[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
``HELPING THOSE LEFT BEHIND: ARE WE DOING ENOUGH FOR THE PARENTS,
SPOUSES, AND CHILDREN OF VETERANS?''
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE
AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 24, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-635 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
Dakota HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona Carolina
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEFF MILLER, Florida
PHIL HARE, Illinois JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
JOHN J. HALL, New York, Chairman
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking
PHIL HARE, Illinois MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
April 24, 2007
Page
``Helping Those Left Behind: Are We Doing Enough for the Parents,
Spouses, and Children of Veterans?''........................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman John J. Hall............................................ 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Hall.......................... 41
Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn.................... 41
Hon. Shelley Berkley............................................. 24
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Jack McCoy, Associate Deputy
Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans
Benefits Administration........................................ 35
Prepared statement of Mr. McCoy.............................. 64
__________
Clark, Amy, Bartow, FL........................................... 10
Prepared statement of Mrs. Clark............................. 47
Ellsworth, Hon. Brad, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana, presenting the statement of Ron Nesler, New
Harmony, IN.................................................... 3
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., Rose Elizabeth Lee, Chair,
Government Relations Committee................................. 25
Prepared statement of Ms. Lee................................ 53
Hazelgrove, Kimberly Dawn, Lorton, VA, and Member, Gold Star
Wives of America, Inc.......................................... 16
Prepared statement of Mrs. Hazelgrove........................ 50
Heavrin, Matthew B., Redlands, CA................................ 13
Prepared statement of Mr. Heavrin............................ 49
Jaenke, Susan, Iowa Falls, IA.................................... 8
Prepared statement of Ms. Jaenke............................. 46
Latham, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Iowa........................................................... 5
Prepared statement of Congressman Latham..................... 45
National Military Families Association, Patricia Montes Barron,
Deputy Director of Government Relations........................ 27
Prepared statement of Ms. Barron............................. 56
National Veterans Legal Services Program, Christine Cote, Staff
Attorney....................................................... 29
Prepared statement of Ms. Cote............................... 60
Nesler, Ron, New Harmony, IN, as presented by Hon. Brad
Ellsworth, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Indiana........................................................ 3
Prepared statement of Mr. Nesler............................. 42
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Legion, Peter S. Gaytan, Director, Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Commission, statement........................... 67
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, statement...................................... 70
Piestewa, Priscilla, Flagstaff, AZ, statement.................... 70
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
``The Forgotten Families: Grandparents Raising Slain Soldiers'
Children Are Denied a Government Benefit Intended to Sustain
the Bereaved,'' The Washington Post, February 16, 2007, by
Donna St. George............................................... 71
``Help Needed: Grandparents Raising the Children of Fallen
Soldiers,'' AARP Bulletin, April 2007, by Carole Fleck......... 74
``HELPING THOSE LEFT BEHIND: ARE WE DOING ENOUGH FOR THE PARENTS,
SPOUSES, AND CHILDREN OF VETERANS?''
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Hall
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hall, Lamborn, Rodriguez, Hare,
Berkley, Turner, Bilirakis
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HALL
Mr. Hall. And the Subcommittee will proceed with the
hearing on helping those left behind, are we doing enough for
parents, spouses, and children of veterans.
And our first panel will be the Honorable Brad Ellsworth
and the Honorable Tom Latham, who will both present testimony
on behalf of their constituents.
Let me just say before we go to our witnesses that I am
pleased so many of you could attend this oversight hearing on
this most important topic.
I would like to call attention to the fact that several
individuals interested in today's hearing have asked to submit
a written statement for the record.
If there is no objection, I ask for unanimous consent that
those statements which have been submitted by the following be
allowed to be inserted for the record and those requesting to
insert statements are the Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz from
Texas; Mr. Peter S. Gaytan, Director of the Veterans Affairs
Rehabilitation Commission of the American Legion; and Ms.
Priscilla Piestewa, I hope I am pronouncing that correctly,
mother of Lori Piestewa, the first female casualty in Operation
Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF).
Hearing no objections, so entered.
[The statements submitted for the record appear in the
Submissions for the Record on p. 67.]
Mr. Hall. As the title suggests, I would like this hearing
to examine how effective our government has been in assisting
the families of our veterans.
I have noticed on several occasions that when we begin a
discussion about taking care of veterans, we sometimes bypass
or overlook the veterans' families. And when we do get around
to the veterans' families, we are apt to apply a cookie-cutter,
one-size-fits-all approach.
For example, we assume that the veteran is a male and that
the children live with both biological parents. However, this
is not always the case. The current military is made up of many
so-called mixed or blended families in which children do not
necessarily live with one or both of their biological parents.
Furthermore, the population of women serving in the
military continues to grow. More than 160,000 women have been
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. As of February 2007, over 143
single parents have died in Iraq and the majority were women.
As a result, we are witnessing a new phenomenon of
grandparents raising grandchildren that have been orphaned due
to the Iraq War. We will hear from some of those grandparents
today.
I also hope that today's hearing will allow the
Subcommittee to look at how we can better assist those whose
spouses have died on active duty. One recurring theme that I
have heard on this topic is the difficulty in navigating the
bureaucratic maze immediately after that servicemember's death.
And I want to say at the outset that this is no critique of
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) because I think
they try to be helpful, but the nature of the dual system in
which both the VA and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
provide benefits makes it very hard for an individual who has
just lost a loved one.
I would be interested in learning more about the proposed
idea to create an Office of Survivors which combines VA and DoD
resources in one location.
In addition, I am concerned about those veterans who are
facing a terminal condition and/or who die before the
completion of their benefits claim. This is of great importance
to the families of veterans, especially those of the Vietnam
era who in many instances get overlooked because of the ongoing
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would like to know the current law with respect to an
individual who files a claim but dies before the claim is fully
adjudicated. Can the spouse or the children of that individual
continue the claim. In the 108th Congress, legislation was
introduced to permit such action. I am curious if such
legislation is still necessary.
I am also interested in learning more about possible fixes
to Survivor Benefit Plans (SBPs) and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC), so spouses stop getting the short end of
the stick.
In closing, I would just like to say that when we speak
about our veterans, we must always remember to include their
families.
And now I will yield to Ranking Member Lamborn for an
opening statement.
[The statement of Mr. Hall appears on p. 41.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me
and for holding this hearing.
We are here today to discuss how we can best care for the
family members of our veterans. The emotional demands that
descend onto their loved ones are immense and we have a sacred
responsibility to help them bear that burden.
In reading the witnesses' testimony, I have learned about a
number of issues that are facing survivors and the failings of
DoD and VA in this area.
I was especially troubled by the situation that the Heavrin
family has described in their testimony. Their daughter,
Hannah, lost her life in Iraq. Because of the way her
servicemember's group life insurance and indemnity compensation
policies were written, her husband became the sole beneficiary.
However, a son she has from a previous relationship receives
nothing. Even worse, her current husband apparently has done
nothing to help support the child.
It is now up the Heavrin family to raise their grandchild
and find the money to do so. I am not sure what course of
action should be undertaken in this situation, but I suspect
that something can and should be done to reduce the possibility
that this happens to any other family.
I am also very interested in the concerns of the Gold Star
Wives and the National Military Family Association. Sitting
here with these deserving families about to speak to us, I must
note that this session we have heard promises to provide
billions of dollars to valiant Merchant Marine and Filipino
veterans of World War II. We have also noted dozens of other
deserving veterans of that war such as the Woman Air Force
Service pilots.
These families have made great sacrifices for our freedom.
