through the process and 2,232 were medically retired, about 17.1%.
• In 2006, 10,460 soldiers went through the process and 1,956 were medically retired, about 18.7%.
• In 2007, 10,400 soldiers went through the process and 2,397 were medically retired — about 23%.
The 8,003 soldiers who weren’t medically retired in 2007 either were found fit and remained in the
Army, were awarded a lump-sum severance payment based on rank and years of service, or were separated without benefits if their condition was found to be pre-existing and they hadn’t been in the military for at least seven years. About 8,900 soldiers remain in the Warrior Transition Unit waiting for their final disability evaluation board.

Things still aren’t perfect; Pierce said it’s hard to judge how soldiers feel about the improvements because they weren’t in the system a year ago. And there are still cases taking longer than they should to go through the process. But now, rather than justifying a months-long quagmire, as had been done by other officials in the past, Pierce said his office tracks, by name, every soldier whose transition takes longer than 60 days. Prior to the 60-day mark, soldiers’ squad leaders in the Warrior Transition Units are responsible for making sure soldiers move through as quickly as possible. The Marine Corps also stood up a Wounded Warriors regiment last spring to keep track of Marines and sailors going through the disability retirement system. Though the Navy and the
Marine Corps have a better track record for getting service members through the process, there have been worries about the equity of their ratings system. An Army Times investigation last spring found that enlisted Marines lag far behind enlisted sailors and airmen in the size of the average disability payments they are awarded. The 2006 data released by the Defense Department’s Office of the
Actuary show Marines and soldiers continue to lag, even though they have higher injury rates and could be expected to have a greater proportion of serious injuries because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than do sailors or airmen. Their ranks and times in service were also comparable. The
average monthly disability payments for all enlisted members receiving disability pay from the military in 2006:
• Enlisted: • Air Force: $963 • Navy: $845 • Army: $792 • Marine Corps: $774.
• Officers: • Air Force: $2,668 • Navy: $2,392 • Marine Corps: $2,336 • Army: $2,067.

According to the Office of the Actuary, the number of Marines medically retired in 2006 went up by about 200 compared with the previous year — far more than any other service. The Air Force and Navy also saw increases in permanent disability retirements from 2005 to 2006 of 125 airmen and
36 sailors. Buchanan said part of the reason for the Army’s increase of more than 400 disability retirements in 2007 was that combat-related injuries rose to 18% from about 15% the year before. Among soldiers going through the military disability evaluation process, more than half of those with combat-related injuries are retired, Buchanan said. Another reason for the increase, he said,
is “increased training of physicians and adjudicators, coupled with greater precision in describing injuries, such as scars, muscle and nerve injuries, as well as mental disorders. That gives medical boards better information to determine proper disability percentages”. [Source: ArmyTimes
Kelly Kennedy article 15 Jan 0 ++]

TRICARE EOBS UPDATE 03: The Defense Department is limiting the amount of Tricare paper it sends to military retirees age 65 and older and their families by sending explanations of benefits forms only once a month. Others covered under Tricare, including active-duty families, will continue to have the choice of receiving a paper copy of their explanation of benefits (EOB) mailed each time
a claim is processed, even if there are multiple claims in a month. An explanation of benefits provides details of what action Tricare has taken on claims by doctors and other health care providers seeking payment for services to a patient. Officials said the monthly statement will allow easier comparison with the quarterly Medicare Summary Notice. There are exceptions to the monthly policy for these retirees and their family members; statements will be sent if the EOB includes a check to the patient, or if a claim is denied and the patient has appeal rights for those services. As in the past, patients can view an EOB online any time a claim is processed. Those who are not already registered for this service can do so at https://www.tricare4u.com/apps-portal/tricareapps-app/unauth/tricarehome.jsp. Beginning 14 FEB
patients will have the option of receiving an e-mail notification when a claim is processed. They can then log on to the website to view and print their EOBs. Once patients sign up for this option, however, they will not receive a mailed monthly summary of explanations of benefits. Patients will be able to view the EOBs for any claim processed within the last 27 months. Beneficiaries with
questions about the registration process can call (866) 773-0404. [Source: MRGRG Karen Jowers article 15 Jan 08 ++]

MILITARY DEATHS: CRS Report for Congress (Order code: RL32492) American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf is written in response to numerous requests for war casualty statistics and lists of war dead. It provides
tables, compiled by sources at the Department of Defense (DOD), indicating the number of fatalities and numbers of wounded among American military personnel serving in principal wars and combat actions from the Revolutionary War to the current Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) (operations in Afghanistan and related conflicts). A review of the composite data reveals the following.

