Senate passes defense bill, pay raise

WASHINGTON — The Senate passed a massive defense bill Wednesday that includes a pay raise for military personnel, despite Republican objections to billions of dollars in special projects lawmakers had added.

Seven weeks from Election Day, blocking the measure in wartime was not a political risk many senators were willing to take. The measure passed 88-8 after negotiations on amendments failed at midday.

Retiring Sen. John Warner of Virginia led the negotiating for Republicans who objected to the added projects, called earmarks. But he, too, said he could not cast a vote that implied disrespect for soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Warner said Democrats and Republicans alike objected to parts of the bill or proposed amendments.

The bill passed Wednesday because it earlier had attained the support of 61 senators — barely clearing the required 60-vote threshold — on a test vote. Following Warner’s lead, a dozen Republicans voted to advance the measure, many of them in tough re-election bids.

Many more switched from opponents to supporters on the final vote. Of the eight who voted no, only five were Republicans: Sens. Wayne Allard of Colorado, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Also voting no were Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, as well as Bernard Sanders, an Independent from Vermont.

The measure would permit $612.5 billion in spending for national defense programs in 2009, including $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also includes a 3.9 percent pay increase for military personnel, half a percentage point more than President Bush requested. A separate bill will have to be passed to actually appropriate the money.

The House passed its own version in May, which will have to be reconciled with the Senate version before the legislation is sent to the White House for Bush’s signature.

Republican opponents objected to $5 billion in pet projects that Congress added to the bill. But proponents characterized “no” votes as showing disrespect for military personnel. On Election Day Nov. 4, voters will choose a new president, all 435 members of the House and a third of the 100-member Senate.

Those absent included three senators engaged in the presidential race: Republican nominee John McCain of Arizona and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama of Illinois, along with Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden of Delaware.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was absent as he recovers from treatment for a brain tumor.

Senate passes bundle of veterans benefits

After months of delay, the Senate passed an omnibus veterans’ benefits bill Tuesday night that includes bigger benefits for veterans and their families, expanded home loans and a variety of other programs.

The bill, S 3023, had passed the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee in June but lingered in limbo because of disputes over dozens of details. With congressional leaders aiming to end this legislative session of Congress as early as next week, passage of the Senate bill was essential for any hope of passing a compromise bill in conjunction with the House this year.

The Senate passed the bill by voice vote and with no debate.

Sens. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, chairman of the veterans’ committee, and Richard Burr of North Carolina, the committee’s ranking Republican, said the bill passed by the Senate includes a host of compromises.

Akaka said one key provision would order VA to simplify what it tells veterans when it denies benefits claims or asks for more information.

“Notification letters to veterans about the status of their claims have become increasingly long, complex and difficult to understand,” Akaka said. “These notification letters must be simplified. They should use plain and ordinary language rather than bureaucratic jargon. Veterans should not be subjected to confusing information as they seek benefits.”

The bill also would temporarily extend an increase in veterans’ home loans through the end of 2011. The temporary measure allows loans of up to $730,000, but it is due to expire at the end of 2008.

Akaka said extending the loan limits for several more years “would enable more veterans to utilize their VA benefit to purchase more costly homes.”

The bill also applies the maximum loan limit to home refinancing, and lets homeowners refinance with a veterans’ loan if they have 5 percent equity in their homes instead of the current 10 percent requirement.

Another key provision of the bill would require more federal help for service members who have problems with employment and re-employment rights. Under the bill, the Labor Department would investigate more complaints and federal agencies would provide more assistance. The bill calls for mandatory training for federal human resources workers in the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

Burr said every employer should obey the law, but the federal government has a particular responsibility to be a “model employer.”

“The federal government should make sure that not a single returning service member is denied proper reinstatement to a federal job,” Burr said. “Unfortunately, this is not happening yet.”

Burr highlighted one provision of the bill that is especially important to the families of severely injured service members: Granting spouses of disabled veterans up to 20 years after the veterans are discharged to use education benefits, twice the time currently allowed.

The bill also includes a provision that would prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from making changes in its disability rating schedule without first notifying Congress.

Burr said the current ratings system is “riddled with outdated criteria that do not track with modern medicine,” especially in the areas of combat stress and traumatic brain injuries.

VA has been working on several studies that could lead to an overhaul, but many veterans and lawmakers remain concerned that a change could result in lower benefits. Burr said the bill would “make sure these studies do not get put on a shelf to collect dust” by requiring a report to Congress on the findings and what action is planned by VA.

Defense delays fix for household goods moves

U.S. Transportation Command officials have postponed the start of a new system designed to fix the process that moves service members’ household goods.

Originally scheduled to begin for families at 18 locations, including all of U.S. Army Europe, on Wednesday, the start has now been delayed to mid- to late October.

“We have decided it would be prudent to wait on the rollout of the program until we have conducted additional testing and additional training,” said U.S. Transportation Command spokesman Army Lt. Col. Fred Rice. The Defense Personal Property System “is an important program of the DoD Families First initiative, and we need to ensure the rollout goes smoothly and people are properly trained to use and operate the system,” he said.

“A delay is not what we envisioned, but we want to make sure DPS serves our service members in a positive way.”

The delay will not affect the scheduled worldwide rollout Jan. 22, Rice said.

Defense officials have been trying to fix this process for about 15 years. In one big change for service members, the new, Internet-based system will automatically assign the best-qualified moving company available at that time to the move, replacing a system where the primary criterion was the lowest bid.

The new program will also include elements such as direct communication between service members and moving companies, electronic claims filing, and online tracking of household goods. It also includes full replacement value when household goods are lost or damaged, but that has been mandated by law and in effect for nearly a year in most places.

“All parties, all stakeholders are happy we’ve been afforded this additional time to work through some of the remaining issues and tasks,” said Terry Head, president of the Household Goods Forwarders Association of America, which represents part of the moving industry. “From industry’s perspective, we did not have a good comfort level we would be invoicing and receiving payment,” he said.

National POW/MIA Recognition Day

Week of August 25, 2008

Temporary VA Home Loan Limit Increase

Week of August 25, 2008

AAFES Hunting Sweepstakes

Week of August 25, 2008

VFW Offers Scholarships

Week of August 25, 2008

400 spouses awarded scholarships

The National Military Family Association has awarded nearly 400 scholarships totaling $392,000 to military spouses for the coming fall semester.

Among those receiving scholarships are 180 spouses of service members killed or disabled in the line of duty, with funding from the new Folds of Honor Foundation.

Of the spouses who received scholarships, 56 percent are married to soldiers, 17 percent are married to sailors, 15 percent are married to airmen, 10 percent are married to Marines, and 2 percent are married to Coast Guard members, according to NMFA.

More than 75 percent of the spouses are married to enlisted service members. A list of winners can be found online, along with more information on the scholarship requirements and application process.

NMFA created its scholarship program to provide financial assistance to military spouses working toward their education goals, often made more difficult by frequent moves and lengthy deployments.

The need for these scholarships was brought into sharp relief two years ago when there were 8,000 applicants for 28 scholarships, said Kathleen Burke, director of development for NMFA. Last year, NMFA provided 63 scholarships. The amount of scholarships was increased to 400 this year with donations from new partners, Fisher House Foundation and Health Net Federal Services, as well as Folds of Honor Foundation. There were 4,832 applicants for the 400 scholarships this year, she said.

The amounts of scholarships range from $500, mostly for those attending vocational schools, to $10,000 each for four spouses of wounded warriors and one spouse of a service member killed in the line of duty.

NMFA likely will start accepting applications for next year’s program in December, Burke said. The scholarships are open to spouses with a valid military ID card.

Air Force components meet July recruit goals

The Air Force’s active, Guard and Reserve components all met or surpassed their July recruiting goals, the Department of Defense announced Monday.

The active-duty force brought in 2,555 new airmen, 101 percent of its goal.

The Air Force Reserve hit its target of 819 exactly, while the Air National Guard continues a streak of surpassing its monthly goals — signing up 936 recruits against a goal of 725, for a rate of 129 percent.

DoD study urges sweeping retirement overhaul

The “inequitable, inflexible, inefficient” military retirement system should be replaced with a combination of cash and deferred compensation that would allow for vesting with as few as 10 years of service and special pays that would give service officials the tools to retain or separate service members based on force requirements, a Pentagon study recommends.

And to try it on for size, the Defense Department should initiate a multiyear field test with volunteers who, at the end of the test, could choose to opt back into the traditional system and its 20-year retirement baseline.

That is the biggest issue to come out of Volume II of the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, released Tuesday at the Pentagon.

Read

Report of the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation Vol. II

Report of the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation Vol. I

Unlike Volume I, published in March with a focus on cash compensation for active-duty members, the new study covers deferred and noncash payments in the areas of retirement, Tricare premiums and fees and other quality-of-life programs, and also addresses the recruiting and retention of military medical professionals.

The study’s recommendations are just that — recommendations. The QRMC, conducted every four years by law, does not set policy but periodically attempts to shape the tenets of the military’s compensation programs, which in 2007 totaled more than $118 billion — 23 percent of the defense budget.

Any proposal to change the retirement system draws immediate concerns about the potential impact on retention and anger over a possible delay in the receipt of retirement pay, as did somewhat similar proposals made in January by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. Some of the new study’s other convention-busting proposals also are sure to spark heated debate.

For instance, the QRMC recommends that “working-age” retirees — those under age 65 — pay more for Tricare Prime, reflecting their ability to do so, as well as the QRMC’s recommendation that their rates be made more equitable with those of older retirees, who must pay Medicare Part B premiums in order to qualify for Tricare for Life insurance coverage.

The study also concludes that the services should adopt dependent care and flexible spending accounts for military beneficiaries to cover the costs of common expenses not covered by Tricare, such as eyeglasses and dental braces.

And with a sense that the Tricare system “should be biased toward prevention rather than treatment,” the QRMC calls for eliminating co-pays for preventative care, the idea being to encourage enrollees to seek out that care, stay healthier and reduce overall health care costs.

The QRMC also said the Pentagon should create education vouchers from Impact Aid — federal money that subsidizes the cost of public school education for military dependents — to provide more choices for parents unhappy with the education systems near their assigned bases.

The QRMC would also permit the formation of military charter schools; implement a child care voucher system to make that benefit more convenient for people with long commutes; and ask national and regional grocers to provide military discounts, which would benefit those not living close to installations with commissaries.

Under the retirement pay proposal, which active and reserve forces would share, retirement pay would equal 2.5 percent of their average basic pay over their three highest earning years in uniform, multiplied by years of service.

Vesting would begin at the 10-year mark. So someone who serves the minimum 10 years and then leaves the military would qualify for a retirement annuity of 25 percent of their basic pay over their three highest earning years in uniform.

That would be supplemented by a defined Pentagon contribution to service member’s Thrift Savings Plan accounts. The Pentagon would continute nothing in the member’s first year of service, but after that, it would contribute 2 percent of the member’s basic pay in the second year, 3 percent in the third year, 4 percent in the fourth year and 5 percent in each subsequent year.