It is my hope that as we consider compensation and other
legislation, these families here today will also be accorded
due consideration.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony. I
know many of you have traveled from far away to come educate us
on this issue, and I thank you. Thank you especially for your
sacrifice and your fidelity to our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Lamborn appears on p. 41.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Our first panel, Mr. Ellsworth and Mr. Latham, thank you
for being here. And, Mr. Ellsworth, I will now recognize you
for your statement.
STATEMENTS OF HON. BRAD ELLSWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA, PRESENTING STATEMENT OF RON NESLER,
NEW HARMONY, IN (CAREGIVER OF ADULT DEPENDENT); AND HON. TOM
LATHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD ELLSWORTH
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Lamborn, the rest of the Subcommittee. I appreciate you holding
this important hearing on all the aspects that you will hear
about today.
I would like to thank you on behalf of my constituent,
Honey Sue Newby, and the Nesler family of New Harmony, Indiana.
Today I will read a heartfelt testimony prepared by Honey Sue's
stepfather, Ron Nesler.
Mr. Nesler has detailed his family's daily struggle to
provide care for Honey Sue as a complicated neurological
disorder rooted in spina bifida.
Honey Sue and the Neslers were invited to testify before
your Committee today, but were unable to travel due to her
condition and the constant care that she needs. And in the
interest of time, I will read portions of his letter to the
Committee, and I have submitted that for the record.
And this is a quote from Mr. Nesler. I am Honey Sue Newby's
stepfather, Ron Nesler. My wife, Suzanne Nesler, is Honey Sue's
birth mother. Suzanne and I are Honey Sue's court-appointed
guardians and full-time caregivers.
Honey Sue is a beautiful 36-year-old child with complicated
neurological disorders rooted in spina bifida. She requires
around-the-clock aid and attendance care and extensive medical
care.
The VA concedes that Honey Sue's condition is the result of
her birth father's exposure to Agent Orange while serving three
separate 13-month tours in combat as a Marine rifleman in the
Vietnam War.
Honey Sue is very bright, happy, gregarious, but
emotionally she operates at the 10- to 12-year-old level and
always will. She is the greatest joy in our lives and we are
grateful for the opportunity to care for her.
When the VA's spina bifida program was started, her mother
and I applied for VA compensation for Honey Sue. The VA
acknowledges about 1,200 children of the Vietnam veterans have
some degree of disability caused by spina bifida as related to
the birth parents' exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.
The children are rated as Level I through Level III
according to their degree of disability with Level III being
the greatest degree of disability.
Honey Sue is one of the only two hundred out of the twelve
hundred children rated as Level III. We are told by the VA that
this is the approximate equivalent of a hundred percent
service-connected disability rating for a military veteran
themselves.
All 1,200 children are paid monthly monetary compensation
by the VA at this time. The amount of the monthly compensation
is based on their degree of disability. As a Level III totally
disabled Agent Orange spina bifida child, Honey Sue receives
about $1,500 per month in VA compensation. A hundred percent
disabled military veteran whose situation seems to mirror Honey
Sue's situation exactly receives about $2,500 per month.
Honey Sue and the other Level III children receive only
scraps of very difficult to access healthcare coverage from the
VA. And these bits and pieces of healthcare specifically
exclude Honey Sue's greatest need which is aid and attendance
care. The disabled veteran receives full medical care including
aid and attendance when needed.
Since Congress created the law recognizing the 200 Level
III children as totally disabled as a direct result of the
birth parents' military service, Congress should ensure full
healthcare benefits including aid and attendance care for the
children.
Our greatest concern is that who will care for her and
protect Honey Sue when her mother and I are gone. We feel the
Congress owes a debt to provide full healthcare coverage for
the Level III children including aid and attendance care. These
children should receive the same care as provided for a hundred
percent service-connected disabled veteran, no more and no
less.
We think the Congress intended things to be this way when
the VA's spina bifida program was created. The government has
admitted the total disability of these Level III kids as a
result of their parents' military service. They should not have
to fight for their medical care.
The financial cost of paying the debt to these children
would be very small due to the fact that there are only 200 of
them. Ironically we feel the reason that this sad situation is
allowed to persist is exactly that, that there are only 200 of
the Level III children.
We include with this testimony a legislative memorial
passed by New Mexico's State Legislature. The memorial
recognizes the plight of the Agent Orange spina bifida children
and urges Congress to pay its debt to these children by
providing full healthcare coverage and aid and attendance care
through the VA's spina bifida program.
We have included the copy of the memorial to demonstrate
the others besides our family recognizing the lack of probable
healthcare for coverage for the Level III children.
This concludes Mr. Nesler's testimony. I would like to
thank the Veterans Affairs' Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs for allowing me to testify in
front of this group today.
Honey Sue and the Nesler family asked me to thank you also
for including their remarks and what you heard today.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Nesler appears on p. 42.]
Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
And I forgot to mention before to the other Members of the
Subcommittee that if you have an opening statement, you can
have it inserted directly into the record so we get to
questions. You need not feel that you have to start from the
beginning of your statement.
And now we will move to Congressman Latham.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM LATHAM
Mr. Latham. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored and privileged to
have the opportunity to testify before you today and to
introduce two of my constituents who will appear shortly.
And may I inquire, are they going to be testifying
immediately after?
Mr. Hall. They will be in the next panel.
Mr. Latham. OK.
Mr. Hall. Would you like to bring them up next to you while
you talk about them?
Mr. Latham. Yeah.
Mr. Hall. OK.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
I will proceed while they----
Mr. Hall. Could you introduce them to us, please?
Mr. Latham. Sure. Excuse me?
Mr. Hall. Could you introduce them to us? Is this Susan
and----
Mr. Latham. I will.
Mr. Hall. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Latham. OK. Thank you.
This is Susan and Kayla Jaenke from Iowa Falls, Iowa.
Mr. Chairman, many of our Nation's servicemembers are
single parents who rely upon grandparents or their relatives to
care for their children while they are deployed. It has been
reported that out of the 3,323 U.S. servicemembers killed in
the War on Terror, more than 143 were single parents.
Unfortunately, the families of these soldiers have
unintentionally been excluded from important benefits intended
to help them.
Under current law, the $100,000 gratuity paid upon a
soldier's death must go to any surviving children if there is
no surviving spouse. If the surviving children are minors, the
money is put into a trust account according to the laws of
their State which they cannot access until the age of 18.
This oversight in the original law excludes grandparents or
other relatives from access to the benefit of this payment to
help raise the servicemember's children even if it was that
servicemember's wish.
As we will hear shortly, the Jaenke family from my district
knows firsthand the difficulties these restrictions cause.
To address this flaw in the death gratuity benefit, I have
introduced House Resolution 1115. If enacted, this legislation
would allow servicemembers the option of voluntarily
designating a parent, brother, or sister who would have custody
of the servicemember's children as the recipient of all or part
of the death gratuity.
For deaths occurring before enactment, the bill provides an
opening for courts to redistribute death gratuity funds to
caretakers if a clear expression of intent regarding the use of
the funds was left by the servicemember.
While the situation may not affect a large number of our
men and women serving in the Armed Forces, I believe a change
in the law is needed as a matter of fairness to our
servicemembers who put themselves in harm's way and to their
families.
That is why I encourage the Subcommittee to give this issue
its full consideration, and I look forward to working with each
of you in furthering the cause of our Nation's veterans and
their families.
Now I would like to introduce Susan Jaenke from Iowa Falls
and her granddaughter, Kayla.
Susan's daughter, Naval Petty Officer, 2d Class, Jaime
Jaenke, served as a Reservist with the Seabees. Tragically she
was killed last summer while serving freedom's cause by a
roadside bomb in Iraq. Our Nation will be forever grateful for
Jaime's dedication and service and the sacrifice she made for
our Nation.
As Commander David Marasco said of Jaime during the
memorial service for her last year, Jaime, quote, willingly
accepted risk in order to put herself in a better position to
help others, end quote.