• During the period between the Revolutionary War and the Persian Gulf War, it was the Civil War that produced the most American fatalities, when Union statistics and Confederate estimates are taken into account.
• World War II was the first war in which there were more battle deaths than deaths from other causes such as accidents, disease, and infections.
• With a total of 382 in-theater deaths, 147 of which were battle deaths, the Persian Gulf War was the least costly in terms of fatalities.
• The ongoing Operation Iraqi Freedom to date has produced more than nine times the number of in-theater deaths than the Persian Gulf War (which lasted seven months).
• During the Clinton presidency total military deaths from all causes were 13,417 whereas during the Bush presidency total military deaths through 2006 from all causes were 9.016.

• The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:

>>European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
>>Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
>>Black...................................... 12.3%
>>Asian ...................................... 3.7%
>>Native American ...................... 1.0%
>>Other ...................................... 2.6%

• Fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
>>European descent (white) ..... 74.31%
>>Hispanic ............................. 10.74%
>>Black ................................... 9.67%
>>Asian ................................. . 1.81%
>>Native American .................... 1.09%
>>Other .................................... . 33%

• The casualty statistics for wars long ended are updated periodically, sometimes yearly. This almost always reflects the identification of remains of persons previously listed as missing in action and those persons’ reclassification as dead. Other reasons, much rarer, include the discovery of errors in casualty records for individuals or categories of people. [Source: Honolulu-Eagles Military statistics msg 14 Jan 08 ++]

CALIFORNIA & FEDERAL DISABLED BENEFITS (100% SC): Veterans who are residents of California who are rated 100% totally disabled by the VA as a result of a service connected (SC) determination are entitled to the following state and federal benefits. This list was last updated OCT 06. For residents of other states the federal benefits are the same but the state benefits will be in accordance with that state’s laws. To determine what they are check the VA website associated with the state in question:
1. Eligibility for additional allowance for dependents—spouse, children, dependent parent(s).
2. Eligibility for additional aid and attendance allowance for disabled spouse.
3. Enrollment in VA Healthcare Priority Group 1 (no co-payments required).
4. VA fee basis outpatient medical card (all conditions requiring treatment, whether SC or not).
5. Eligibility for all necessary dental care.
6. Eligibility for sensorineural aids—hearing aids, eyeglasses, contact lenses—without regard to whether the condition producing need for such is service-connected.
7. Eligibility for long-term VA Nursing Home care for any condition.
8. Eligibility for health care coverage under CHAMPVA for spouse and children (unless they are also eligible for TRICARE).
9. Eligibility for Service-Disabled Veterans’ Insurance (RH), including up to $20,000 supplemental insurance beyond regular amount.
10. Waiver of VA life insurance premiums, if under age 65 (but not on additional amounts).
11. Possible eligibility for special monthly compensation for loss or loss of use of a creative organ; loss of a female breast; loss or loss of use of one hand, one foot, or one eye; loss of use of both buttocks; complete deafness in both ears; or, complete organic aphonia (loss of ability to communicate by speech).
12. Possible eligibility for special monthly compensation for loss or loss of use of both eyes, both hands, or both feet, or one hand and one foot. Includes paired extremities or organs (one SC, the other NSC, 38 CFR § 3.383) and combinations of losses.
13. Possible eligibility for special monthly compensation because of being permanently housebound or having one disability rated 100% plus other conditions independently ratable at 60% or more.
14. Possible eligibility for special monthly compensation because of being so helpless as to require the regular aid and attendance of another person.
15. Possible eligibility for payment of annual clothing allowance for specified SC disorders resulting in need for prosthetic appliance or use of a wheelchair, or for certain skin conditions.
16. Possible eligibility for one-time assistance in purchase of specially-adapted automobile.
17. Possible eligibility for Automobile Adaptive Equipment Allowance.
18. Eligibility for education or training under VA Vocational Rehabilitation.
19. Possible eligibility for Special Adapted Housing Assistance.
20. Possible eligibility for Special Home Adaptation Grant.
21. Possible eligibility for Veterans’ Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI).
22. CAL-VET Home Loan Disability Insurance.
23. Eligibility for property tax exemption on principle residence.
24. Home loan guaranty funding fee exemption.
25. Possible eligibility for Home Improvement and Structural Alteration (HISA) home modification grant.
26. Golden Access Passport for U.S. National Parks.
27. California State Park pass (requires SC wartime-incurred disability) ($3.50 one-time fee).
28. Reduced fee for hunting license.
29. Reduced fee for basic sport fishing license.
30. Eligibility for 10-point preference for Federal Civil Service employment. Under certain circumstances, may be employed on a noncompetitive basis. The 10-point preference is also applicable for the spouse and/or natural mother of a permanently totally service-disabled veteran.
31. Eligibility for 15-point preference for State of California employment. The spouse of a 100% disabled veteran is eligible for 10-point preference.
32. Eligibility for Survivors’ and Dependents’ Education Assistance for spouse and/or children under 38 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
33. Eligibility for CAL-VET College Tuition and Fee Waiver for spouse and children (Plan A). Requires wartime service. May not e authorized concurrently with VA education assistance under Chapter 35.
34. Eligibility for CAL-VET College Tuition and Fee Waiver for children (Plan B). May be authorized concurrently with VA education assistance under Chapter 35.
35. Eligibility for son(s) and/or daughter(s) to compete for admission to military academies.
36. Eligibility for military identification card.
37. Possible eligibility for DMV Disabled Veteran license plates.
38. Eligibility for exemption from vehicle license fees.
39. If a 20-year military retiree, possible eligibility for CDRP or CRSC.
40. Withdrawal from SBP program participation (military retirees) after having been rated SC, totally disabled for 10 continuous years, or, if out of service less than 10 years, having been rated SC, totally disabled for at least 5 continuous years from date of last active duty.
41. Possible eligibility for the California Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) and the Federal Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB) programs. [Source: CA Dept of VA website Nov 07 ++]