Service members would not have to contribute anything themselves to receive the defined Pentagon contributions, but they could if they desire, up to the limit currently allowed for 401(k) plans —$15,500 per year. This plan would also vest after 10 years of service, and would begin paying out at age 60.

Reservists, however, would generally earn less because they serve fewer days than their active-duty counterparts over the course of a career.

The aspect of this plan that is likely to draw the most reaction from troops is that annuity payouts would be deferred for many years.

Under the current system, active-duty members with at least 20 years of service begin receiving annuities immediately upon retirement, without penalty.

Under the new proposal, those with less than 20 years of service would begin receiving retirement payments at age 60; those with more than 20 years would have to wait until age 57 to get their full annuity.

Those with 20 or more years could withdraw the money early, but it would be subject to an early withdrawal penalty — a reduction in their annuity of 5 percentage points for each year the member is short of age 57.

For example, a 45-year-old service member who retires with 25 years of service and waits until age 57 to begin drawing retirement benefits would receive the full annuity of 62.5 percent of his average basic pay over his three highest earning years in uniform. If that same retiree opted for an immediate annuity at age 45, the benefit would be reduced by 5 percentage points for each of the 12 years he is under age 57, or 60 percentage points. So the member would receive 40 percent of the annuity he otherwise would have been paid at age 57.

The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves made a similar retirement plan proposal in its final report.

To further sculpt the retirement system, the QRMC recommended the introduction of two new incentives: “gate pay” and separation pay.

Gate pay would be cash compensation given to service members at specific time-in-service milestones; it would be offered as an incentive to encourage longer careers in select critical skills.

Separation pay would do just the opposite, providing what retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Denny Eakle, QRMC executive director, called “a check to walk out the door” — compensation for a combat arms specialist who voluntarily leaves before 20 years of service, for example.

Under the current system, said Eakle, former deputy director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, “the compensation system is actually shaping the force, rather than having the force managers be able to do any force-shaping.”

Defense officials said that the vast majority of those who serve never come close to qualifying for retirement pay under the current 20-years-or-nothing system.

“We’re trying to draw people to the 10-year point,” Eakle said. “And this is how we’ll do it.”

With both cash and deferred elements, the QRMC’s proposed system would cost less but provide more to the service member, Eakle said.

With the ability to retain service members longer, she said, “we also could maintain the force with many fewer people. It would reduce the pressures on recruiting. And you would save all of the recruiting and training costs.”

If adopted in this form, current service members could opt to remain in the current retirement system. But, Eakle said, the QRMC envisions the Pentagon allowing troops the opportunity to transfer into the new system “because we believe that 10-year vesting might appeal to enough people that some will actually want to leave the current retirement system and enter this.”

An earlier study by the 2006 Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation recommended that any new retirement system include a defined retirement benefit at age 60 that would vest after 10 years of service; it also called for gate and separation pays. The 10th QRMC used that study as the basis for its own proposals.

The QRMC was careful to note that while its behavior model on the retirement system “provided valuable estimates” of the potential impact, “it is still a theoretical analysis.”

As such, any demonstration project should include a broad cross-section of the services and run a minimum of five years, the group said.

The Pentagon for years has tried to convince Congress to raise Tricare fees for military retirees under 65. The annual enrollment fee for Tricare Prime has never changed from $230 per month for single retirees and $460 for families. And there has never been an enrollment fee for Tricare Standard.

As a result, due to inflation and other costs, Tricare beneficiaries have seen their share of the military’s overall health care costs decline from 27 percent in the mid-1990s to 12 percent by 2006, the QRMC said — in the process turning Tricare into one of the lowest-cost health insurance plans in the nation.

Meanwhile, retirees over 65 who want to enroll in Tricare for Life are required by law to carry Medicare Part B and pay its monthly premiums, which this year, start at $96.40 per month for single people with less than $82,000 in annual adjusted gross income and married couples with less than $164,000 in annual adjusted gross income. Premiums increase on a sliding scale as adjusted gross income rises.

The QRMC proposes that Tricare Prime premiums for single retirees under age 65 be set at 40 percent of the Part B premiums, with family rate set at double the single rate, regardless of family size.

Premiums for Tricare Standard and Extra would be set at 15 percent of the Part B premium for single retirees under age 65, with the family rate again set at twice that.

“There needs to be some parity between our older and our younger retirees,” Eakle said. “It’s not fair to ask the oldest retirees, who make the least, to pay far more for a benefit that is just somewhat more generous.”

The QRMC also expressed concern about the services’ inability to meet recruiting goals in the health care field. As of fiscal 2006, the Pentagon had 98.4 percent of its needed active-duty physicians but only 90.9 percent of its required nurses and 89.1 percent of its required dentists.

The shortfalls occurred even though authorizations for these caregivers declined between fiscal 1995 and 2006 and the military hired more civilians and contractors, the QRMC said.

Moreover, actual inventories have dropped even more sharply, with active-duty declines of 14 percent in physicians, 24 percent in nurses and 21 percent in and dentists.

To help remedy this shortfall, the QRMC proposes increasing the mandatory retirement age for health professionals from 62 to 68, recruiting noncitizens with U.S. health degrees, leveraging the interservice bonus program to encourage doctors with “overage” skills to transfer to services with shortages in those skills, and recruiting nondegreed registered nurses to bolster the Nurse Corps.

The QRMC would also improve conditions for participants in the Health Professionals Scholarship Program, the most widely used program for recruiting doctors and dentists.

Participants would be given access to Tricare health coverage, a housing allowance and funds to cover the costs of all required equipment.

The QRMC also recommends expanding the program to cover the costs of additional training for U.S. citizens who attend foreign medical schools, and residency opportunities for certified foreign medical school graduates.

Major changes in pay have resulted from past QRMCs, sometimes even before the reports were published. A recommendation from Volume I of this QRMC to consolidate more than 60 special and incentive pays into eight broad categories, for example, was adopted early and signed into law in January.

VA offers new online resource service

7/28/2008 - SAN ANTONIO (AFPN) -- The Department of Veterans Affairs is offering a new online service, My HealtheVet, which is a gateway to veteran health benefits and services.

It provides access to trusted health information, links to federal and VA benefits and resources, the Personal Health Journal and online VA prescription refill service.

In the future, MHV registrants will be able to view appointments, co-pay balances and key portions of their VA medical records online.

My HealtheVet is a powerful tool to help veterans better understand and manage their health, according to VA officials.

The Web site also features a section called "Learn About" which provides resources on a variety of topics such as computers, the Internet, phishing scams and telephone scams. Health information from A to Z plus medical dictionaries, an encyclopedia, journals and more will be available soon.

To visit the My HealtheVet site, go to www.myhealth.va.gov

Defense secretary praises military kids

GRAPEVINE, Texas — Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the nation’s 2 million military children are just as heroic as their parents.

But he says they have extra hurdles to clear and burdens to bear — such as the stress of moving, attending new schools and dealing with a parent’s injury or death.

Gates says some programs are helping, such as GI Bill benefits now being able to be transferred to spouses and children.

Gates spoke Friday at the Military Child Education Coalition’s conference in Grapevine, just outside Dallas.

The nonprofit organization focuses on educational opportunities for children in military families.

Bill would give spouses same residency rights

A House committee has voted to expand legal and financial protections for service members and their families with legislation that would allow spouses to maintain a permanent home of record, just like their military sponsors.

The bill also would expand troops’ ability to cancel or suspend personal service contracts, including cable television, telephone and Internet contracts, when they get orders to deploy or move to a new duty station.

The provisions are included in HR 6225, approved by the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee by voice vote July 16.

Under the bill, a spouse could maintain the same state of residence for as long as he is married to a service member, regardless of how many times the member moves on reassignment orders.

Service members have long been allowed to maintain the same state of residence for the duration of their military careers, which allows them to avoid such things as having to refile for a new driver’s license and reregister to vote when they move to a different state.

There are also tax implications; service members stationed at some point in their careers in a state that has no state income tax can claim and keep that state as their legal residence no matter how often they move.

That has major ramifications for military families, said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, who was the initial sponsor of the spouse residence bill.

Carter said being able to keep the same legal residence would simplify paying state and local income taxes and maintaining driver’s licenses, vehicle registration and other legal documents. Spouses could even continue voting in their hometown. He said it also would make a difference if a marriage ends in divorce, because it would not leave a couple facing the complicated issue of determining where to divorce in order to meet residency restrictions.

During a service member’s career, a spouse may “face multiple changes of voter registration and driver’s licenses, will pay income tax to a state they never intended to live in, and likely not have their name on any property titles — leading to a feeling that they are second-class citizens,” Carter said.

The bill could put more money into a family’s pocket because they can avoid paying higher tax on a spouse’s income, which often drops simply by virtue of the move when a spouse has to start over at a new job.

The committee plan says that a person absent from a state because his is accompanying someone on military orders may not lose his right to vote or register to vote if he leaves the state, regardless of whether he has any intention of returning.

Additionally, several activities often viewed as changing residences — such as buying a home — could not be used to determine that a military spouse has changed state residency.

Similar language is included for tax purposes. Buying a home does not make the spouse of a service member the resident of a state for tax purposes as long as the spouse is accompanying a service member on military orders.

Service members already have the right to cancel leases for housing and vehicles when deployed or ordered to change duty stations, but the committee has agreed to allow other contracts also to be canceled without penalty for those deployed 90 days or longer in support of a contingency operation, or assigned outside the service area covered by a contract.

The bill would make canceling a contract easy. Service members could deliver a cancellation notice, including a copy of the military orders, by hand, by private messenger service, by fax or by mail, as long as they use an envelope with sufficient postage and request a receipt that proves the message was received. Termination or suspension of service would take effect on the date the notice is delivered.

Failure to suspend or cancel a service member’s contract upon such request would be a misdemeanor, punishable by fines of up to $5,000 per person or $10,000 per company.

A service member also would have the right to sue for damages, with a court allowed to award up to three times the amount of damages plus attorney fees to the member.

Rate the Military Health System

Week of July 21, 2008

Education Grants for AF Family

Week of July 21, 2008

TRICARE Provides Crisis Information

Week of July 21, 2008

TRICARE Helps Out in Flood States

Week of July 21, 2008

Bill would ease rules on cell phone contracts

A House committee passed legislation Wednesday that would make it easier for service members to cancel cell phone, cable and utility contracts if they are deployed or move to a new duty station.

The legislation also would let deployed troops keep their phone numbers when they return and reactivate their accounts.

Under provisions of HR 6225, a bill amending the legal and financial protections of the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act, a service member could terminate or suspend a contract for a cell or regular phone, cable or Internet service, and utilities such as electricity, gas, oil or water if they are deployed for 90 days or longer in support of a contingency operation, or are ordered to make a permanent reassignment move to a new location.

Service members could not be charged fees for early termination of a contract, but could be charged if they have company equipment, such as a cable box. If there is a fee, payment could be deferred until the deployment has ended.