She was the type of dedicated soldier that we use as an
example to our children and grandchildren when we talk about
the definition of a true American hero.
We welcome Susan and Kayla, and thank you for making the
long trip from Iowa to share your personal story with my
colleagues here today.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Congressman Latham appears on p. 45.]
Mr. Hall. Congressmen Latham and Ellsworth, you were our
first panel. Would you like to answer some questions or would
anybody here like to address the Congressmen directly or should
we move directly to Susan and the rest of panel two?
Mr. Hare. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Yes, Mr. Hare.
Mr. Hare. I would just like Mr. Latham to know that I would
be very interested in cosponsoring your bill. So if I can get a
hold of your office later today, that would be great. I think
it is a wonderful piece of legislation.
Mr. Latham. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hare. You are welcome.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, similarly I would like to
recognize Mr. Latham's efforts and indicate my support for his
legislation.
Mr. Hall. Not to be a copy-cat, but I also say the same
thing.
Mr. Rodriguez also.
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes. Let me just thank you for bringing that
forward because there is no doubt that that needs to be
corrected, so congratulations to you and thank you for bringing
that forth.
Mr. Latham. It is because of them.
Mr. Hall. Well, Congressmen, we get to see you all the
time, so we will save our questions for you for later. And in
the interest of alacrity, we will move on.
Susan, you can stay where you are and we will excuse our
distinguished two gentlemen from the Congress here and move on
to panel two which includes Amy Clark and Kimberly Hazelgrove.
You are welcome to stay, Mr. Latham.
Oh, I am sorry. And Matthew Heavrin.
As I understand it, we may be joined by Congressman Jerry
Lewis. And if he arrives, we will just have him join our panel.
Susan Jaenke, would you like to start us off, please.
STATEMENTS OF SUSAN JAENKE, IOWA FALLS, IA (MOTHER OF DECEASED
VETERAN AND GUARDIAN OF GRANDCHILD); AMY CLARK, BARTOW, FL
(SPOUSE OF TERMINALLY-ILL VETERAN); MATTHEW B. HEAVRIN,
REDLANDS, CA (FATHER OF DECEASED VETERAN AND GUARDIAN OF
GRANDCHILD); AND KIMBERLY DAWN HAZELGROVE, LORTON, VA, (WIDOW)
AND MEMBER, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN JAENKE
Ms. Jaenke. My name is Susan Jaenke. This is my
granddaughter. She is 9 years old. She is watching a movie. It
is a good thing. It is a good thing.
On June 6th, I got about the worst news that any parent
could ever get. My daughter, Jaime, was killed in Anbar
Province, Iraq. I had no idea what would happen after that. We
were treated very well by our CACO Chief Erdman.
As the days went by and things progressed, we found out
that there was a $100,000 gratuity that was supposed to have
come to me, but because of a clause that was put into this we
could not get this gratuity. What happened after that is a
nightmare that I do not like to relive, but I am going to for
you.
The bills that Jaime had, had to come from somewhere. They
came out of my pocket. They had to be paid. I did not have that
$100,000 that was supposed to come to the families.
After that, I was told I had to get Social Security for
Kayla. That took three months. In that 3 months, I had no money
whatsoever because everything went into bills to pay back for
whatever she had.
We had in that 3 months, we had two vehicles repossessed
because I could not afford them. I could not afford to buy
groceries. I could not afford to do anything. I had no money.
By the time Social Security came, I had it, I did not have,
I had it, I did not have it. Finally by September, I got it. By
that time, I was 3 months in debt with my house payment. I was
behind on my electric bills and I had a little girl that had to
go to school. And that takes a lot of money to get her ready
for school.
If it had not been for the organizations, the MN Seabee 25,
the Seabees and other Seabee units that came forward and got us
money and Congressman Latham who let us vent on him and who let
us vent on his people, I do not know what would have happened.
By January, I could not afford anything. There was no money
at all for Christmas. I had nothing. If it had not been for a
VFW group that gave us $1,000, we would not even have had a
Christmas.
In between all that, I had to work with Defense Financing
and Accounting Center (DFAC) and I had to work with the VA.
Calling Millington became such a terrible thing you cannot
imagine. The people in Millington, I kept the record beside my
telephone book and I put down names of people in Millington not
to ever speak to again and people that I could speak to.
I finally tracked down the person that was supposed to get
us money from DFAC. He said he had the papers on his desk and
it would take 30 days. That 30 days is kind of a mantra from
these people. You are kind of afraid after a while to ask when
that 30 days begins. You are afraid they are going to say the
second Tuesday of next week.
The gentleman that I tracked down in Millington that had
Kayla's paperwork, he said give him a call in 2 weeks and he
would tell me how long it would take before the benefits would
come from them.
In two weeks, I called him back. He said he never got the
papers. I called him back again and he said, well, I will fax
you the papers. He faxed me the papers. I filled them out, sent
them back to him.
Two weeks I waited again. He called me up and he said I
have got three sets of papers that you filled out, what are you
trying to pull. And he was very angry with me because now he
had three sets of the same paperwork that I filled out sitting
on his desk and he thought that I was trying to pull something
and get more money. It was not that. It was not that at all.
I had one lady in Millington that made me feel so bad that
I interrupted her day that I actually apologized to her for
trying to get benefits for my granddaughter.
I got off the phone and I just shook my head. I thought,
oh, my goodness. I am apologizing to a woman because I
interrupted her day and she was supposed to be helping me. I
could not believe it.
I had a Commander that we got in touch with that was in
charge of some of the money that Kayla was supposed to get. He
said after giving me his sympathy, he told me about himself,
that his daughter could not have what she wanted because he had
gotten through a divorce and Kayla would have to learn to deal
without and do without.
And to me that was just disgusting because Kayla lost a
mom. His daughter might not have been able to have everything
she wanted because he went through a divorce, and I could care
less about his divorce, but here he was telling me that Kayla
would have to do without. His daughter still had her mom and
dad. His daughter still had siblings. My granddaughter has got
nothing.
These are some of the things that I have run across. The
bright areas have come from people like Congressman Latham's
office that put in this bill for us which, please, please help
us get through.
My granddaughter does not need to do without. My daughter's
business that she started does not need to do without. This is
not right.
My daughter, when she passed away, left this money to me
and you know what? It is kind of like a will. This is what she
wanted. Maybe she did not understand it. I do have a letter
from her telling me what to do and how to spend that $100,000,
how to invest Kayla's money, and her money comes from that
insurance policy. And I have done all that for her.
The $100,000 I cannot do for her because of this clause
that is in there. Please, gentlemen, do not ask my
granddaughter to do without anymore.
[The statement of Ms. Jaenke appears on p. 46.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Ms. Jaenke.
And thanks to your daughter, Jaime, for her service and
sacrifice, and all of your sacrifice for our country.
Ms. Jaenke. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. And I have two things to say. One is on behalf of
our government, I want to apologize to you and to Kayla. I am
really sorry you had to go through this.
And we will do what we can to try to make sure that your
problems are resolved, but perhaps as importantly, to make sure
that there are not more cases like yours which cannot be what
the American people intend or Congress intends, but more likely
is the outgrowth of the mine field of bureaucratic mazes and
turf delineations and fiefdoms that we are trying to sort our
way through.
I also would ask you before we go on to our next witness if
you would be willing to share in writing or not or after the
meeting the names of the staff that you spoke to who were not
helpful to you.
And, Congressman Latham, would you like to comment further?
Mr. Latham. No.
Mr. Hall. OK. Well, ordinarily we would go through the rest
of the witnesses and then come back, but if you would like to
address Ms. Jaenke briefly?