CALIFORNIA & FEDERAL PENSION BENEFITS: Veterans who are residents of California who are disabled as a result of non-service connected (NSC) determinations by the VA are entitled to a number of state and federal benefits. Following is a checklist that can be used to assist in obtaining these benefits. This checklist was last updated OCT 06:

A. Claim Requirements:
1. Minimum of 90 consecutive days of active service or was discharged because of SC disability. If veteran entered service after 1980, the service requirement is 24 continuous months or the full period for which called to active duty, whichever is less, unless discharged sooner because of hardship, reduction-in-force, or SC disability. In any event, at least one day of service must have been during a wartime period.
2. If veteran is under age 65, evidence that veteran is in receipt of any disability benefit administered by the Social Security Administration (either SSA or SSI); or, is a long-term patient in a nursing home because of disability; or, medical evidence showing the veteran is unable to work because of disability.
3. Medical evidence to show that veteran is in need of regular aid and attendance or is housebound (if applicable).
4. Report projected family income—include income from all sources, including farm and/or business. Also list deductions/exclusions—unreimbursed medical expenses, children’s wages, etc.
5. Report net worth.
6. Dependency documents—marriage certificate, birth certificate(s), death certificate(s), divorce decree(s), VA Form(s) 21-674(as applicable). If an adult child is claimed as disabled (helpless), submit appropriate medical evidence in support.

B. Benefits:
1. Possible additional pension payable if housebound or if so helpless as to require the regular aid and attendance of another person (includes nursing home patients).
2. Additional pension payable if veteran served during World War I.
3. VA outpatient medical card if entitled to aid and attendance or housebound benefits, or if a World War I veteran.
4. Enrollment in VA Healthcare Priority Group 4 (no co-payments required) if entitled to aid and attendance or housebound benefits.
Enrollment in Priority Group 5 (no co-payments required) if entitled to basic pension. Enrollment in Priority Group 6 (no co-payments required) if a World War I veteran.
5. Eligibility for sensorineural aids—hearing aids, eyeglasses, contact lenses—if housebound or in need of regular aid and attendance.
6. Waiver of VA insurance premiums, if under age 65 (but not on any supplemental RH insurance).
7. CAL-VET Home Loan Disability Insurance.
8. Golden Access Passport for U.S. National Parks.
9. Possible eligibility for DMV Disabled Person Parking Placard.
10. Eligibility for 10-point preference for Federal Civil Service employment.
[Source: CA Dept of VA website Nov 07 ++]