Canceling a contract would be easy, under the bill. A service member could deliver a cancellation notice, including a copy of their military orders, by hand, private messenger service, fax or mail, as long as they used an envelope with sufficient postage and request a receipt to prove the message was received. Termination or suspension of service would take effect on the date the notice is delivered.

A company that fails to suspend a contract under those terms would face misdemeanor penalties of up to $5,000 per person or $10,000 per organization.

A service member also would have the right to sue for damages, with courts allowed to grant up to three times the amount of damages, plus attorney fees, to the member.

Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., said the ability to cancel a contract in the face of deployment is important so that service members are not paying for something they cannot use, and the provision allowing them to keep the same number when they return from deployment is equally important to help them pick up where they left off.

Keeping the same phone number is not guaranteed under the proposal. The bill merely calls for that “to the extent practicable.”

The bill is called the Improving SCRA and USERRA Protections Act of 2008, which refers to the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act and the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act.

Also in the bill is extra relief for service members whose college educations are disrupted by military duties, including a requirement that schools refund tuition and fees if a service member does not receive academic credit for courses they had to drop because of military orders; and changes in military spouse residency rules to allow them to keep the same state of legal residence as their service member, regardless of where the family may live. The rules would apply to such issues as income taxes, car registration, driver’s licenses and voter registration.

The bill, passed by voice vote, is expected to be voted on by the full House of Representatives this summer. The Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee has been working on similar legislation.

President Signs Tax Relief Act

Week of July 14, 2008

DeCA Scholarship Kicks Off

Week of July 14, 2008

AAFES Back-to-School Essay Contest

Week of July 14, 2008

Active, Guard, Reserve meet recruiting goals

All three Air Force components — active, Guard, Reserve — met or exceeded their June recruiting goals, according to data released by the Defense Department on Thursday.

The active-duty force brought in 2,203 new airmen, nine more than it was planning on.

All the other services met or exceeded their active-duty recruit goals as well.

The Air Force Reserve hit its goal of 690 exactly, while the Air National Guard again surpassed its monthly goal by signing up 910 recruits against a goal of 767, for a rate of 119 percent. In April and May, the Guard also brought in a few hundred more recruits than it needed.

New GI Bill Becomes Reality

Bush signs war funding, GI Bill overhaul

A $162 billion war funding bill that includes a $63 billion overhaul of GI Bill education benefits was signed Monday by President Bush.

“The bill shows even in an election year, Republicans and Democrats can come together to stand behind our troops,” Bush said, predicting the GI Bill increases would be a boost to military recruiting and also a boon to families if educational benefits are transferred to family members.

The signing of HR 2642 brings an end to a Pentagon cash-flow crisis that threatened to disrupt military and civilian payroll, cancel or delay maintenance, and postpone nonessential training and travel.

And, for the first time since the Vietnam War, there will be a completely free veterans’ education benefit program that pays enough to fully cover the cost of getting a four-year college degree.

There was a lot of back-patting as the Senate gave final approval to the measure Thursday with a 92-6 vote, but the lawmaker getting and appearing to deserve the greatest praise for the GI Bill initiative was Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a freshman senator and Vietnam veteran who said he was just trying to give combat veterans the benefits they deserve.

“Eighteen months ago, we began with the simple concept that those who have been serving since 9/11 should have the same opportunity for a first-class educational future as those who served during World War II,” Webb said before Thursday’s vote. “Today, we have accomplished that goal. I would like to emphasize that this is not simply an expansion of veterans’ educational benefits. This is a new program, a deserved program.”

Bush praised Webb and Republican senators John Warner of Virginia, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona for working out the GI Bill compromise.

After a lot of debate, lawmakers have decided the new GI Bill program will be called the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, the name Webb used when he first introduced the bill in January 2007, shortly after he took office. While the name is cumbersome and doesn’t appear suited for a spiffy acronym, congressional aides who worked on the bill said some veterans groups objected to calling it the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights, a name used by many supporters, because an education-only benefits plan is nothing like the original World War II GI Bill of Rights, which included education and unemployment benefits, loans to buy a home or start a business, and other readjustment benefits.

TRICARE Availability Still in Jeopardy

Week of June 30, 2008

Moseley likely to step down as chief June 27

Outgoing Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley will leave office as soon as June 27, an Air Force spokeswoman said.

Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Duncan McNabb will take over as acting chief of staff until Moseley’s replacement, Gen. Norton Schwartz, is confirmed by the Senate.

A confirmation hearing at which the Air Force’s proposed new leadership team will testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee has been scheduled for June 24, the spokeswoman said.

Appearing before the committee will be Schwartz; Michael Donley, who has been nominated to replace Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne; and Lt. Gen. William Fraser III, who has been nominated to replace McNabb as vice chief.

The full Senate will then have to vote on the nominations. Each nominee must receive a majority of senators’ votes in order to be confirmed and take office.

Wynne is scheduled to step down Saturday, when Donley will take over as acting secretary.

Wynne and Moseley were forced to resign June 5, after Defense Secretary Robert Gates received a damning report revealing widespread problems with the Air Force’s nuclear weapons surety.

Gates announced his picks for the new Air Force leadership June 9.

McNabb, who had been considered a leading contender to take over for Moseley, will replace Schwartz as commander of U.S. Transportation Command.

Moseley has requested retirement from the Air Force effective Aug. 1, after 36 years in the service.

Air National Guard recruits hundreds over goal

The Air National Guard had another successful month of recruiting.

According to a Defense Department press release, the Guard recruited 892 airmen — well over the goal of 680 — in May, an uncommonly strong showing for late in the fiscal year, especially after several years of recruiting shortfalls.

The bigger numbers come on the heels of the Air Guard announcing that country music artist Laura Bryna is the voice of its new advertising campaign.

Bryna, who released her newest album in January, has signed on to appear in radio, TV and print ads for the Air Guard. The service commissioned her new song “Hometown Hereos,” which debuted May 30 and will be soon followed by a music video. Filming starts June 25 in Nashville, Tenn.

The Air Force Reserve beat its recruiting goal of 636 by two in May, and the active-duty side met its goal of 1,888, the press release said.

Retention was “within acceptable limits” for the reserve components, according to the release. However, the active side again was not mentioned among for meeting retention goals for May.

Military Spouses: This Survey is Your Chance to be Heard

Mullen: New Air Force picks based on talent

Collective talent, more than background, was the primary consideration when Defense Secretary Robert Gates settled on his nominees to fill the top two leadership slots in the Air Force, the Joint Chiefs chairman said Tuesday.

“In my view, you go into this kind of search and decision trying to get the best people,” said Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, speaking with reporters in Washington. “And it’s my belief — and I endorsed this decision — wholly, certainly, from the military standpoint — that that decision has been both wrung out well and made.”

The jobs were vacated when Gates on Friday forced the resignations of the Air Force secretary, Michael Wynne, and chief of staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley, over what he said were significant and systemic problems with the security and handling of nuclear weapons materials.

Much has been made of the fact that neither the prospective chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, nor his nominated No. 2, Lt. Gen. William Fraser, is a fighter pilot, although both are fliers. If confirmed, Schwartz, an AC-130 special operations flier, would be the first non-fighter pilot to serve as chief in the past 26 years. Fraser, who currently serves as Mullen’s assistant, is a B-52 bomber pilot.

In a parallel move, Gates recommended that the current vice chief of staff, Gen. Duncan McNabb, take Schwartz’s place as the commander of U.S. Transportation Command. McNabb is a transport aircraft flier with time in both the C-141 and C-17.

Mullen admitted that not having a fighter pilot in one of the top two slots is “certainly an important message” but would not elaborate except to add, “That doesn’t mean fighter guys go away from the Air Force.

“I mean, you can read that a lot of different ways,” Mullen said. “But I can assure you that what drove that more than anything else was the talent search for the best combination and also the need to have somebody go in behind General Schwartz as he left.

“So it was much broader than just, well, these are the signals we want to send, let’s pick the individuals to send them,” Mullen said.

But, Mullen added, “I think it’s also very important that we have somebody like Fraser, who’s got the bomber background, given the reason all this happened, so that his expertise will be applied to fixing this problem.”

The problems cited by Gates included the incident last summer in which a B-52 was mistakenly loaded with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country.

Mullen also noted that Fraser once served as the vice commander at Air Combat Command. “So he’s been around both the bomber and the fighter side as well,” Mullen said.

Mullen said he wasn’t as familiar with Mike Donley, Gates’ choice as the next Air Force secretary, but noted both his background in Army Special Forces as well as his tenure as an Air Force executive — he served as acting Air Force secretary for seven months in 1993. “So he’s got a pretty rich history of serving, both on the military side and the civilian side,” Mullen said.

“So I think it’s a great team. And it comes at a great time.”

Moseley and Wynne forced out

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Secretary Michael W. Wynne were forced to resign Thursday during hastily arranged meetings with their Pentagon bosses.

Moseley was summoned from the Corona leadership summit at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to an early morning meeting at the Pentagon with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to discuss a report on the Air Force’s problems handling nuclear weapons.

The report, by Navy Adm. Kirkland Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion, revealed widespread problems and convinced Defense Secretary Robert Gates that senior officials must be held accountable.

Multimedia:

Moseley-Wynne photos

Moseley resigned in response.

Later in the morning, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England was dispatched to Wright-Patterson to ask for Wynne’s resignation, sources said. Wynne resigned during the meeting.

At a Pentagon press briefing Thursday afternoon, Gates said his decision to seek their resignations was “based entirely” on the Donald report, which uncovered a “gradual erosion of nuclear standards and a lack of effective oversight by Air Force leadership.”

Gates, who began his career working nuclear security issues as an Air Force intelligence officer in the 1960s, also said a “substantial” number of Air Force general officers and colonels more immediately responsible for recent lapses could still be reprimanded or fired in the wake of the report.

It is not clear how quickly Wynne and Moseley will leave their positions. Moseley has requested retirement effective Aug. 1 and will take terminal leave before that, according to a memo from Moseley, but it is not clear when he will leave his position.

“I think the honorable thing to do is to step aside,” Moseley said in a statement released to the press. “After consulting with my family, I intend to submit my request for retirement to Secretary Gates.”

Gates is likely to recommend Michael B. Donley, the Pentagon’s director of administration and management to succeed Wynne, a senior defense official said Friday.

Donley was acting secretary of the Air Force for seven months in 1993 and served as the service’s top financial officer from 1989 to 1993.

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Duncan McNabb will likely become acting chief of staff.

The stunning development follows a series of high-profile scandals and disagreements between Air Force leadership and Gates in the past year, during which both the Pentagon and congressional leadership have increasingly expressed frustration about the Air Force’s top bosses.

But a senior defense official said the nuclear report was the most significant factor. “Everything that preceded that is insignificant by comparison,” the official said.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a statement praising Gates’ decision.

“Secretary Gates’ focus on accountability is essential and had been absent from the Office of the Secretary of Defense for too long,” the statement says. “The safety and security of America’s nuclear weapons must receive the highest priority, just as it must in other countries. The Secretary took appropriate action following the reports of the Defense Science Board, the Air Force’s own internal review, and now most recently, the report of Admiral Donald.” Wynne became Air Force secretary in November 2005, and Moseley took office in September 2005. Moseley’s term was to expire in September 2009, and Wynne served at the pleasure of the president.