Mr. Hare. I do. I just want to say a couple things in your
testimony. There is never a need for you to ever apologize ever
to anybody for interrupting their day. They have absolutely no
idea what you went through and most people never will.
And I just made another note. When you said your
granddaughter has nothing, she indeed does. She has you and she
is incredibly lucky. And I will tell you----
Ms. Jaenke. I am the lucky one, sir. I am the lucky one.
Mr. Hare. She is a beautiful young lady. And let me just
say this to you too. The $100,000 is, you know, a stipend. What
value do you ever place on somebody's life? And I will just say
this to Representative Latham again, the bill, this is
something you do not have to beg us for. I mean, we owe this to
you and to other people who have done this.
And so I am honored just to be on this Committee this
morning. I am glad I made it and I will tell you that we will
do everything we can to get this remedied. Thank you.
Ms. Jaenke. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. We will probably have more questions for you
later, but first we will hear from the other two witnesses.
Ms. Amy Clark. Good morning. Could you speak into the
microphone? Push the button to make sure it is on.
STATEMENT OF AMY CLARK
Mrs. Clark. I am here to speak on behalf of all veterans,
not just my husband, Russell E. Clark, who is a Vietnam veteran
himself.
I at the time did not know what Vietnam was as I was a
child, so, therefore, I did not live Vietnam. But I am now
living Vietnam each and every day of my life with my husband,
Russell.
I cannot tell you how much it pains me to see a once
vibrant man now just a skeleton of what he used to be and I
would like you to please take a look at these pictures of my
husband as he was before and as he is now.
On January 8th, 2007, my husband, Russell, was in the
hospital. I went in to see him not knowing what was going on.
There was a card from a doctor at a bedside table. I called the
doctor. He said, Mrs. Clark, I am so sorry to tell you your
husband now has lung cancer.
And I said to the doctor, well, since you have now ruined
my anniversary, my day in my life, why don't you just tell me
how bad the situation really is. He declined to do so saying he
would speak to us at a later date which was the next day.
Of course, totally distraught, I went in to my husband on
our anniversary like nothing was wrong and he said what did the
doctor want. I said he wants to speak with us tomorrow.
The problem with the VA is there is too much red tape when
a situation such as this arises. My husband is terminal and has
very little time left. That is why claims sit on someone's desk
or just get completely ignored until it is too late.
And as my husband said to a reporter and some friends, my
wife is like a bulldog on someone's butt and she is not getting
off any time soon. OK.
There is a bureaucratic double speak. This phrase I take
from the Lakeland Ledger dated Sunday, April 15th, 2007.
Yes, the VA offers you a book on benefits that you may be
entitled to, but just try and get those benefits. It is
ridiculous. There are so many forms and questions to answer
even for the most minimal benefits.
I can tell you that to date I have over 400 pages of
documentation that I have turned to the VA just for Mr. Clark,
thus leading to the next point that the system must be changed
so that justice can be given to all veterans and their families
without the bureaucratic red tape.
The paperwork is so overwhelming. There is no communication
set up to help a civilian such as myself to understand what
needs to be done. I have spent countless days without sleep,
nights without sleep, searching the Internet.
However, I was fortunate enough to run into Ernie Roberts,
a Bartow, Florida, Veteran Service Officer, and Donna Adams in
Congressman Adam Putnam's office which have helped me to
overcome some of these hurdles that I have had to overcome.
I have had to quit my job and college to stay home to care
for my husband who needs care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I
am the one doing the care and I left him to come here to be
able to speak with you.
I cannot speak to the VA unless they speak to Mr. Clark
first which, quite frankly, at times is difficult for anyone to
speak to Mr. Clark because he is on such heavy medication due
to his cancer. OK? And I am speaking for Mr. Clark as well as
other veterans.
Mr. Clark has requested me to be his fiduciary. I have been
turned down every single day for months, been told by certain
Members of the Florida Department of State Veterans Affairs,
well, you need to have this approved by a judge.
I called the judge, personal friend, and I called a lawyer,
read them the form, and said it does not say anything about
that. They have also threatened to take away some of the
benefits that they have given him while the fiduciary is
granted. How ridiculous is this?
The older veterans, especially Vietnam veterans, have been
shoved under the carpet for many years. And the veterans now
coming home seem to get their benefits more quickly. This is
wrong.
No one should have to produce documentation, such as a
morning report, which is what I was requested to do. Needless
to say, Mr. Clark does have a morning report which civilians
may not be familiar with what that is.
The nonsense about having this medal or that medal is
totally ridiculous when, in fact, John Kerry threw his medals
over the fence at the White House quite some time ago for all
the world to see.
When a veteran has a DD214, that should be sufficient
information to show what time they put in the service and where
they were. Does it not matter what their job was? Of course
not. They gave so that we may live in the United States of
America, land of the free and home of the brave.
Life insurance policy issued by the Veterans' Life
Insurance Co. must be changed so that they can be assignable to
a funeral home. My husband is going to pass away very shortly.
I do not have that kind of money. The life insurance policies
they issue are unassignable, so what do I do to bury my
husband? I do not have that money. Do you have it?
Buddy letters should not be requested because there are too
many veterans that have been killed in action or have died
along the way. This is just someone's idea of a joke.
Mr. Clark has been fighting a separate issue for PTSD for
many, many years. OK? And, yet, Mr. Clark has been denied his
PTSD. Mr. Clark has documentation in his possession from the
veterans' hospital in Tampa, Florida, stating his main
diagnosis is PTSD. Imagine that?
One of the things stated in the documentation is you do not
have all the symptoms. Well, if I am depressed, do I have to
have all the symptoms of depression to be depressed?
The issues of the stressors that I am told that the VA
looks for just seems to be more bureaucratic double speak. I
was told the stressors could be things like gunfire, picking up
dead bodies, shooting women and children, and so forth. And Mr.
Clark himself was part of an assassination. If that is not a
stressor, I do not know what is.
Then they come up with new stressors stating that if they
have heart disease or have had strokes, and so forth, then that
is another stressor that leads to PTSD.
They claim they are too overworked and too underpaid to
handle all of these themselves, so why put up a stink when it
comes to the documentation? If the documentation is presented
even from a civilian physician, that should be proof enough.
I was told I could get a rent a doctor by someone in the
Florida Department of Veterans Affairs to sign the paperwork my
husband needs and then it would be accepted.
When a veteran dies, his or her spouse or children are
entitled to DIC, so let us stop the nonsense and just have a
short form and provide the quickest documentation and not be
told this will take 6 to 8 months or longer to complete. It is
no wonder the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot get their
jobs done. They make it more difficult on themselves.
Each veteran should be given a packet the first time they
ever enter into the VA system and tell them, here, these are
things you may need along the way.
We have had the most awful time to get me added as my
husband's dependent, which I well should be, which finally has
come about. When we went to the VA in 2004, they filled out a
form making me his dependent but only in the event he should
die in a VA facility.
The man that did this was Alex Benjamin who I understand is
no longer with the VA. He never told us that because Mr.
Clark's first wife died and that I had been married before we
would have to present a death certificate for Mr. Clark's first
wife and my divorce decrees.
And every day my plea is a phone call to someone. I have
contacted the media. I am going to continue to do what I need
to do to make sure my husband gets his benefits as well as all
veterans and as this lady is with her grandchild. This is
ridiculous. It must be changed.
Another person in the B66 cannot get any benefits because
they cannot get a buddy letter or find anybody that is alive.
What is wrong with this system? It is just unjust.
[The statement of Mrs. Clark appears on p. 47.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mrs. Clark. And I appreciate your
testimony.
And we on this Committee are intent on trying to simplify
this process that you have had such a difficult time with and
have several pieces of legislation pending and others, I am
sure, that will be drafted which will attempt to do that. And
we will come back, I am sure, to you with questions.