VETERAN LEGISLATION STATUS 30 JAN 08: The House of Representatives returned to work on JAN 15th and the Senate on January 22nd.for the second session of the 110th Congress. Up for election/re-election in 2008 are 35 Senators and 435 Representatives. All of these will be more receptive to their veteran constituent’s inputs in hope of obtaining their vote so this is the year we should be pushing for the legislation that will benefit us most. Those seeking to remain in the Senate or be elected to it are:

Lamar Alexander, R-TN
Tom Allen, D-ME (1st District); running for Senate
John Barasso, R-WY
Max Baucus, D-MT
Joseph Biden, D-DE
Saxby Chambliss, R-GA (Armed Services)
Thad Cochran, R-MS (Ranking Minority Member-Appropriations, Defense Appropriations)
Norm Coleman, R-MN
Susan Collins, R-ME (Armed Services)
John Cornyn, R-TX (Armed Services)
Elizabeth Dole, R-NC (Armed Services)
Richard Durbin, D-IL (Defense Appropriations, Senate Majority Whip)
Michael Enzi, R-WY
Lindsey Graham, R-SC (Armed Services, Veterans Affairs)
Tom Harkin, D-IA (Defense Appropriations)
Duncan Hunter, R-CA (52nd District); running for President (Ranking Minority Member-Armed
James Inhofe, R-OK (Armed Services)
Tim Johnson, D-SD (Chairman-Military Construction Appropriations)
John Kerry, D-MA
Mary Landrieu, D-LA (Military Construction Appropriations)
Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ
Carl Levin, D-MI (Chairman-Armed Services)
Mitch McConnell, R-KY (Defense Appropriations, Senate Minority Leader)
Steve Pearce, R-NM (2nd District); running for Senate
Mark Pryor, D-AR (Armed Services)
Jack Reed, D-RI (Armed Services, Military Construction Appropriations)
Pat Roberts, R-KS
John Rockefeller, D-WV (Veterans Affairs)
Jeff Sessions, R-AL (Armed Services)
Gordon Smith, R-OR
Ted Stevens, R-AK (Ranking Minority Member-Defense Appropriations)
John Sununu, R-NH
Tom Tancredo, R-CO (6th District); running for President
Mark Udall, D-CO (2nd District); running for Senate (Armed Services)
Tom Udall, D-NM (3rd District); running for Senate
Roger Wicker, R-MS
Heather A. Wilson, R-NM (1st District); running for Senate

For a listing of Congressional bills of interest to the veteran community that have been introduced in the 110th Congress refer to the Bulletin’s House & Senate attachments. By clicking on the bill number indicated you can access the actual legislative language of the bill and see if your representative has signed on as a cosponsor. Support of these bills through cosponsorship by other legislators is critical if they are ever going to move through the legislative process for a floor
vote to become law. A good indication on that likelihood is the number of cosponsors who have signed onto the bill. A cosponsor is a member of Congress who has joined one or more other members in his/her chamber (i.e. House or Senate) to sponsor a bill or amendment. The member who introduces the bill is considered the sponsor. Members subsequently signing on are called cosponsors. Any number of members may cosponsor a bill in the House or Senate. At http://thomas.loc.gov you can also review a copy of each bill’s content, determine its current status, the committee it has been assigned to, and if your legislator is a sponsor or cosponsor of it. To determine what bills,
amendments your representative has sponsored, cosponsored, or dropped sponsorship on refer to http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110/sponlst.html. The key to increasing cosponsorship on veteran related bills and subsequent passage into law is letting our representatives know of veteran’s feelings on issues. At the end of some listed bills is a web link that can be used to do that. Otherwise,
you can locate on http://thomas.loc.gov who your representative is and his/her phone number, mailing address, or email/website to communicate with a message or letter of your own making. [Source: RAO Bulletin Attachment 13 Jan 08 ++]

Lt. James “EMO” Tichacek, USN (Ret)
Director, Retiree Assistance Office, U.S. Embassy Warden & IRS VITA Baguio City RP PSC 517 Box RCB, FPO AP 96517
Tel: (951) 238-1246 when in U.S. & Cell: 0915-361-3503 when in Philippines.
Email: raoemo@sbcglobal.net Web: http://post_119_gulfport_ms.tripod.com/rao1.html
AL/AMVETS/DAV/FRA/NAUS/NCOA/MOAA/USDR/VFW/VVA/CG33/DD890/AD37 member
BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTION NOTES:
== To subscribe first add the above RAO email addees to your address book and/or white list and then provide your full name plus either the post/branch/chapter number of the fraternal military/government organization you are currently affiliated with (if any) “AND/OR” the city and
state/country you reside in so your addee can be properly positioned in the directory for future recovery. Subscription is open to all veterans, dependents, and military/veteran support organizations. This Bulletin sent to 63,292 subscribers.