Moseley, a former fighter pilot, has been in the Air Force since 1972. Before becoming chief, he served as commander of U.S. Central Command Air Forces and then as vice chief of staff from August 2003 until September 2005.

Wynne served as an Air Force officer from 1966 until 1973 and then began a nearly 30-year career in the aerospace industry. He rose to become president of General Dynamics’ space division and general manager of space launch systems at Lockheed Martin. He re-entered government service in 2001 and served four years as principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics before becoming Air Force secretary.

While the simultaneous removal of a service’s top civilian and uniformed leaders is unprecedented, there has been speculation for months among defense insiders that Moseley, Wynne or both could be in trouble.

The Air Force has been rocked by a series of missteps during the past year, and Moseley and Wynne’s relationships with Gates, England and members of congressional defense committees have steadily eroded.

Both men are well-liked personally, but that apparently was not enough to make up for a perceived lack of leadership.

Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute in Fairfax, Va., said the writing has been on the wall for several months, and that Moseley’s demeanor has changed noticeably during that time.

“It was clear the relationship between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force was deteriorating,” Thompson said. “But it wasn’t clear what that would mean for Air Force leadership. … “This [is] the final chapter in a long list of grievances between OSD and the Air Force.”

Those grievances include criticism of the Air Force’s nuclear weapons handling, two major acquisitions programs that have been stalled by protests, the service’s inability to rush more surveillance drones to the war zones, apparent conflicts of interest of current and retired senior officials related to a $50 million contract to produce a multimedia show for the Thunderbirds, and repeated clashes with Pentagon leaders over the number of F-22s the Air Force will buy and other budget issues.

The most serious blow to the credibility of the Air Force and its leadership has been a scandal spawned by the service’s accidental transfer in August of six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La.

A B-52 from the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot was supposed to transfer unarmed air-launched cruise missiles to Barksdale to be decommissioned, but munitions loaders accidentally attached nuclear-armed missiles to the pylons. The missiles were flown to Barksdale and sat unguarded on the tarmac for several hours before anyone realized what happened, some 30 hours after the mistake was made.

The 5th Bomb Wing commander, two group commanders and the 5th Munitions Squadron commander were relieved of their commands.

Moseley ordered a service-wide review of the nuclear enterprise two months after the incident, resulting in 36 recommendations for improvements. The review report was presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee, members of which were highly critical of the Air Force’s nuclear weapons handling.

The 5th Bomb Wing in late May failed its defense nuclear surety inspection, despite having months to prepare and being under close scrutiny since the incident. Inspectors found glaring deficiencies in the wing’s ability to protect its nuclear stockpile.

Then, in March, it was discovered that the Air Force had mislabeled nuclear warhead fuses, which led to the classified components accidentally being shipped to Taiwan in 2006. Gates said the incident made him realize that problems with the Air Force’s nuclear weapons handling procedures were systemic rather than isolated.

“The Taiwan incident was clearly the trigger,” he said.

In response, Gates ordered a military-wide inventory of nuclear weapons and components. That report was recently submitted to Gates.

It is believed to contain damning conclusions about the Air Force’s nuclear weapons handling practices.

Without naming Wynne and Moseley, Gates said “individuals in command and leadership positions not only fell short in terms of specific actions, they failed to recognize systemic problems, to address those problems, or – where beyond their authority to act – to call the attention of superiors to those problems.”

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, said he agreed with Gates’ decision to relieve Wynne and Moseley in the wake of the nuclear problems.

“There is nothing more important than the security of nuclear weapons, and it appeared that the Air Force investigation was not thorough,” Murtha said.

DoD backs automatic TSP enrollments

The Pentagon supports proposed changes to the government’s Thrift Savings Plan that would automatically sign up troops and offer an investment option that provides tax-free earnings at retirement, if draft legislation now being considered makes it into law.

The idea behind automatic sign-ups is simple. “The consensus within the financial community is that you should be investing for your retirement,” said Army Maj. John Johnson, director of the Pentagon’s Armed Forces Tax Council. “And a big reason why a lot of people don’t is inertia. They just don’t take that action.”

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which oversees the TSP program, shares that view. “Automatic enrollment [is] a good way to make inertia work in favor of participation,” said Tom Trabucco, the board’s legislative director.

Under the proposal, troops who are automatically enrolled could opt out of TSP if they desired.

If lawmakers approve, the proposal to add a Roth IRA option to the TSP would be a boon to many combat troops who do not pay taxes on earnings or bonuses received in the war zones.

Normally, contributions to Roth accounts are made in after-tax dollars, which reduces take-home pay but allows participants to withdraw the principal and interest tax-free at retirement.

In a normal IRA or 401(k), participants contribute pre-tax dollars — meaning their take-home pay is higher because a lower amount is taxed — but the money is taxed when withdrawn at retirement.

With a Roth IRA, troops who re-enlist in the war zone and get a tax-free bonus could contribute thousands of tax-free dollars into Roth IRA accounts and never have to pay tax on the earnings.

“That’s the biggest reason we support the Roth,” Johnson said. “The benefits will be greatest for deployed members in combat zones, and junior troops.”

Roth IRAs and traditional IRAs have advantages, Johnson said. Money contributed to a traditional IRA, for example, can be claimed as a tax deduction.

To figure out which choice makes sense, investors have to look ahead and try to determine whether they’ll be in a lower tax bracket now, or later.

For anyone in a zero-percent tax bracket — such as troops in a combat zone — “it’s a no-brainer,” Johnson said. “They obviously should be doing Roth. And a lot of military people are in a zero tax bracket. I mean, most military members deployed pay no taxes. So it’s a huge benefit.”

But those in higher brackets may also benefit. In the course of providing financial advice, said Phil Dyer, deputy director for financial education for the Military Officers Association of America, “I routinely find military retirees who are in a higher tax bracket in retirement than they ever were during any of their active-duty years or even second-career years.

“If they’ve done a good job saving, they’ve got their military retired pay, they’ve got Social Security ... they’ve got a lot of money in 401(k) plans,” he said.

At that point, withdrawn traditional TSP earnings, which are taxable, are “just going to increase the tax burden,” he said. “And so that’s where Roth, I think, offers another benefit.”

But Dyer added a cautionary note: “We have no idea what taxes are going to look like 25, 30 years from now,” he said.

Most war-zone troops in the TSP program can invest their tax-exempt pay in the TSP, up to annual limits — although under the current options offered, the interest would still be subject to taxation on withdrawals.

“If somebody’s in the combat zone and contributing to TSP, there actually is a de facto Roth that’s created because when that money comes in, if they’re in a combat zone, they’re tax-free up to the maximum enlisted pay rate,” Dyer said. “If they’re contributing to TSP, that money’s going to be segregated ... into a parallel TSP account to maintain that tax-free status” on the contributions.

Again, interest earned on those tax-free contributions would be taxed upon withdrawal.

While a tax-free Roth would be most beneficial for TSP participants in a war zone, Dyer said, it would be a potentially boon for nondeployed troops as well, even though they would be investing after-tax dollars.

“It goes into the account, grows tax-deferred ... and then when the money comes out, provided it’s a qualified distribution on the back end, the money’s going to come out free from federal and state income taxes.

“With 15-, 20-, 30-plus years of compounding, it’s a huge advantage,” Dyer said.

Senior Pentagon officials agree.

“If given that option, we are confident that the Department of Defense would implement default auto-enrollment into Roth TSP accounts,” David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, wrote in a May 20 letter to the TSP board.

But Chu said that while the Pentagon favors the idea of automatic enrollment, he believes each agency head should be granted discretion on whether to implement it.

TRICARE Beneficiaries About to be Turned Away?

Week of June 02, 2008

Absentee Voting Kicks Off

Week of June 02, 2008

2009 Pay Raise Passes House

Week of May 26, 2008

New Spouse Financial Spouse Guide

Week of May 19, 2008

Committee Approves National Parks Discount

Week of May 19, 2008

AF Marathon Set for September

Week of May 19, 2008

Servicemembers Ask Obama, Clinton & McCain Questions

Week of May 19, 2008

Compare 2009 Pay Charts

Week of May 19, 2008

Better Health Benefits, Bigger Raises Voted For '09

Active duty and reserve component members can bank on a 3.9 percent pay raise next January as Congress continues to close a perceived military "pay gap" that a Pentagon pay study says no longer exists.

The House Armed Services Committee on May 14 joined Senate colleagues in approving, for a 10th consecutive year, a military pay increase that will exceed private sector wage growth by a half of a percentage point.

Both the House and Senate panels also agreed to block the Bush administration, for a third straight year, from raising TRICARE fees for working-age retirees or pharmacy co-pays under TRICARE's retail network.

Both panels also have directed the Department of Defense to lower premiums paid by drilling reservists and their families who enroll in the TRICARE Reserve Select program. TRS premiums by law are to be set only high enough to cover program costs. The Government Accountability Office recently found that Defense officials had set them too high. Premiums could drop for member-only coverage from $81 a month down to about $47 and for member-and-family coverage from $253 monthly down to about $175.

Another set of health care initiatives, approved so far only in House committee version of the fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill, would add "preventive" health care incentives. Co-pays would be waived or rebates given, for example, to patients who get routine health screen appropriate for their age and gender such as colorectal exams, mammograms, cervical screening, prostate exams, annual physicals or vaccinations.

Only TRICARE Prime patients receiving managed care through military treatment facilities now receive such services with no co-payments or cost-shares. The House bill also would waive costs for smoking cessation programs, and would establish a pilot program to pay a preventive health allowance, of $1000 to a family or $500 to a member, to beneficiaries who keep up on recommended health screens and maintain healthy lifestyles. 

Blocking the higher TRICARE fees sought by the president required lawmakers to find $1.2 billion to plug a hole in the military health budget, the House committee reported. But $345 million of that money, to prevent a jump in drug co-payments, required offsets of "direct spending" on other entitlements payable in fiscal 2009. Under the House committee plan, $45 million of that would come out of the pockets of military retirees by denying them one percent of their next cost-of-living adjustment for one month.

Rep. John McHugh (N.Y.), senior Republican on the personnel subcommittee, branded this part of the solution for sidelining Bush's drug co-payments a regrettable budget "gimmick."  McHugh vowed to find a more acceptable alternative to propose as the bill is debated on the House floor.

Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), chairman of the personnel subcommittee, shrugged off McHugh's criticism, saying difficult choices had to be made. The committee succeeded in backing significant pay and benefits gains, she said, despite the $1.2 billion hole left by a Republican administration in the defense health budget and the funds needed to boost the next pay raise beyond 3.4 percent endorsed by the White House, thus whittling a perceived basic pay gap down to 2.9 percent.

The House committee surpassed Senate colleagues on this issue too, accepting an amendment from Rep. Thelma Drake (R-Va.) to extend the string of above-average military raises through 2013. Even if the full House agrees, this change still would need to win Senate approval to become law.