But first we will go to our next witness, Matthew Heavrin.
Just pull that microphone over closer to you.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW B. HEAVRIN
Mr. Heavrin. Mr. Chairman and Committee members who are
hearing my testimony today, my name is Matthew B. Heavrin. My
wife, who could not be with us today, her name is Barbara Jean
Heavrin. We live in Redlands, California. We have four
children.
Matthew, who is our oldest, is at the Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Maryland. He will graduate this May.
Our daughter, Hannah Leah, served in the U.S. Army as a
Quartermaster in Iraqi Freedom until she was killed on
September 4, 2006.
Our third child, Philip, serves in the Marine Corps and is
currently based in Camp Pendleton, California.
Our fourth child, Ruth Ann, she will be graduating from
Redlands High School this June and will be attending Cal State
San Bernardino this fall.
I myself am a U.S. Navy veteran. I work as a power plant
operator for Los Angeles County. My wife is a registered nurse
and is employed by the San Bernardino County Sheriffs.
As you can see, our family has served, will continue to
serve this country and mankind. My wife and I have instilled in
each of our children importance for love of country and to make
this world a better place through service and responsible
living.
Our daughter, Hannah, had aspirations to go to college
after school. We have some money saved up but not nearly enough
to afford her tuition. Our goal is for Hannah to go out and
look for grants, scholarships, and other financial aids that
would fill the gap.
She came home one afternoon with an Army recruiter. We
listened to him and asked Hannah if this is what she truly
wanted and she said yes. Off to the Army she went.
After her basic training, she went to individual training
and met another young man there who was also in the Army. The
two began a relationship and had planned on marriage and Hannah
became pregnant. Their relationship failed and Hannah returned
home after being discharged from the Army.
Shortly after giving birth to her son, Todd, on November
2d, 2004, she returned to the Army against our wishes. I
personally got on my knees and pled with her not to go back
into the Army, that she would most certainly end up in Iraq.
She told me that the Army does not send single mothers on
deployment. And I really do not know where she got that idea. I
can only speculate it was the Army recruiter.
She did indeed reenlist and went to another Army
specialized school to become a quartermaster and left Todd in
our care. Well, at quartermaster school, she met Chris
McKinney, someone who she had gone to high school with in
Redlands.
After Hannah finished the quartermaster school, she was
assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington. I moved all of Hannah and
Todd's personal belongings from Redlands to Fort Lewis in July
of 2005 and helped her find a town home in Tacoma, Washington,
and assisted her in securing child care on base.
A few weeks later, she told us that she was assigned to the
542d Maintenance Company as a quartermaster. In September, I
learned that the 542d would be deployed to Iraq. My heart sank.
I almost knew her fate right then.
I flew up to Tacoma to stay with my grandson while Hannah
went with her unit for maneuver training in Oregon. While
staying in her town home, I could not help but notice all the
love letters that Chris McKinney had written to Hannah. They
were pasted on the wall like wallpaper.
Just before the 542d Maintenance Co. deployed, Hannah
brought Todd home and some of his things down with us with a
power of attorney so we can make decisions for Todd on Hannah's
behalf. That is when I learned that Hannah had gotten married
to Chris McKinney. We had not even met Chris at this point and
only had a brief description of him.
It was late October 2005, and Hannah's unit deployed to the
fort operating base in Taji, Iraq, in the middle of November
2005. While in Iraq, Hannah would phone home and occasionally
write. She would tell us how she was reassigned from the
quartermaster's office to security. She spent nearly all of her
time up in a guard tower along a perimeter road around Fort
Taji.
She also sent home some photographs to show the desolation
where she was posted and the conditions that she served in.
What stood out to me was how lonely she was and how much she
wanted to get home. She missed her son, Todd, and her new
husband, Chris.
In May of 2006, she was flown home for 2 weeks R and R. She
was so happy to be home and did not want to go back. Todd
recognized her almost immediately. Chris, Hannah, and Todd
rented a convertible and had a wonderful time as a newly formed
family and spent their time together.
We had talked and began preliminary plans for Chris and
Hannah to have a church wedding and that Chris would adopt
Todd. A few days before she was to return to Iraq, Hannah's
demeanor changed. She was regretting separating from us and
Chris and Todd again. She even asked me if I would break her
arm for her so that she would not have to return. Of course, I
did not and Hannah did return to Iraq. Chris returned to Fort
Lewis. Todd stayed with us in Redlands.
On the morning of September 4th, which is Labor Day, on
2006, I was at work when I received a phone call from Barbie.
She explained to me that I needed to get home right away. There
were two Army chaplains at our door.
I cannot describe to you the range of emotions that I
personally endured and grieved with Barbie as she went through
hers. From the time of the chaplain visit to planning a funeral
to sorting out Hannah's life and that relation to Todd's, we
have shed buckets of tears, felt guilty, angry, inadequate, and
generally depressed.
Through it all, we have endured it through our faith, our
friends, and each other. We have been taking care of our
grandson since the day he was born. We videotaped in various
stages of his young life so that we can share those moments
with Hannah in Iraq. The video CDs were packaged and ready to
be mailed out as they would have been if that Monday were not a
holiday.
The cause of Hannah's death was under investigation and was
difficult to determine how or why she died. As the
investigation progressed, we learned that circumstances
revolving around Hannah's death were criminal in nature. Never
before have I felt this way. It is as though we were betrayed
by our sense of honor and service that we adhered by.
Our daughter died for one man's selfish satisfaction. As an
NCO in the Army, he was to be about the business of looking
after his subordinates. He did otherwise. We feel cheated.
Todd's mother is gone. He was cheated. Chris lost his wife. He
was cheated. Hannah's siblings have lost a wonderful friend,
confidant, and sister. They were cheated.
While it has come to our attention that each soldier had a
$100,000 death gratuity and a group life insurance policy of
$400,000, we were not aware of these policies until of recent.
We also learned that Chris McKinney received both. I do not
know if my daughter so designated Chris or it was automatically
paid out to Chris as a survivor since he is the husband. We
believe that the assumption was made that Chris is caring for
Hannah's son, Todd, which he is not.
The burden of raising our grandson has been on us only. We
receive support from no one, nor has Chris McKinney offered his
$500,000 to us or to Todd. We are not in the business of taking
anything that does not belong to us, but to have our daughter
taken from us in this manner that she was and for Todd to grow
up without his mother, without her death benefit is just plain
wrong.
We believe this is an anomaly that needs to be remedied to
benefit the surviving sons and daughters of deceased soldiers,
sailors, and airmen and assist the grandparents who raise them.
[The statement of Mr. Heavrin appears on p. 49.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Heavrin, for your testimony. And
once again, my sympathies and support and I am sure that the
hearts of all the Subcommittee Members go out to you and your
family. Rest assured that we are going to try to find
legislative ways to prevent such problems from occurring in the
future.
We will move now to our next witness and recognize Kimberly
Hazelgrove.
STATEMENT OF KIMBERLY DAWN HAZELGROVE
Mrs. Hazelgrove. Thank you, and good afternoon, everybody.
I just want to say that I love everybody who is sitting
here beside me and behind me today who share in what I have
experienced over the last 3 years.
Chairman Hall, Representative Lamborn, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today on behalf of all Gold Star Wives
regarding the importance of addressing critical services for
America's military widows and widowers and their children who
are left behind.
My name is Kimberly Hazelgrove. I am the widow of Chief
Warrant Officer Brian Hazelgrove, U.S. Army and a native of
Edinburgh, Indiana. My husband entered the Army shortly after
graduating high school and served over 10 years.