� Secure this line!

by John on Feb 01, 2008 | Veteran's Issues

Veteran's Affairs Update, Part 1, a Castle Publick Service.

Periodic updates on items and issues of interest to veterans, future veterans and their families. This is actually a subscribable newsletter put out by James Tichacek, that I have permission to post full-up as a public service. If you'd like to subscribe, the instructions are at the bottom of the post. I will post the table of contents in the main post, and all the detail will be in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry. You may steal this content for newsletters, emails, your own websites - I only ask that you credit James, and if you're getting it from me - The Castle! Hey, it's all about the linkage, right? Wrong - it's about making this info available to as wide an audience as we can.

Here's the Table of Contents - use it to guide you through the details, contained in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry:

RAO Bulletin Update
1 February 2008

THIS BULLETIN CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES

== NDAA 2008 [14] ------------------------------ (President Signs)
== Proposals to Aid Vets ----------------- (Democrats Take Issue)
== VDBC [24] ---------------------- (Disability Benefits Contract)
== VA Claim Backlog [14] ----------- (29 JAN HVAC Summary)
== VA Mileage Reimbursement [03] ----------- (28.5 cents/mile)
== Vet Benefit Expiration Dates ---- (MGIB/VEAP/Rehab/SGLI)
== SBP Lawsuit -------------------------------------------- (Full DIC)
== VA Voluntary Service (VAVS)] -------- (How to Participate)
== NDAA 2009 -------------------------------- (CR/SBP Inequities)
== Veteran Grave Vandals ---------------- (Private Property Law)
== Mobilized Reserve 30 JAN 08 ------------ (Net Increase 1808)
== Texas Veteran Tuition -------------------------------- (Overview)
== MTU Tuition Break ------------------- (Starting Summer 2008)
== Diabetes [04] ---------------------------- (Obesity Surgery Cure)
== Shingles [05] -------------------------------- (TFL Vaccine Cost)
== VA Estate Debt Collection ------------------------- (Bill to Stop)
== Cyberspace Command ------------ (Keesler AFB a Contender)
== Medicare News ------------------------------------------ (Various)
== Arizona Taxes ---------------------------------- (New Tax Credit)
== Vet Cemetery Virginia -------------------------- (Study Results)
== Tax Audits ---------------------------------- (Number to Increase)
== Tax Filing Obligations Overseas ----------- (Reporting Rqmts)
== Tax Changes 2007 ---------------------- (Increases / Decreases)
== Fluoridation --------------------------- (Southern CA Completed)
== Veteran Employment [02] ------------------ (2008 Top 25 Jobs)
== VA Burial Program Survey ----------- (3 JAN thru 28 FEB 08)
== GI Bill [17] ----------------------------------- (2008 Goals)
== VA Budget 2008 [12] -------- (Emergency Funding Approved)
== WEP/GPO ----------------------------- (Congressional Hearing)

Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows... �

NDAA 2008 UPDATE 14: The Senate passed a $696 billion 2008 Defense Authorization Bill H.R. 4986 22 JAN and President Bush signed it into law on 28 JAN. The fiscal 2008 defense budget has been laden with challenges, from Congress' inclusion of non-defense-related earmarks to its insertion of controversial language regarding Iraq. Bush announced 28 DEC that he wouldn't sign the bill until it was revised. Instead, the president signed an executive order authorizing a 3% military pay raise. The amount was 0.5 % lower than the 3.5% rate provided for in the authorization act, but took effect 1 JAN 08. All pays and incentives included in the authorization act will be retroactive to 1 JAN, a defense official said. The bill became law just a week before the next budget cycle begins as Bush sends his fiscal 2009 request to Capitol Hill. That budget proposal, along with a requested $70 billion in emergency war spending, is expected to be delivered to Congress 4 FEB.