Ignored by both committees in shaping the 2009 military pay raise was a conclusion made two months ago by the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation that a military pay gap no longer exists if hefty increases in tax-free housing allowances over the last decade are counted.

But in an election year, with 150,000 U.S. troops still rotating through the unpopular Iraq war, lawmakers choose to ignore the findings of the 10th QRMC. One committee staff members called the report "persuasive" in describing how a large pay gap identified in 1999 not only has been closed but, when total compensation is considered, military pay might now exceed average wages for civilians of comparable age and education by 6.5 percent.

But this same staff member said he never heard the QRMC report even discussed by committee members since its release.

"We're in wartime, we're stressing our troops and [lawmakers] are going to take every opportunity to show their appreciation," he said.

Across the Capitol, in the others armed services committee, a staff member said his bosses aren't "ignorant" of the QRMC perspective. But for now they will continue to compare growth in basic pay that of private sector wages, ignoring gains over the years in housing allowances.

"Is it a perfect measure?  Slap my forehead, 'No.'…But their measure isn't perfect either," he said.  "What we're trying to do here is grasp relative comparability between two very diverse and different systems."

He dismissed the QRMC argument that because housing is a big expense for most Americans, therefore gains in military housing allowances are critical to assessing whether there's a pay gap.

 "The civilian world lives within their culture; we live within a military culture. The military culture is you get your housing," this committee staffer said, whether that housing is provided at no charge on base or through provision of tax-free allowances to be able to rent housing off base.

Besides, he added, the volunteer military is striving to keep its ranks full during a "very, very difficult period" and pay levels are a critical element.

This is no time, he suggested, to declare the pay gap closed and to try to introduce troops to a new method for tracking pay comparability

Discount on Child Alert System

Week of May 12, 2008

WASHINGTON -- A House panel Wednesday backed a 3.9 percent pay raise for all military personnel next year, mirroring Senate plans to give troops a bigger boost than Pentagon officials had requested.

Members of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee included the money in their draft of the new defense authorization bill, which sets spending and policy priorities for the military in fiscal 2009.

Chairwoman Susan Davis, D-Calif., said the larger pay raise is needed to help shrink the gap between military wages and private sector paychecks.

If passed, the pay raise would be the highest for troops since 2004 and the 10th consecutive year military pay has outpaced the employment cost index.

Defense officials had requested a 3.4 percent increase, equal to the index's inflation estimate. But earlier this month Senate lawmakers backed the 3.9 percent figure, indicating that both chambers will likely adopt the higher raise when they negotiate compromise legislation later this year.

For an E-4 with four years' military service, the Senate plan would mean an increase of $79.86 a month, about $10 more than the Pentagon plan. For an O-4 with four years, it would be $189.25 a month, about $24 more than the Pentagon plan.

The House panel also announced plans to eliminate co-pays for preventive care procedures such as cancer screenings and cholesterol tests in an effort to encourage more Tricare patients to seek medical advice before serious problems occur.

Davis said the plan covers all beneficiaries except those enrolled in Tricare for Life. She said lawmakers were unable to find enough money to extend the same coverage to that group along with other Tricare members.

It also includes a pilot program for military spouses to receive job training in "portable" careers as they move from base to base, and another to allow servicemembers a temporary gap in service to pursue family or education goals before completing their tours of duty.

But the draft excludes nearly $1.2 billion in pharmacy and doctors' fees backed by defense officials to cover the rising cost of health care. Lawmakers have rebuffed those efforts in recent years, saying military retirees shouldn't bear the brunt of those expenses.

The authorization bill does not set pay raises for civilian defense employees, but Congress often uses the military paycheck boosts as the basis for the civilian raises in later budget bills.

If passed, the raise would go into effect Jan. 1.

Preventive care plan omits Tricare for Life

Budgetary rules forced a House subcommittee to take the unprecedented step of creating a new Tricare preventive health care program that does not apply to 1.5 million for Medicare-eligible retirees and their families in the Tricare for Life program.

Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Armed Services military personnel panel, said the plan, approved Wednesday as part of the 2009 defense authorization bill, is aimed at cutting the military’s long-term health care costs by providing preventive care.

The personnel portion of the defense policy bill, approved by voice vote and with no debate, includes:

* A 3.9 percent military pay raise.

* Increases in Army and Marine Corps active-duty personnel and in Army National Guard and Army Reserve support personnel on full-time active duty.

* A tuition assistance program for military spouses.

* Permission for a Pentagon-proposed experiment under which active-duty members could take a break of up to three years in their military career.

The full armed services committee will take up the bill next week.

Davis said her subcommittee rejected a Pentagon request for a $1.2 billion increase in Tricare health and pharmacy fees but wants to look for other ways to hold down costs, which is why expanding preventive care is attractive.

“Preventive health care is important to the long-term health of our beneficiary population, and may reduce the amount of care required,” Davis said.

She called the initiative “preferable” to the Pentagon’s proposed increase in Tricare fees.

The preventive care plan would waive co-payments for certain treatments such as vaccinations, smoking cessation help, and breast and colorectal cancer screening. It would apply to Tricare Standard, Tricare Select and Tricare Reserve beneficiaries — but, because of budgetary procedures, not Tricare for Life.

Aides named two areas in which Tricare for Life beneficiaries would be treated differently than other Tricare users: shingle vaccinations and MRIs for mammograms.

Younger retirees would receive these services for free, but Tricare for Life users would have to pay, either directly or by buying supplemental Medicare insurance, aides said.

Rep. John McHugh of New York, the subcommittee’s ranking Republican, said this would be the first instance of differences in what is covered under Tricare, and also promised to work to try to find funding to offset that action.

There are two kinds of spending in the defense budget: discretionary, which applies to personnel, operating and acquisitions costs and construction programs; and mandatory, also known as direct spending, for programs such as retired pay, GI Bill benefits for reservists, and some health care expenses, including Tricare for Life.

Davis said only congressional leaders can resolve the funding problem because direct spending involves programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and federal civilian retired pay that fall outside the jurisdiction of the armed services committee.

Congressional leaders could agree to an offset by cutting other direct spending or could find another way to fund preventive care, subcommittee aides said.

Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the Military Officers Association of America, said he understands the dilemma facing the subcommittee and agrees that what they did “is certainly preferable to not doing anything.”

“We have been very supportive of preventive care programs,” he said. “It only makes common sense that if you come up with programs like smoking cessation that it is going to save money in the long run.”

AF Spouses Encouraged to Take Survey

Week of May 05, 2008

Navy Announces New Recruiting Program

Week of May 05, 2008

Free Amusement Park Admission

Week of May 05, 2008

Lawmakers said the 3.9 percent pay raise, 0.5 percent above what defense officials requested, is designed to further close the gap between military and civilian pay.

If passed, the pay raise would be the highest for troops since 2004.

For an E-4 with four years military service, the Senate plan would mean an increase of $79.86 a month, about $10 more than the Pentagon plan. For an O-4

All military pay information can be found in Military.com's Pay Section

The proposal released by the Senate Armed Service Committee has a $542.5 billion base budget, $27 billion above what Pentagon planners requested for fiscal 2009. It also contains an additional $70 billion in bridge funds to continue combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan past October.

Along with funding for ships and aircraft, the legislation contains a number of policy priorities for 2009, including the creation of new suicide prevention programs, increasing the maximum re-enlistment contract from six to eight years, and allowing 21 days of paternity leave for new fathers.

The bill also reauthorizes 25 bonuses and specialty pays used for recruiting and retention, and adds new incentives to entice medical professionals into the ranks.

Senators also included a provision to provide a 500-pound weight allowance during permanent change of station moves for military spouses’ professional books and equipment, and language providing travel money to reservists called to active duty who get stuck away from home over holidays.

Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he hopes the bill will come up for vote before the full Senate by Memorial Day. The House Armed Services Committee will begin its mark-up of the authorization bill next week.

Both the House and Senate must pass their separate versions of the budget bill before sending a compromise measure to the president later this year.

Financial counselor training open to spouses

The deadline for this year’s military spouse fellowship program, which will provide up to 200 spouses the education necessary to enter the financial counseling career field, is fast approaching.

Applications are accepted online only through midnight April 30.

This is the third year of the Military Spouse Fellowship for the Accredited Financial Counselor Program, designed to help military spouses interested in building a career in financial counseling — a job that can be both rewarding and flexible enough to accommodate the demands of military life.

It is a joint effort between the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Investor Education Foundation, which provides the funding for the program, the National Military Family Association, and the Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education (AFCPE).

The fellowships cover the costs of completing the Associated Financial Counselor training and testing. When spouses finish the program and the required practicum, they will be awarded the Accredited Financial counselor designation from AFCPE, which provides the training through a distance-learning program.

Spouses are encouraged to do their practicum in the military community, because the program is designed to give back to the military community. But it is not required; the sponsoring organizations understand that many spouses do not live near an installation. The majority of the practicum should be spent providing supervised personal financial counseling or education.

There is an increasing need for financial counseling services. A variety of employers — including credit unions and banks, military family centers, community housing agencies, cooperative extension services, and bankruptcy courts — are searching for well-trained, ethical and caring financial counselors.

States aim to ease transfers for military kids

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas and Kentucky are the first states to approve a compact that will make it easier for children of military families to change schools if enough other states sign on.

The compact seeks to provide flexibility for the 1.5 million children of military families in the U.S. They attend an estimated six to nine school systems between kindergarten and graduation on average, and differing educational requirements in different states often add to their burden.

“Changing schools and making new friends can be hard on children whose parents are in the military,” said Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, whose signature Wednesday made Kansas the first state to approve the compact. “This bill will help ease the transition between schools by seamlessly transferring records.”

The compact, which would become operational with adoption by 10 states, is intended to prevent children of military families from needlessly repeating courses or being denied access to extracurricular activities. It would provide alternative coursework options for districts that do not waive graduation requirements for students. Compact members would work to create uniform standards of practice, including the transfer of records, course placement and graduation requirements.

“If you have ever known, or been a part of, a military family, you know the barriers to educational success for children due to frequent moves and deployments,” said Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, who signed a bill Thursday. “With Fort Campbell and Fort Knox at our back door this is especially problematic here in the commonwealth.”

Kansas and Kentucky have nearly 50,000 school-aged children whose parents are active-duty military members. Most of those in Kansas live near Fort Riley, which is home to the 1st Infantry Division.

Bills to create the compact have been introduced in 20 states, including Kansas and Kentucky, according to the Council on State Governments, which developed the proposal.

Defense officials say the education of service members’ children is a quality-of-life issue that affects recruitment, retention and readiness.

“Easing this burden is the right thing to do,” said David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. “We appreciate all the support and effort to implement the compact. We look forward to more states signing on.”

Not applying for scholarships is like turning down free money, missing the application deadline is like buying a lottery ticket after the winning number has been announced.

‘Above All’ firm renews contract

The Air Force awarded on Wednesday a 10-year, $372 million contract to advertising firm GSD&M Idea City, which developed the Air Force’s recent “Do Something Amazing” and “Above All” campaigns.