Brian was an energetic and charismatic leader. His soldiers
and superiors always had the utmost respect and admiration for
his ethics, compassion, and abilities. Above all, he was a
career soldier and he was full of ambition, dedication, and
potential.
Brian was also a husband and a father to Taylor, Zachary,
Brandon, and Kaitlin. He was a gentle and loving father who
never failed to prove that he adored his children. At times we
both had to endure single parenthood while the other was
deployed and understood the important balance of mission and
family. And Brian was dedicated to both.
He faithfully deployed to Iraq in support of America's
mission in November of 2003. On January 23d, 2004, Brian was
flying a mission in support of ground troops in Iraq with pilot
Chief Warrant Officer Michael Blaise when their helicopter
crashed. Both Brian and Michael were killed. Brian was 29. Our
youngest child was just 7 months old.
I was a Sergeant First Class in the U.S. Army stationed at
Fort Drum where Brian was stationed as well and the mother of
an infant and our toddler, stepmother to two children who live
in Indiana currently, and the wife of a deployed soldier. Life
was difficult, but with the support of our unit and families, I
was independently managing the household and raising our family
as he had at times, always with the hope that he was safe and
anticipating his return. Our lives were changed forever the day
that Brian was killed.
I am here before you as a representative of America's
military widows and widowers and as a Member of Gold Star
Wives. My hope is by the end of my testimony you will see the
need to act immediately to rectify the unfair and inadequate
resources that Gold Star families endure after notification of
their servicemember's death.
I feel that adequate training and resources are still
lacking for all personnel who function in the various roles
while supporting a casualty's family. Across the spectrum of
DoD and VA, there is not one single dedicated office to the
military survivor.
It is left to the various representatives of these
organizations to do their best, and I mean their best to
inform, assist, and support family members in their times of
need and they can only do so much within their respective
subject matter area of expertise.
After the initial response of support has ended and it
always does, family members struggle to research, understand,
and stay informed of changes to benefit entitlements and
legislative actions.
For the widow or widower of an active-duty servicemember
like myself, the military expects a transition of
responsibility from the military component in which they served
to the Veterans Affairs within approximately 6 months.
This is a very short time to require a family that has
experienced a traumatic life-altering event even under the best
circumstances to be able to navigate the complexities of the
military's survivor system.
A family previously established in family housing
accustomed to living on military bases have increased financial
burdens to absorb and a new identity to grasp. The response to
family members is critical within the first year after the loss
of their loved one. However, it is imperative that there be
continuity of service and support to the families of our
servicemembers after that initial response has faded away.
As a widow, I receive monetary supplements because of my
husband's death while serving his country. I applaud our
government's success in increasing that initial death payment
and Servicemembers' and Veterans' Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
payments to the families of the deceased servicemembers. I
would like your support in fulfilling the commitment to fully
sustain the benefits of our widows and widowers and those of
our children for the future.
The SBP payment, the survivor's benefit pension payment
that I receive and worked so hard for for 2 years brings $99 a
month into my household. My full entitlement a month as a
surviving spouse is $1,166. The dollar for dollar offset
generated by the income I receive from the VA's dependency and
indemnity compensation reduces my entitlement by over $1,000.
Ninety-nine dollars does not even buy groceries for a week.
Because of my husband's rank and years of service when he
died, I actually receive a little bit of money left over where
most spouses receive no money at all. This offset does not
benefit any military survivor. And, in fact, it especially
victimizes those families whose deceased servicemembers were
junior enlisted or with less years of service. And that is a
crime.
Most of these families are young families like mine is. My
$99 a month helps supplement increased child care expenses due
to my husband's death, healthcare which I now incur after my 3
years' period has ended, and household expenses because I am a
single, working mother and raising two children and the sole
provider for those children.
I would like this panel to realize the entire scope of
inequity of this offset. Disabled military retirees, Federal
retiree annuitants and their survivors receive their full
benefits without offset of the VA's DIC. I ask you here today
how is the military survivor any different?
I ask the panel to understand that many widows and widowers
are not able to make the monetary sacrifice that I have made
here today in order to testify before you. Fortunately, I am
here with the blessing of my company to enlighten you of the
burden that my family has endured over the past 3 years of
service commitments.
I ask you to remember the young widows and widowers who are
at home caring for their young children who cannot be here
before you. I ask you to remember the widows and widowers in
the other States who cannot afford to be here before you. Your
decisions make a difference in their lives.
As my children grow older and our lives change, so do our
benefits. I continually need to seek out subject matter experts
within the benefits arena on my own. Healthcare, education,
Social Security, survivor's benefit annuities, and dependence
indemnity compensation all have different requirements that
need to be met.
Legislative actions on benefits continue to influence
entitlements. Tracking these changes is time consuming and
tedious as the information and experts in the field currently
are compartmentalized and geographically dispersed.
I work a full-time job and raise my two small children.
This has not left me much time to track down the exact person I
need to talk to. And to make a note on what these people have
said, those civilians in those jobs are generally rude and
inadequate and untrained.
Gold Star Wives of America has been a source of support and
information beyond anything I have received thus far. The
ladies volunteer their time and efforts into educating me on
the process that forever lies ahead of me as a widow.
I firmly stand behind and support Gold Star Wives' request
that regional survivor's offices be established to meet the
needs of military survivors during and more importantly after
the casualty assistance officer has finished their duties.
This office would provide oversight to policy issues of
survivors, provide transitional assistance, legislative
feedback, and act as a main coordinator between the Department
of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a key
component to ensuring the commitment to our servicemembers that
their families will be taken care of.
As a servicemember entering military service, nowhere are
you told that your family will have to fight to receive the
adequate benefits upon which they are entitled in the event of
your death. Families plan for financial stability in the event
of tragedy based on your promise that they will be taken care
of. And, yet, I testify before you here today as an example
that this has not happened to the full extent.
I implore our leadership to immediately cease the DIC
offset to SBP for all widows and widowers with no restraints on
time of service or rank.
I thank the Subcommittee for using this hearing as one more
avenue of awareness and education and for giving me an
opportunity to share my thoughts and experiences as a Gold Star
Wife. I will be happy to work with you further on any
initiatives and thank you for your time and consideration.
[The statement of Mrs. Hazelgrove appears on p. 50.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mrs. Hazelgrove. And thank you to the
Gold Star Wives of America and to your representation of them.
I want to mention that we had requested the President of
Gold Star Mothers of New York State to join us and she was
unable to do that today. But you just gave us some powerful,
direct, and emotional perspective on the difficulty of
navigating this bureaucratic system that is supposed to be
helping you and helping other survivors and families of those
who have given their lives for our country.
And I would say to you as well as to all of the witnesses
once again that an apology is due and as the Chairman of this
Subcommittee, I am offering mine.
I wanted to ask Mrs. Hazelgrove since we just heard your
testimony how would you best consolidate or streamline the
benefit process for survivors considering that there are so
many different benefits, processes, and forms to try to
understand?
I mean, I guess that not offsetting one benefit against the
other is your first priority that you would suggest, but beyond
that, how would you suggest that we consolidate the benefit
process?
Mrs. Hazelgrove. Well, Chairman Hall, to answer your
question, going through the experience myself, there definitely
needs to be an office established, a regional office with
oversight to the active military components who are handling
the cases initially.
And why I say that is is because within that 6 months, the
military components do a good job for the most part. You will
find that there are very few cases in which that did not
happen, but they do do a good job. The casualty officers do a
good job. There is still more training that needs to be done as
well as outreach from survivors such as myself who are willing
to participate in that office.
The streamlining process will come in with that office that
has the oversight ability. They will oversee the initial
casualty case. They will watch the transition process. And when
that family more importantly moves away from the active-duty
military component, and it does not necessarily apply to the
National Guards and Reserves because generally they are at
their home station where they prefer to be, but we move away.