The NDAA contains provisions improving the transition from active duty to veterans’ status and improving VA health care for returning service members, especially those with traumatic brain injury (TBI) or mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Among the key provisions to improve care for veterans and their families, the NDAA:

• Provides an additional three years of access to free VA health care for returning service members from Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Improves and expands VA’s ability to care for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with TBI, including research, screening, care coordination, and working with non-VA providers to provide the care needed by our veterans;
• Requires a comprehensive policy to address mental health conditions, including PTSD;
• Requires DOD and VA to streamline the records transmission process, including moving forward with fully interoperable medical records;
• Provides for a more seamless transition between active duty and veterans’ status, including a single physical exam for DOD and VA benefits;
• Creates Wounded Warrior Resource Center to serve as a single point of contact for service members, their families, and primary caregivers to report issues with facilities, obtain health care, and receive benefits information;
• Requires VA to provide age-appropriate nursing home care for our veterans;
• Allows members of the National Guard and Reserves that are eligible for Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) to use their education benefits for ten years after separation;
• Requires a study on the feasibility of streamlining statutory provisions addressing GI Bill benefits for active duty and guard and reserves.
[Source: AFPS Donna Miles article 28 Jan 08 ++]

PRESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS TO AID VETS: Democratic lawmakers reacted with skepticism 29 JAN to President Bush's new proposals to aid the families of military personnel and veterans, noting that his administration has repeatedly underfunded the Veterans Affairs Department (VA). In his State of the Union address 28 JAN, Bush proposed a series of measures intended to help military families, including the creation of hiring preferences for the spouses of military personnel and legislation to allow servicemembers to pass on unused GI Bill educational benefits to their spouses and children. “They endure sleepless nights and the daily struggle of providing for children while a loved one is serving far from home,” Bush said of military families. “We have a responsibility to provide for them.” The president also called for expanding military families' access to child care. Democrats and some veterans' advocates sharply criticized the proposals, which they said came after years of lean administration budget requests for the VA and military personnel. “The difficulty . . . that we've had on this issue is that the budgets for Iraq have sucked out all the air,” said Susan A. Davis (D-CA) chairwoman of the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee. “Families have not been nearly as high a priority as they should be. Maybe that'll change. I doubt it.”

Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said the GI
Bill proposal would come as “a slap in the face” to newly returning veterans if it is not accompanied by broader improvements, which have proved difficult to advance in Congress because of administration opposition and tight budgets. Bush asserted that VA funding had increased by more than 95% since he had taken office -- another suggestion met with barbs from Democrats. “He didn't tell them that his budget proposals have repeatedly cut funding for veterans, and that the only reason spending on veterans' programs has increased is because Congress raised the level of spending,” said Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Bush is set to unveil his 2009 budget proposal 4 FEB Lawmakers already have begun to push for funding of their priorities. Akaka and Bernard Sanders, (I-VA), sent a letter on 25 JAN asking new VA Secretary James B. Peake for increased funding for the VA's National Center for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, which they said had to cut staff in recent years because of insufficient resources. Bush also will have to include funding to enact proposed recommendations of a presidential commission on “wounded warriors” led by former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) (1969-96), and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. In his address, Bush called on Congress to pass the remaining recommendations of
the commission, including a major overhaul of the veterans' disability benefits system. [Source: GQ Today Patrick Yoest article 29 Jan 08 ++]

VDBC UPDATE 24: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has awarded a $3.2 million contract to Economic Systems Inc. of Falls Church, Va., to develop information relating to possible changes in the composition of disability payments to disabled veterans. The contact is based upon recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission, which issued its final report in July 2007, and the OCT 07 final report of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission. The contractor will provide its findings in AUG 08. Economic Systems Inc. will address three basic research questions in two studies.
• 188,000 Chapter 61 medical disability retirees with less than 20 years denied CRDP.
• Examine the nature and feasibility of making “long-term transition payments” to service members separated from the military due to disability while those veterans undergo rehabilitation.
• Provide information on the appropriate levels of compensation necessary to compensate for any loss in earnings capacity caused by service-incurred or service-aggravated conditions.
• Provide information on potential “quality of life” payments called for by both studies.
[Source: VA News Release 30 Jan 08 ++]

VA CLAIM BACKLOG UPDATE 14: Advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence could help the Veterans Affairs Department reduce a backlog of disability claims that has spiked past 1 million, according to computer experts and veterans advocates. The Veterans Benefits Administration, which processes the claims, has a backlog of 650,000 pending claims and another 147,000 that are under appeal and working their way through a process that "is paper intensive, complex to understand, difficult to manage and takes years to learn," Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs Rep. John Hall (D-NY) said at a 29 JAN hearing of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Training an employee to rate VBA claims can take two to three years and many leave within five years, Hall said. Experienced raters can adjudicate only about three claims a day, spending two to three hours on each claim. He said the VA should consider the use of artificial intelligence technologies, such as automated decision-support tools that can determine disability payments, which would speed up claims processing.