The contract is for national advertising, media and event marketing duties for Air Force recruiting efforts, according to a GSD&M press release.

The Austin, Texas-based firm has worked with the Air Force since 2001 but had to recompete for the contract because of government contracting rules, said company spokesman John McGrath.

The “Above All” campaign the firm developed for the Air Force has come under fire from some lawmakers who say the television, print and online ads look too much like an effort to lobby Congress illegally for funding rather than a traditional recruiting campaign. Air Force leaders have denied that is the case.

GSD&M’s previous contract with the Air Force was worth $350 million over 7 years, McGrath said.

Bill aims to improve absentee ballot delivery

A California congressman wants to ensure every military vote counts in the November elections by having couriers — not the U.S. Postal Service — deliver completed absentee ballots from deployed service members to state election officials.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is looking for a way to overcome one of the biggest voting obstacles for service members based or deployed overseas — getting a ballot far enough in advance that a service member has time to complete it and send it back to state election officials in time to be counted.

McCarthy calls his bill, HR 5673, the Military Voting Protection Act, and says he is just trying to apply a “common-sense solution” so that service members are not denied the chance to have their vote count through no fault of their own.

“We can and we must work to protect the votes of our troops serving abroad and ensure they are counted,” said McCarthy, the ranking Republican on the House Administration Committee’s elections panel, to which his bill was referred.

Chief cosponsors include Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., and Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., who are also members of the elections subcommittee.

The bill assumes the new rules would apply to the November elections.

McCarthy said his bill attempts to address problems such as those cited in a 2007 report by the Election Assistance Commission on service members’ use of absentee ballots by in the 2006 election.

The report found that only 47.6 percent of absentee ballots requested by members of the military ended up being counted, and that some of the problem appeared to stem from mail delays. Ten percent of ballots arrived too late to be counted under deadlines applied by states, which usually are a combination of the date the ballot is postmarked and the absolute last day for ballots to be counted before election results are certified.

McCarthy said late ballots are not the fault of service members, who have no control over where they are assigned overseas or how long the mail might take to get back to the U.S.

His bill would have the Defense Department assign people to collect completed ballots and ensure they are delivered to state election officials before polls close. This could be done by military personnel or by contractors. The bill also calls for setting up a process to track progress of the packages of ballots, similar to the way major commercial shipping companies track packages.

DoD plan would allow sabbaticals up to 3 years

Defense officials are proposing an experiment in which service members could take a break in their military careers of up to three years for personal or professional reasons.

This time off — with health benefits, but without pay — would be similar to sabbaticals offered by some private businesses in high-pressure fields and by colleges and universities to some professors, but with a major difference: Most academic and professional sabbaticals are limited to one year.

Officials are calling their proposal “career intermission.”

The Navy is the only service planning to use the pilot program right away, defense officials said, but the Navy’s experience with it could lead to its expansion to the other services.

While those taking the time off would not receive active-duty pay or allowances, they would still be on the military’s payroll because they would be required to participate in the Ready Reserve and would receive a monthly stipend of $100.

They would not have to take part in any military drills, but would have to report to a military office at least once a month and perform one day of active duty each year for medical and administrative screening.

Additionally, defense officials said they expect people taking a career break to maintain proficiency in their military specialty through online and correspondence courses and other means.

Time spent on a career break would not count toward retirement.

The volunteers who take a career break would be required to serve two months of active duty for every one month of time off they were granted, so that someone who took a full three years off would have a six-year obligation.

People returning to active duty after such a break would be reappointed to the same job they previously held, or a similar one, and would have their full pay and benefits, including special and incentive pays and bonuses as long as they remain eligible, defense officials said.

The idea has been discussed by defense and service personnel officials for several years as a way to make military service a little more like the private sector.

But the plan is going to get attention from Congress because the Pentagon’s top manpower official said it would be a way to give military women more time off after the birth of a child without making military men think women are being given an unequal advantage.

David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, mentioned a sabbatical program at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing and said it was one option for overhauling the services’ different maternity policies.

“I think we need to be a little careful that we don’t damage the standing of women as a key element of the force in saying that they should not share their part of the overall force burdens in terms of how we utilize them,” Chu said during a discussion of maternity rules.

A sabbatical, Chu said, “may be a superior alternative for those who would like room within which to develop a family.”

Chu said he expects most people would leave the military for one or two years, and that having some degree of benefits — like the small stipend and health care — would help keep them tied to the service.

The House and Senate Armed Services committees are expected to consider the proposal as they prepare the 2009 defense authorization bill for passage later this year. But congressional aides said the proposal represents such a dramatic change in military career policy that they could not predict how it will be received.

A formal proposal, sent to Congress as part of a March 14 package of proposed legislation, calls for a six-year test involving 60 officers and 60 enlisted members.

During the test, no more than 20 officers and 20 enlisted members each year would be granted an “intermission” in their career.

The outlook for every rank in the coming year

Despite continuing uncertainty about the proper size of the force, promotions should remain steady in the coming year.

Neither the Air Force’s stated intention to cut 12,600 positions in 2009, nor the service’s more recent attempt to win congressional backing for its plan to push end strength back up to 330,000, will affect promotion rates this year, which likely will be close to 2007’s numbers.

While the debate continues over the right size of the force, two factors are keeping promotion levels steady. First, the ongoing drawdown hasbeen spread across all paygrades, preventing a glut or shortage of airmen in any of the ranks that would lead to a large shift in promotion rates, said Lt. Col. Scott Brady, who oversees promotion and evaluation policies at the Air Staff.

And while the Air Force has proposed 2009 end-strength goals ranging from 316,600 to 330,000, the difference between the two isn’t enough to require large adjustments to 2008’s promotion goals.

Brady’s prediction of stable promotion rates is backed up by what has happened early in the 2008 promotion cycle. Only one rank has gone through the promotion process — master sergeants testing to become senior master sergeants. When the results were announced March 12, the promotion rate was 8.91 percent, up slightly from the 2007 rate of 8.77 percent.

The 2008 cycle also marks the debut of new enlisted and officer evaluation forms appearing in personnel files. But how much, if any, difference the new forms are making isn’t known, since the new evaluations will be one of many reviews in an airman’s records, Brady said.

Here is what to expect from 2008’s promotion cycle:

Airman basic, airman, senior airman

For junior enlisted airmen — airman basic to senior airman — promotions continue to be determined by time in service and time in grade, said Chief Master Sgt. Mark Long, who oversees enlisted promotions and evaluations at the Air Staff. The airmen do not compete for promotion.

Force structure changes — such as in 2005, when the service recruited a comparatively small class of 18,900, or about 10,000 less than other years — won’t affect promotion chances.

An airman basic is eligible to move up to airman after six months and approval from the enlistee’s commander.

The step up to airman first class should come for most when they have completed 10 months as an airman basic.

That is, except for airmen who joined with a six-year commitment. Their promotion is linked to completing technical training school or 20 weeks of technical training, or completing the combat controller or pararescueman indoctrination course, whichever happens first.

Most airmen sew on their senior airman stripes once they’ve been in the Air Force for three years, meet their 3-level skill requirements and earn commander approval. Airmen on six-year enlistments sew on at the 28-month point if they are a 3-level.

Staff sergeant, technical sergeant, master sergeant

While the requirements for noncommissioned officer ranks vary widely, their promotion rates tend to move in tandem. If the selection rate falls for technical sergeants, the rates for master and staff sergeants are apt to fall as well.

All three ranks had their lowest promotion rates of the decade in 2006, as the service began to trim back 40,000 full-time positions. In 2007, the rates bounced back.

Airmen testing for these noncommissioned officer ranks in 2008 could benefit from accelerated promotion rates if their career field is manned at 85 percent or less and their work is considered a critical “war-fighting skill.” Career fields that meet those qualifications are placed in the “chronic critical shortage” category, and members could then be promoted at a rate 20 percent higher than the overall average for that rank.

The downside to some career fields getting extra promotions is that for every extra airman promoted in a career field with a manning shortage, one fewer airman at the same rank is promoted in career fields without manning issues.

“For someone to gain, someone has to lose,” Long said.

The Air Force is in the process of determining which staff, technical and master sergeant Air Force Specialty Codes will qualify as critical skills in 2008, Long said.

For the 2008 senior master sergeant promotions, 40 AFSCs qualified.

Beginning with promotion to staff sergeant, airmen compete with other members of their AFSCs to advance. Senior airmen can compete for staff sergeant once they have three years of time in service and six months time in grade. They also must have earned a 5-level skill rating by their promotion eligibility cutoff date — March 31 for the 2008 promotion cycle.

The biggest factor driving how many airmen are promoted to staff sergeant is the retention of airmen for a second enlistment, Long said. If a large number of airmen are expected to leave at the end of their first enlistment, the promotion rate for the remaining airmen is higher.

In the past four years, the retention rate of first-term airmen has averaged about 59 percent, including a decline in 2007 to about 55 percent, according to Air Force budget figures.

During that same period, promotion rates have averaged almost 40 percent, with the 41.33 percent selected in 2007, the fifth highest rate since 1971. During the post-Cold War drawdown, the promotion rate was as low as 5.48 percent — in 1992.

This year, 36,332 senior airmen are eligible to test for staff sergeant, nearly the same as in 2007, and early indications are that the promotion rate again will hover close to 40 percent, Long said.

Airmen will learn if they are staff sergeant-selects in mid-August.

More airmen compete for promotion to technical sergeant than any other grade.

The number is the highest because there are more staff sergeants eligible for promotion at any given time than in any other rank.

In 2007, almost 39,800 airmen took a shot at making tech. For 2008, 43,722 airmen are trying to make it.

The testing window for technical sergeant runs through March 31.

To compete for promotion to technical sergeant, a staff sergeant should have five years time in service, 23 months in grade as a staff sergeant and a 7-level skill rating.

Over the past decade, promotion rates have ranged from a low of 16.76 percent in 2006 to 33.51 percent in 2002, the highest rate since 1971. The Air Force doesn’t expect to repeat that record-setting performance. Instead, the rate is likely to be in the 18.4 percent to 21 percent range, similar to recent years.

The announcement of the tech-selects is set for the middle of June.

To test for master sergeant, an airman needs eight years of time in service and two years as a technical sergeant.

Over the past four years, about 24,000 technical sergeants have competed annually for master sergeant positions. In this cycle, 26,757 airmen are in the pool, the most since 1995. Testing for promotion continues through March 31.

But a large group testing doesn’t necessarily equal a lower promotion rate. When 25,454 airmen competed in 2005, the selection rate was 26.05 percent.

This year’s selection rate should be around 24 percent.

The promotion announcement is due in mid-June.

Senior master sergeant, chief master sergeant

While the number of senior NCOs is constrained by law to no more than 3 percent of the enlisted force, their promotion rates have remained stable.

Of all the enlisted ranks, making senior master sergeant is the most competitive. Over the past two decades, the selection rate has exceeded 10 percent only twice.