We do not generally stay in the active-duty world which again
raises our costs.
Those regional offices can take oversight of our transition
and when a family moves into an area, that regional office
becomes responsible for that case.
As an example, my husband's casualty and his case was
handled at Fort Drum, New York. If you were to call to Fort
Drum, New York's Casualty Assistance Office at this moment, it
was like it never happened. There is no trail of paperwork.
People would not even know what you are asking about. It has
been over 3 years.
I, as a grieving spouse, am supposed to have my wits about
me to keep copies of all this paperwork, to understand that
process fully when it is happening to me. Now, I am a very
together person. I do command attention and I give orders.
However, I do not remember a single thing that was said to me
within the first few months that I was going through that and I
really thought I had it together.
A regional office would have helped me with that. I could
have gone to that person for legislative information, benefits
information instead of wasting my time tracking down the RSOs
within those active components, the Retirement Services Office,
who do not even know what my benefits are and cannot help me
fill out that paperwork.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mrs. Hazelgrove. Excuse me for cutting
you off, but I am trying to stay to 5 minutes here.
And I wanted to ask Mr. Heavrin would you favor legislation
that would require that a biological child of a servicemember
receive a percentage of the SGLI regardless of what the
servicemember states on his or her insurance form?
Mr. Heavrin. I would support such legislation, yes, sir.
Mr. Hall. OK. And, Ms. Jaenke, I wanted to ask you what
help has been provided to you in navigating and completing the
paperwork that you have needed to do for benefits to be
received?
Ms. Jaenke. Nancy Trempi is our ombudsman for MN Seabee 25.
She was extremely instrumental in helping me with everything.
Without her, I would have been nowhere. She guided me through
everything that I did. She told me about keeping a notebook by
my phone. She helped me when I did not have money to buy a new
washer and dryer. She did everything she could for me. She
cried tears with me. That ombudsman for me was one of the key
things.
My CACO was amazing. Chief Erdman from the Des Moines
office was amazing. But without Trempi, that ombudsman----
Mr. Hall. So would you suggest we need more ombudsmen or
women?
Ms. Jaenke. Yeah. The ombudsman really works well if they
are willing to work. And Nancy Trempi is a 24/7 worker.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. And I am sorry. I just want to rush
through because I see the yellow light on here and I am trying
to set a good example for the rest of the Subcommittee.
I wanted to ask Mrs. Clark how much of the VA paperwork
that you completed was duplicative of other information? How
much time, how many different forms do you think you spent
filling out to finally get through and start getting benefits?
Mrs. Clark. How many forms?
Mr. Hall. Right. How much duplication of information on the
forms you had to fill out?
Mrs. Clark. Very much duplication and I went through the
same process as this lady down here said. I would send them
forms and they would say I am sorry, we never got the forms. As
I had stated to you, I have probably turned in over 400 pages
of documentation just trying to get benefits for Mr. Clark.
Mr. Hall. Were any of them able to be filed electronically
or are they all actual paperwork?
Mrs. Clark. Very few of them could be electronic and even
electronic, I would get a call from the Department of Veterans
Affairs going I am sorry, we never received that information.
So I had to go to the expense of going to the post office,
paying for faxes which are $2 each, plus a $1 per page after
that, and register return receipt mail to ensure that, in fact,
someone did receive that information.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much.
And my time is expired. I will now recognize Ranking Member
Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Every one of these witnesses has spoken forcefully and
persuasively and at this time, I have no further questions.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Hare.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is mind boggling that we have hearing after hearing
here, Mr. Chairman, and we continue, you know, there is a
common theme, the burden of proof always seems to be upon the
veteran or upon the veteran's spouse. And I know I have had all
I can take of that. And I think we really need to be very
proactive in terms of being able to do things for our veterans
and for their families.
I wanted to ask you, Mrs. Clark, you were talking about
your husband's post-traumatic stress claim? Are you still going
through that process despite all of this?
Mrs. Clark. Still going through that process since the
'80s.
Mr. Hare. Since when?
Mrs. Clark. Since the '80s.
Mr. Hare. And, yet, you said he has documentation from the
VA hospital stating that his main diagnosis is PTSD?
Mrs. Clark. That is correct.
Mr. Hare. So from their perspective, can you tell me what
the holdup is?
Mrs. Clark. I am sorry. I could not hear you because of the
buzzer.
Mr. Hare. I guess what I am asking is, I am having a very
difficult time understanding why the VA has not ruled favorably
in your husband's claim.
Mrs. Clark. The PTSD claim?
Mr. Hare. Uh-huh.
Mrs. Clark. It is simple. First, they say we do not have
enough information. Second, they said that he does not have all
of the stressors which I told you were combat related at one
time. He unfortunately took part in assassinations.
And now the new stressors that have come up which my
husband has all of, heart disease, peripheral artery disease.
He has strokes. Those are the new stressors. The old ones were
the combat-related issues and because he does not have certain
medals, but what are those medals worth?
And Mr. Clark's time, I cannot stress enough to you, he has
been given 6- to 8-months to live and I have just recently
found out he has more cancer. He is not going to see that 6 to
8 months. And he has been fighting since the '80s. So you tell
me. What is the problem when we have the paperwork and it has
been presented?
Mr. Hare. Well, I will tell you, Mrs. Clark, I think the
problem is you have a VA that is out of touch with reality.
That is one thing. And I would think it is a bureaucracy that
for the life of me again does not err on the side of the
veteran. And we are quick to put people in harm's way and very
slow, it seems to me, to be able to do anything to help that
veteran or their family. It is inexcusable.
I just wanted to say to you, I know I do not come from your
State, but I would be interested in helping you with that
claim. I do not know if you have talked to your Member, but,
from my perspective, and maybe perhaps after the hearing, if I
could talk to you about it, we could see what we could do to
move it along. But it should never come to that.
Mrs. Clark. I would appreciate that very much, sir.
Mr. Hare. Not a problem.
Ms. Hazelgrove, you talked about, and I think this is a
really important thing, in creating that office. And what do
you see that office doing if you could elaborate just a little
bit?
You talked about dedicated to the military survivor. You
have a unique perspective from both sides, so the establishment
of that office, I think it is a wonderful idea. I would be
willing to work with your organization and you to do that.
Could you expand a little bit on what you see that doing?
Mrs. Hazelgrove. What I see it doing is really streamlining
the process and it will take care of a lot of the gaps that we
have in the education and the training of these personnel
instead of throwing people who do not have a lot of military
experience and are not familiar with all of the programs and
services within the different military components that can help
the casualty's family.
So it will bring a much more broader wealth of experience
and education to the platform as well as keeping the families
within their respective regions after the active-duty families
have relocated and the National Guard and the Reserve's family
are staying in that area, it will help those families have that
continuity of service to get legislative updates.
It will be an office in which I as a mother can go to and
say please help me, my children are now 16, we are looking at
college. And by the way, they are only 3 and 6 right now and my
stepchildren are 13 and 14. I am not worried about education.
But in time, I will be very worried about education and how is
that going to change between now and then?
I have to right now go research the process, find the
appropriate people, and it is DoD, it is also VA, and it is
also State dependent. So I have to look at three different
separate areas to find out what my children's education
entitlements are and the time lines and how it has changed over
the years. So it will really help with that continuity of
service.
Mr. Hare. I would be again honored, and I would say to the
Chairman I think this would be something that this Subcommittee
and the full Committee would look at because I think it is a
tremendous idea. I think it would be a wonderful help to people
when they need the help the most.
And so, whatever we can do and perhaps even after the panel
is adjourned if we could talk about that too. I know I am
making extra work for my staff, but that is why I have got
them. So I would be happy to talk to you about that.