Computer experts who testified at the hearing said technology exists today that can automate the claims process and eliminate the backlog. Tom Mitchell, chairman of the Machine Learning Department at the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh said the VBA needs to emulate health insurers such as Highmark Inc., a Pittsburgh-based company that uses computers to process 90% of its claims. Mitchell said the computer system automatically determines payments because it contains a large collection of rules, each one specifying the payment to be made in some very specific case, defined by the details of the patient's policy, treatment and history. The complex policy for determining what payment is due under which condition is encoded in these rules inside the computer." While the type of claims processed by Highmark are not identical to the kinds of claims processed by the VBA, Mitchell said they are similar enough to "conclude online processing will be of considerable value to the VA." Mitchell said other AI techniques that could work for VBA include case-based reasoning systems, which tap into a database of historical data to
compare past cases with a current case, and machine learning and data-mining, which could discover patterns in a current claim that indicate more information is needed to process the claim.

The VBA could automate its processes by developing a document naming system for paper documents, which are then electronically scanned into a database to make it easier to retrieve, said Ronald Miller, professor of biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University. VBA repeatedly loses paper records submitted by claimants. Robin Cleveland, wife of retired Marine Gunnery Sgt. Tai Cleveland, told the hearing that since November 2005, she has submitted multiple copies of Tai's medical record and was told that the VBA could not find the records and she needed to resubmit them. She said her husband, a paraplegic after injuries incurred in AUG 03 during a hand-to-hand training exercise in Kuwait, only started to receive benefit payments this month after Congress intervened. Dr. Marjie Shahani, senior vice president of operations at QTC Medical Services, which conducts medical examinations on veterans and active duty personnel seeking VBA compensation, said her company has developed an application called the Evidence Organizer, which creates an electronic file for a claim, which can include multiple medical conditions and is accessible at the click of a mouse. Shahani said the organizer cuts the time to rate an individual claim from 3.5 hours to 2.2 hours. The time savings should allow a VBA ratings specialist to review 711 claims compared with the 533 a specialist processes today, he said.

Kim Graves, director of business process integration for the VBA said the VBA already has bbegun to develop technologies to increase the number of claims that specialists can process. The agency has a comprehensive strategy to develop the Paperless Delivery of Veterans Benefits initiative, which will employ a variety of enhanced technologies to support end-to-end claims processing, Graves said. In addition to imaging and computable data, it will also incorporate enhanced electronic workflow capabilities, enterprise content and correspondence management services. Graves said VBA also is considering the use of business-rules-engine software for workflow management, which could improve processors' decision-making. Stephen Warren, principal deputy assistant secretary for the VA Office of Information and Technology, said the department is preparing a statement of work to engage the services of a lead systems integrator to develop strategy and business requirements for Paperless Delivery of Veterans Benefits, though he did not provide a timeline. Gary Christopherson, who served as chief information officer for the Veterans Health Administration in 2000 and principal deputy assistant secretary for Health Affairs in the Defense Department, said "using artificial intelligence or electronic decision support tools is nothing new." Government and corporations routinely use those tools, and VBA claims processing is no more difficult than any other application of AI. He also called for a radical policy change in how VBA provides benefits. He said that it should presume that a veteran has a valid claim and is entitled to benefits for a period of a year until it completes the processing of that claim, with payment starting in 30 days of the date the claim is filed. [Source: GOVExec.com Bob Berwin article 30 Jan 08++]

VA MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT UPDATE 03: In the FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations $125 million was allocated to pay for an increase in the travel reimbursement rate for disabled veterans to go to VA hospitals for care. The present 11 cents a mile was set in 1977. The increase is 17.5 cents per mile. However, it could not go into effect until VA Secretary Peake announced the change and directed the VA to put it into effect. In JAN 12 bi-partisan rural Senators wrote the Secretary asking him to put the change in effect as soon as possible. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has now made the decision to increase VA’s beneficiary travel mileage reimbursement rate effective 1 FEB 08, to 28.5 cents per mile for travel related to health care per VHA Dir 2008-006 . This would include travel for recalls due to a deficient lab, electrocardiogram (EKG), and x-ray in relation to a Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination (convenience of the Government). Mileage reimbursement claims for travel prior to 1 FEB 08, may still be submitted. Such claims will be processed using the previous rates and deductibles.