No more than 2 percent of enlisted airmen can be senior master sergeants, Long said. There aren’t quotas for the lower enlisted ranks.

Tests for senior master sergeant promotions were in December, with the results of tests and evaluation board revealed March 12. Of the 14,404 master sergeants who sought promotion, 8.91 percent were selected, the highest rate since 2005.

Airmen in 40 career fields qualified for higher promotion rates because their manning at senior master sergeant fell below 80 percent and the specialties are needed for ongoing conflicts, Long said.

The promotion advantage varied among career fields. Explosive ordnance experts were promoted at a 16.66 percent rate, while most other critical AFSC candidates were promoted at a rate of 10 percent to 11 percent. Career fields that didn’t have manning issues had promotion rates as low as 7.05 percent.

Chief master sergeants are limited to 1 percent of the enlisted force.

Candidates for chief start testing in September and have their records reviewed by an evaluation board in October.

Although it is too early to say how many airmen will test for chief, or the number of openings, Long expects the promotion rate to be in line with recent years. Since 2003, the selection rate has been around 20 percent — except for 2007, when the rate dipped to 16.85 percent.

Chief candidates also may benefit from the critical skills promotion advantage, but it is too soon to say which career fields qualify, Long said.

Second and first lieutenant

For many lieutenants, the question foremost on their minds since 2006 hasn’t been when they would be promoted, but whether they would still have a job as the service pushed hundreds of their peers out the door as part of its force-shaping efforts.

Air Force officials predict there will be no cuts aimed at lieutenants in 2009, but some officers may be told to retrain into a new career field.

The promotion opportunity to first lieutenant continues to be 100 percent once a line second lieutenant has two years of commissioned service, Brady said — unless a performance report finds a second lieutenant had substandard performance.

About the only factor that could stop a promotion is a poor performance report with low ratings.

Captain

A first lieutenant with four years commissioned service who is rated in reviews as “fully qualified” will be promoted to captain, Brady said. The promotion opportunity for captains remains 100 percent.

One change underway in the captain promotion process is switching from once-a-year announcements of captain-selects to a quarterly release of names. This change doesn’t affect when an officer will pin on captain’s bars, Brady said. The qualification date remains the four-year mark.

But getting a promotion may not guarantee that you’ll have a job in 2009. The Air Force’s proposed 2009 force-shaping plan calls for slicing the number of captains by 2,841 positions, a 13 percent cut.

Major

The chances of making line major while in the promotion zone is about 95 percent for 2008, the same as 2007, Brady said. Line officers in the zone for this promotion made captain in 2004.

There should be some job security as a major. No significant O-4 cuts are planned in 2009, according to the Air Force budget request.

Since 2004, the in-the-zone promotion opportunity for majors has ranged from 92.4 percent to 94.2 percent, even as the number of officers selected has ranged from 1,901 in 2005 to 2,211 in 2007. There have been no below-the-zone promotions for major since 1998. Above-the-zone promotions continue to be unusual — only 20 line officers above the zone were promoted to major in 2007.

Lieutenant colonel

The promotion opportunity to make line lieutenant colonel is predicted at about 85 percent, the same as recent years, Brady said.

The line selection board will meet Sept. 8-24. Brady said it is too early to say how many majors the board will review. In-the-zone line officers became majors April 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005.

The in-the-zone line promotion rate to lieutenant colonel has consistently been just below 75 percent since 2003. When promotions from below- and above-the-zone groups are added, the total is close to an 85 percent opportunity

Those officers who make lieutenant colonel could find themselves being eased out the door in 2009, as the lieutenant colonel ranks may be cut by 5 percent, according to Air Force budget plans.

Colonel

For line colonels, the promotion opportunity is expected to be 55 percent, Brady said. In-the-zone officers meeting the board will have made lieutenant colonel from April 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004.

The line colonel’s selection board will meet May 12-23 to consider the records of 978 airmen.

Brady’s prediction of a 55 percent selection rate is in line with promotion rates since 2000. The board has selected about 45 percent of in-the-zone candidates. When those officers are combined with those below and above the zone, the total rises to 55 percent.

New VA benefits handbook available

A new edition of the “Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents” handbook, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, updates the rates for certain federal payments and outlines a variety of programs and benefits for American veterans.

Most of the nation’s 24 million veterans qualify for some VA benefits, which range from health care to burial in national cemeteries. In addition to describing benefits provided by VA, the 2008 edition of the 153-page booklet offers an overview of programs and services for veterans provided by other federal agencies.

Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents includes resources to help veterans access their benefits, with a listing of toll-free numbers, Web sites and a directory of VA facilities throughout the country. The handbook can be downloaded free from VA’s Web site.

The handbook is one of the top-selling consumer publications of the U.S. Government Printing Office. GPO accepts credit card orders for the publication at (866) 512-1800 for a cost of $5 each to U.S. addresses, or $67 for bulk orders of 25 copies. It can be ordered by mail from the GPO at Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000 (stock #051-000-00233-4) or online from the GPO bookstore.

In addition to health care and burial benefits, veterans may be eligible for programs providing home loan guaranties, educational assistance, training and vocational rehabilitation, income assistance pensions, life insurance and compensation for service-connected illnesses or disabilities. In some cases, survivors of veterans may also be entitled to benefits.

The handbook describes programs for veterans with specific service experiences, such as prisoners of war or those concerned about environmental exposures in Vietnam or in the Gulf War, as well as special benefits for veterans with severe disabilities.

Air Force Ends Force Shaping

Week of March 31, 2008

Thunderbirds season off to flying start

The Thunderbirds Air Demonstration Squadron kicked off its 2008 schedule Saturday at the San Angelo Regional Airport at Air Fiesta 2008 air show, hosted by Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas.

The team will commemorate the 55th anniversary of the “Ambassadors in Blue” with another 66 shows between now and Nov. 9, appearing in 25 states as well as Canada.

On June 14-15 the Thunderbirds will travel to Quebec City, Canada, to help the city celebrate its 400th anniversary.

This 2008 team comprises eight pilots, four support officers, four civilians and 110 enlisted airmen, and features the Thunderbirds’ first female lead-solo demonstration pilot, Maj. Samantha Weeks, who is in her second year with team.

The rest of the Thunderbirds’ 2008 schedule is listed below.

March

29 — Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.

April

5-6 — Punta Gorda, Fla.

12-13 — Lakeland, Fla.

19-20 — Wilmington, N.C.

26 — Charleston Air Force Base, S.C.

May

3-4 — March Air Reserve Base, Calif.

10-11 — Langley Air Force Base, Va.

17-18 — Fort Smith, Ark.

24 — Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.

28 — U.S. Air Force Academy, Colo. (Invitation only)

31 — McGuire Air Force Base, N.J.

June

1 — McGuire Air Force Base, N.J.

7-8 — Rockford, Ill.

14-15 — Québec City, Canada

21 — Klamath Falls, Ore.

24 — Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska

28-29 — Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska

July

4-6 — Battle Creek, Mich.

12-13 — Milwaukee, Wis.

19-20 — McChord Air Force Base, Wash.

23 — Cheyenne, Wyo.

26-27 — Rochester, N.Y.

August

8-10 — Abbotsford, Canada

16-17 — Offutt Air Force Base, Neb.

20 — Atlantic City, N.J.

23-24 — Kansas City, Mo.

30-31 — Travis Air Force Base, Calif.

September

6-7 — Westover Air Reserve Base, Mass.

12-13 — Reno, Nev.

14 — Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho

20-21 — Scott Air Force Base, Ill.

27-28 — Salinas, Calif.

October

4 — Vance Air Force Base, Okla.

11-12 — Fort Worth, Texas

18-19 — Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Ga.

25-26 — Houston

November

1-2 — Lafayette, La.

8-9 — Nellis Air Force Base, Nev

Medical Leave Act Extended to Military

Week of March 17, 2008

Bill Seeks to Increase Benefit

Week of March 17, 2008

Nominate your everyday hero

If you know someone who is committed 24/7, here is your chance to nominate them to receive the Military Times’ Service Member of the Year Award. Previous winners have cited their award as one of the highlights of their military career.

WASHINGTON -- The 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation has suggested a new way of measuring military pay, proposed that more money be spent on special and incentive pays, and recommended restructuring the basic allowance for housing. Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Jan D. “Denny” Eakle -- former deputy director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service -- chaired the commission and briefed the media on the recommendations yesterday.

This was just the first release of the review, Eakle explained. A second volume, covering retirement and quality-of-life aspects of compensation, will be released in the summer.

Eakle said that whenever a QRMC convenes, the first question it examines always is whether military pay is comparable to pay in the private sector. The second is whether military pay is adequate to maintain the force, she said.

The 9th QRMC, released in 2002, concluded that for pay to be comparable, it had to be at or above the 70th percentile of the age- and education-matched civilian population, Eakle said. Military pay followed this guidance through 2006, and targeted pay raises in 2007 and 2008 ensure DoD exceeds the 70th percentile for enlisted personnel. Officer pay exceeded this goal in 2006 and has kept pace since then, she said.

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

Eakle said the current review studied whether the comparability formula is adequate. “Basically, what we wanted to do is create something which would give military members a better means of assessing how their pay stacked up in comparison to civilians,” she said.

Regular military compensation was the measure used in previous QRMCs. This included basic pay, subsistence, housing and a measure of savings on federal income tax. “But there's a lot more to military compensation,” she said.

The new system begins with regular military compensation and adds state and FICA tax advantages. Military personnel also do not pay out-of-pocket health care costs, such as co-pays, she explained, and all these folded into the panel’s calculations. The new measurement is called military annual compensation, and it sets the 80th percentile as the standard for military compensation comparability with the private sector. Pay for enlisted personnel and officers meets this standard, Eakle said.

Congress revamped the special incentive pay categories from more than 60 to eight, Eakle said. “That, in fact, was a recommendation of this QRMC, and it was enacted before the publication of this document, Eakle said. “And so now it's up to the department to begin the process of drafting out the instructions to adopt this.”

The review recommended increasing the size of the special and incentive pay budget. “Today we have an S&I budget that, quite frankly, is rather small in comparison to the size of the other pay accounts,” she said. “And because of that, it doesn't give the service as much flexibility for arranging pay.”

The review examined the basic allowance for housing and a previous recommendation to do away with the without-dependent housing rate. The review also proposed changes to the partial-BAH program.

Because some single servicemembers are making as little as 52 percent of the pay their peers who have families receive, the QRMC recommends raising that floor to no less than 75 percent at first, and to 95 percent over time. But the gap between married and single BAH should not disappear, Eakle said.

“What we have determined is that if it were completely closed, we would in fact then be over-compensating the singles, because of the difference in things like utilities and insurances,” she explained.

The review did recommend changes for singles living on post or aboard ships. “Today, a young man or woman who is living in the barracks (or) living on a ship forfeits their entire housing allowance for doing that, and we don't think that that's necessarily the most equitable way to operate,” Eakle said.

The proposal is a new variable, partial BAH based on the value of the quarters the servicemembers occupy. The DoD standard is a one-plus-one dormitory -- meaning each individual having a bedroom and a shared cooking facility and bathroom. “That's very much like sharing a two-bedroom apartment,” Eakle said. “And so for those people, we think that the BAH that they are giving up is actually pretty close to what they should be paying for it.”

For those living with three roommates, the review believes they are overpaying for their accommodations by forfeiting their entire housing allowance, and “we would recommend that they get a rebate on their BAH.”

“The range we are talking about is going from zero for people in the one-plus-one dormitories, up to a 25 percent rebate for those who are living in ships with hot-bunk arrangements,” she said. “So you'd be able to give people something in recognition of the fact that housing is not at the DoD standard.”

The review also recommended staying with time-in-service pay tables. A previous commission, the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation, recommended replacing the time-in-service pay table with a time-in-grade pay table. This would reward pay for performance, the commission members believed.

“We looked very seriously at this recommendation, but we've chosen not to accept it and are not going to endorse the change,” Eakle said.

She said it would exacerbate pay differentials, adding: “We don't think that's in keeping with our spirit of being fair and equitable to all members.”

This is a VERY important topic-- please read and contact your representatives accordingly.....

No retirement pay before age 57?

Panel also recommends combining active, reserve retirement systems

By William H. McMichael - bmcmichael@militarytimes.com
Posted : February 11, 2008

A congressionally chartered commission has called for scrapping the entire military retirement system and making active-duty troops wait until at least age 57 to begin drawing retired pay.

The proposal, which would spell the end of the current active-duty system that pays nondisability retirement immediately after a service member completes a minimum of 20 years of service, is among 95 recommendations in the final report of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve, which went well beyond its original charter to review the structure and management of the reserve components and delved into personnel policies for active-duty members.

Under current retirement rules, an active-duty member is eligible for retired pay immediately after completing a minimum of 20 years of service, which can be as young as age 37. However, reservists must wait until age 60 to draw retired pay, although a law signed Jan. 28 by President Bush allows reservists to draw retired pay 90 days earlier than age 60 for every 90 days of mobilization in support of a contingency operation.

Under the commission’s plan, a revamped retired system would grant limited retirement benefits starting at 10 years of service, although payments would not begin until age 62. Those who serve at least 20 years could receive payments at age 60; those who serve 30 years could get them at age 57.

Under the plan, troops could begin drawing retirement pay at earlier ages, but the annuity would be reduced 5 percent for each year that a member is under the statutory minimum retirement age.

The commission said that would bring the military in line with the Federal Employees Retirement System.

The commission concluded that combining the training, promotion and management of active and reserve troops into one integrated manpower system is the only way the nation’s military can become a truly efficient operational force for the future.

“The increasing cost of personnel, and the challenges of recruiting and retaining qualified individuals, will, we believe, inevitably require reductions in the size of the active force,” states the 432-page report, released Jan. 31. “This shrinking active force will necessarily be accompanied by an increased reliance on reserve forces for operations, particularly for homeland missions. The overall effectiveness of those forces will depend on greater integration of the reserves with the active component.”

The commission argued that modifying the 20-year retirements would give the services an incentive to retain troops whom they want to keep for more than 10 years but for less than 20. Additional pay or bonuses would be needed to keep such troops in uniform beyond 10 years to maintain retention rates.

“As part of the reformed retirement system, retention would be encouraged by making service members eligible to receive ‘gate pay’ at pivotal years of service,” the report says. “Such pay would come in the form of a bonus equal to a percentage of annual basic pay at the end of the year of service, at the discretion of the services.”

Matching funds for TSP

In addition, the report says Congress should expand current law to permit all service members to receive up to 5 percent of annual basic pay in matching government contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan. Service members currently receive no government matching funds for TSP contributions.

“The government’s contribution would vest at 10 years of service, and the Thrift Savings Plan benefit would be portable and thus capable of being rolled over into a civilian 401(k) account,” the report says.

Among the report’s other recommendations:

• The military’s promotion system should be competency-based versus time-based.

• Active and reserve officer personnel management systems should be merged into a single system.

• The number of duty statuses should be reduced from 29 to two — on active duty or off.

• The Defense Department should implement a combined pay and personnel system to eliminate problems with incorrect pay, low data quality, multiple personnel files and inaccurate accounting of credit for service.

• The Guard and reserve should be given the clear lead in Defense Department homeland security missions within U.S. borders.

The recruiting and job market landscape has shifted in dramatic ways, the commission said, which means the Defense Department “must recruit, train and maintain a technologically advanced force in an era that will be characterized by ever-increasing competition for a shrinking pool of qualified individuals whose expectations about career paths and mobility are changing dramatically.”

“We need to look at our manpower assets with a totally integrated approach,” commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said.

For active and reserve service members, such a system would create a “seamless” transition to and from active duty — “on-ramps” and “offramps,” as Navy personnel officials have described the concept. Basing promotions on competency rather than time would keep troops competitive within the system.

Reserve reorganization

The 95 recommendations in the report also include a call for the reserves to be reorganized into two formal categories: operational and strategic reserve forces.

The operational reserve would consist of Selected Reserve units and individual mobilization augmentees who would deploy periodically. The strategic reserve would include Selected Reserve personnel and augmentees not scheduled for rotational active-duty tours and the “most ready, operationally current and willing members of the Individual Ready Reserve,” the report says.

The commission also calls for scrapping the Standby Reserve category and said members who are not “viable mobilization assets should be excluded from the total reserve force.”

The Defense Department would have to consistently provide the support needed to ensure the sustained viability of both forces, and Congress and the Pentagon would determine the missions each would perform.

“There used to be an understanding that if you were ready for the away game, you were ready for the home game,” Punaro said. “Most everyone admits that’s not the case anymore. We need a very ready force at home in peacetime, just like we need a ready force for the overseas mission.”

The reserves were conceived as a strategic force that would be called to active duty only in national emergencies. But they have morphed over the past 18 years, beginning with the 1991 Persian Gulf War and spurred by the military drawdown of the 1990s, into an operational reserve that is now regularly called upon to meet the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It’s clear that if you hadn’t had an operational Guard and reserve, you would have had to go back to the draft, which I think everyone agrees is ... pretty unacceptable,” Punaro said.

Punaro is “very bullish” on the prospects for the commission’s work to receive serious attention.

Half of the 95 recommendations “can be done immediately,” he said. About 40 will require congressional or presidential action, according to the report.

AAFES Delivers Valuable Learning Experience to Students Who "Make the Grade"

DALLAS - The Army & Air Force Exchange Service is extending a host of straight "A" savings to military students who are demonstrating above-average academic achievement. As part of AAFES' "You Made the Grade"
effort, students who maintain a "B" average are eligible to receive a variety of complimentary exchange offers for every qualifying report card they bring home.

The current "You Made the Grade" booklet includes coupons for a free Burger King Hamburger Kids meal, complimentary admission for two to the nearest Reel Time movie theater and a free magazine from the local BookMark. In addition to money saving offers, the booklet also contains an entry form for a quarterly savings bond drawing in which three winners are randomly awarded savings bonds of $2,000, $3,000 or $5,000.

"'You Made the Grade' offers a practical learning experience for AAFES'
youngest shoppers," said AAFES' Commander Brig. Gen. Keith Thurgood. "The coupons and the sweepstakes are tangible examples of how it pays to be smart and work hard in school."

To receive the AAFES "You Made the Grade" booklet, students simply present a valid military ID card and proof of an overall "B" or better average to their local BX/PX.

Students may receive one coupon package for every qualifying report card, but may enter the savings bond drawing only once per calendar quarter.
Military families can contact their local AAFES Main Store Manager or General Manager for more information.

Free SAT-ACT Software for Military Families

Week of February 25, 2008

Your 2009 pay raise

The Bush administration is seeking a 3.4 percent raise for all service members next year — the minimum that could be requested under federal law and an amount that advocacy groups are already saying is too small.

The proposed raise, part of the White House’s 2009 defense budget request to be unveiled today, would equal the average growth in private-sector wages in 2007, as measured by the Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Index, or ECI. As such, it would be the minimum raise allowable under current law.

Military pay is tied by law to the ECI, which tracks quarterly changes in compensation for most private-sector and all state and local government employees.

Here are some examples of what a 3.4 percent pay increase would mean:

• An E-4 with more than three years of service now earns $1,949.10 per month; that would rise to $2,015.40 per month on Jan. 1 under the Pentagon plan.

• An E-7 with more than 10 years of service now earns $3,263.10 per month; a 3.4 percent raise would turn that into $3,374.10 per month.

• An O-3 with more than six years of service now earns $4,763.10 per month; that officer would earn $4,925.10 per month with a 3.4 percent pay increase.

The proposed 2009 raise is almost equal to the 3.5 percent increase for this year that was finalized Jan. 28, when Bush signed the revised 2008 Defense Authorization Act.

However, by merely matching private-sector wage growth, the proposed 2009 military raise would not continue to close a so-called “pay gap” that some say exists between military and civilian compensation.

The gap has supposedly existed since 1982, the second year of two massive pay increases under President Reagan that marked the last time rough parity is thought to have existed between military and civilian wages. The gap peaked at 13.5 percent in 1999, but in this decade, a series of raises slightly above the annual increase in the ECI has narrowed the gap considerably.

For 2008, the administration originally proposed a pay raise of 3 percent, which would have matched the ECI increase for 2006. The Pentagon argued that five consecutive years of robust increases had effectively eliminated any remaining gap.

But Congress eventually decided on a 3.5 percent raise for this year, in a nod to the idea that a gap still exists. According to military advocacy groups, the 2008 raise that took effect a few weeks ago has reduced the pay gap to about 3.4 percent.

Some advocates are already preparing to urge Congress to boost the administration’s proposed raise for 2009.

For example, the Military Coalition, an umbrella group of more than 30 military and veterans associations, said it hopes Congress will rally around a 3.9 percent pay raise, a half-percentage point above the Bush request, which would continue to slowly close the pay gap.

According to the 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, completed in 2002, overall regular military compensation — basic pay, housing and food allowances, and the tax benefits of those tax-free allowances — should be at the 70th percentile of comparable earnings of civilians with some college education. In other words, troops generally should be paid better than 70 percent of their civilian peers.

That figure was chosen as the target because the QRMC found that based on historical data, the military did not have recruiting or retention problems when pay was at that level.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a study in 2007 that found that in 2006, total cash compensation and the tax benefits of tax-free allowances for the average enlisted member exceeded the 75th percentile.

2009 Basic Pay: Proposed 3.4% Increase

Years of service: 0-20 22-40

2009 Drill Pay: Proposed 3.4% Increase

Years of service: 0-20 22-40

Air Force sponsors NASCAR truck

The service has signed on to help sponsor a Ford F-150 pickup truck in the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series in 2008.

When the team showed up in Daytona, Fla. for testing Jan. 11, the No. 21 Ford driven by Jon Wood featured the Air Force logo on the hood.

The truck is part of the service’s sponsorship deal with Wood Brothers Racing that includes sponsoring a Ford Fusion in the NASACR Sprint Cup Series.