Title 38 U.S.C. § 111(c)(5) requires VA to adjust proportionately the beneficiary travel mileage reimbursement rate deductibles for travel in relation to examination, treatment or care (currently $3 one way; $6 round trip; with a maximum of $18 per calendar month) effective on he date of a beneficiary travel mileage reimbursement rate change. Therefore, based on the increase of the beneficiary travel mileage reimbursement rate, the deductible is adjusted proportionately to $7.77 per one way trip; $15.54 for a round trip; with a maximum deductible of $46.62 per calendar month. These deductibles may be waived in accordance with Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §17.144(b) when their imposition would cause severe financial hardship. Mileage reimbursement claims for travel prior to February 1, 2008, may still be received. Such claims will be processed using the previous rates and deductibles. [Source: TREA Washington Update 25 JAN 08 ++]

VET BENEFIT EXPIRATION DATES: Many of your benefits have an expiration date. Below are a few important ones to remember so you don't lose out.

• Montgomery GI Bill for Active-Duty (MGIB): 10 years from date of last discharge or release from active duty.
• Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP): 10 years from date of last discharge or release from active duty.
• Montgomery GI Bill for Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR): 14 years from the date of eligibility for the program, or until released from the Selected Reserve or National Guard. Some extensions available if activated.
• Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VocRehab): Generally, 12 years of separation from service or within 12 years of being awarded service-connected VA disability compensation.
• Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI): Coverage ends 120 days after separation or can be extended up to 1 year for totally disabled veterans.
[Source: Military.com http://www.military.com/benefits/veteran-benefits/veterans-benefit-expiration-dates 28 Jan 08 ++]

SBP LAWSUIT: On 30 JAN 08 a group of military widows will get their day in federal court,
pressing their case that a DEC 04 law change should have awarded them full payment of military SBP annuities in addition to the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) they receive from the VA because military service caused their husbands' deaths. At the time, the House Veterans Affairs Committee believed its language would not only restore DIC benefits to previously eligible survivors who remarried after age 57, but would also end the deduction of DIC from SBP annuities. Subsequent government legal review indicated the 2004 law didn't, in fact, make the latter change, but the difference of opinion hasn't entirely gone away. And now three widows are taking the government to court. When the case was filed in SEP 07, the Department of Defense responded with a motion to dismiss the case. The widows' lawyers filed a rebuttal, and now there will be a hearing before the US Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Street, NW in Washington, DC so the judge can make a decision on the DoD motion to dismiss. The oral arguments in the case will be open to the public at 9:30am. A specific court room won't be assigned until the morning of the 30th. Past efforts to sue the government in this way have rarely been fruitful, but one never knows how the courts might rule when legislative language is murky. [Source: MOAA Leg UP 25 Jan 08 ++]

VA VOLUNTARY SERVICE (VAVS): VAVS was founded in 1946 to provide for our nation's veterans while they are cared for by VA health care facilities. It is a volunteer organization run by the VA which helps veterans in VA facilities throughout the country. Volunteers assist in routine administrative functions to help free VA employees to concentrate more on health care. There are also several VA cemeteries that have VAVS volunteers assisting in maintenance chores. It is one of the largest centralized volunteer programs in the Federal government. Over 350 organizations support it and volunteers have provided over 676 million hours of service since its conception. As a community service volunteers assist veteran patients by augmenting staff with end of life care programs, foster care, community-based volunteer programs, hospital wards, nursing homes, and veteran outreach centers. The program receives annual contributions of over $50 million in gifts and donations. There are two convenient ways to sign up to be a VAVS volunteer:

1) Contact the Department of Veterans Affairs facility nearest you, ask for Voluntary Service, and tell their staff of your interest in becoming a VAVS Volunteer. The staff will take care of everything else including your interview, orientation, and assignment! To locate the VA facility is
nearest you refer to http://www1.va.gov/directory/guide/home.asp?isFlash=12) Volunteer now by filling out and submitting the form located at http://www1.va.gov/volunteer/volnowDB.cfm. Someone from your local VAVS office will contact you with additional information.
[Source: NAUS Weekly Update 25 JAN 08 ++]

NDAA 2009: The previous National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) of 2006, 2007, 2008, did not address or correct the following issues --
• 188,000 Chapter 61 medical disability retirees with less than 20 years denied CRDP.
• 375,000 milita