I do not know if there is anything pending, is there, Mr.
Chairman, on this?
Mr. Hall. Not yet.
Mr. Hare. There will be.
Mr. Hall. But there will be.
Mr. Hare. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Hall. And I would encourage you to talk to your Member
of Congress and also, as Mr. Hare said, one of the main things
that we do in terms of in our district constituent services is
assisting veterans and helping veterans' claims get moved
through the system. So, perhaps, if you have not already, going
through your member of Congress may be an additional aid.
And at this point, the Chair will recognize the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much
for holding this hearing.
Susan, I wanted to ask you a question. As far as the
gratuity, you have no access to it at this point; is that
correct?
Ms. Jaenke. That is correct.
Mr. Bilirakis. Did your daughter name a beneficiary on the
gratuity? Can you put the microphone on? I am sorry. Thank you.
Ms. Jaenke. Me.
Mr. Bilirakis. You.
Ms. Jaenke. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. And you have no access to it?
Ms. Jaenke. No.
Mr. Bilirakis. And what explanation did you get from the VA
of why you do not have access?
Ms. Jaenke. When Chief Erdman told me about the $100,000
and that it was left to me, he says there is a clause in there
that says unless there is a spouse or child. He said that has
to go into a trust fund then for Kayla.
And at that point, I told him I could not understand that
because, after all, it had my name on it and along with a
letter that she had sent me telling me exactly what she wanted
me to do if something had happened to her.
Chief Erdman told me at that time that that $100,000 had to
go in her trust. There was no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And
I said what if I fight it. Well, he said I already talked to
somebody in Millington and the lady in Millington said that it
had to go in a trust fund which, of course, I cannot touch
because nobody could ever win against this. This was something
that was unwinnable.
So the $100,000 went in there. If it had not been for
people, strangers that I do not even know that had sent us
money over the past 10 months, I would have lost my house. I
was 2 weeks away from losing my house. It was strangers that
helped me, not my government, and that really does hurt the
worst of everything, you know.
My daughter served her country well. She loved the Navy.
She loved the Seabees. But it was not my government that helped
me. It was strangers. And that did hurt.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yeah. It is so unfair, so unfair. I wanted
to ask you a question. Are you the legal guardian?
Ms. Jaenke. Yes, I am.
Mr. Bilirakis. You are the legal guardian?
Ms. Jaenke. Yes, I am the legal guardian of Kayla.
Mr. Bilirakis. And you still have no access to that?
Ms. Jaenke. No.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very unfair, Mr. Chairman. We need to do
something about that.
Thank you very much, Susan.
Ms. Jaenke. Yes.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Congressman. I agree, Mr. Bilirakis,
with what you just said.
And the Chair will now recognize the Honorable Ms. Berkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY
Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I along with the
other Members of the Subcommittee thank you for holding these
hearings.
But I particularly want to thank our witnesses. I have been
a Member of Congress for 8 years now, going on 9. I cannot
recall in the entire 9 years that I have served more eloquent
and more important testimony than I have heard today. And each
and every one of you has provided us very important information
that we need to have in order to do our jobs and do our jobs
appropriately.
It seems that the longer I serve in Congress, the more
disillusioned I become of our government. This to me, when I
sit here and I listen to each and every one of you, I cannot
believe that these problems have not been remedied years ago
and here we are listening to you sharing with us things that we
have already heard are occurring.
And I will pledge to you along with our Chairman's apology,
which I think is always important to hear, let us apologize to
you by taking care of the problems that you are experiencing.
And I think that is the best apology that we can make to each
and every one of you.
And I am sorry for your losses. I am sorry for your
sacrifices to this Nation. But more importantly I am sorry that
our government has not responded in an appropriate way that
would make all of us proud instead of ashamed. And I will work
with the Members of this Committee and with all of you to
ensure that this does not happen to future generations of our
service men and women and their families.
And I thank you again for being here.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I would just also add my thanks once again and especially
thanks to Kayla for being here. And rest assured we heard you
and we will do our best to take whatever action we can to make
the road smoother for you and for those who are following after
you and experiencing similar problems.
Thanks for being here and testifying. Panel two is now
excused.
[Two news articles, ``The Forgotten Families: Grandparents
Raising Slain Soldiers' Children Are Denied a Government
Benefit Intended to Sustain the Bereaved,'' The Washington
Post, February 16, 2007, by Donna St. George, and ``Help
Needed: Grandparents Raising the Children of Fallen Soldiers,''
AARP Bulletin, April 2007, by Carole Fleck were submitted by
the witnesses and are included in the record, which appear in
the Appendix.]
Mr. HALL. And we will move to panel three. Rose Lee, the
Chair of the Government Relations Committee of Gold Star Wives
of America; Patricia Montes Barron, Deputy Director of
Government Relations for National Military Families
Association; and Christine Cote, Staff Attorney for the
National Veterans Legal Services Program.
Thank you for joining us, and we have Members coming and
going for activities on the floor or other Committee meetings,
but we are going to forge ahead.
First, the Chair would like to thank you all again and
recognize Ms. Rose Elizabeth Lee representing the Gold Star
Wives of America.
STATEMENTS OF ROSE ELIZABETH LEE, CHAIR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC. (WIDOW); PATRICIA
MONTES BARRON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL
MILITARY FAMILIES ASSOCIATION; AND CHRISTINE COTE, STAFF
ATTORNEY, NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF ROSE ELIZABETH LEE
Ms. Lee. Thank you, sir.
First of all, I would like to say my heart goes out to the
personal testimonies that I heard just a few moments ago. It
was heart-wrenching to say the least.
Mr. Chairman, Representative Lamborn, and Members of the
House Veterans' Affairs Disability Assistance and Memorial
Affairs Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of all Gold
Star Wives regarding the importance of addressing critical
services for America's military widows and their children.
My name is Rose Lee. I am a widow and I am here before you
as the Chair of the Gold Star Wives Committee on Government
Relations.
In my testimony, I will respond to your request for our
views on helping those left behind. Are we doing enough for the
grandparents, spouses, and children of veterans?
In doing so, I will present to you the collective goals of
Gold Star Wives with the hopes that they will alert you to
certain discrepancies and inefficiencies that you may be able
to alleviate in your deliberations this year.
I do want to thank the Members of the Subcommittee and the
staff for your continued support of programs that directly
support the well-being of our servicemembers, widows, and their
families.
Let me be clear, however, from the start. We are not doing
enough. We are unmistakably in a time of war. Warriors are
dying and leaving behind young families. If there is one
message I would leave with you today it is that there is never
enough good communication.
The casualty assistance officers and casualty assistance
call officers have a difficult mission in a difficult time.
They act to assist survivors, from the death notification to
assistance with coordinating funeral arrangements, to applying
for benefits and entitlements. They do a valiant job, but they
are not trained enough to be the subject matter expert for the
benefits and entitlements managed by the VA or the Department
of Defense.
Getting the right information to the right people at the
right time is important. Getting the right benefit is important
as well. There are gaps in the benefits for survivors that we
have called for corrective action over time. If we are serious
about addressing the question, ``are we doing enough,'' then it
is time to respond to these issues where we clearly fall short
of ``enough.''
The survivor benefit plan, the acronym SBP, annuity
payments are still offset dollar for dollar by the veterans'
dependency and indemnity compensation, the DIC benefits. This
offset is wrong. It should be eliminated. The SBP was meant to
provide income protection for survivors.
We recognize you must act with your colleagues on the
Committee on Armed Services on this issue. All we seek is
equity with Federal civilian workers. Federal retired
annuitants and their survivors receive their benefit without
offset of VA benefits. The military benefits should be similar.
The current law allows for surviving spouses who remarry
after age 57 to retain their VA DIC survivor benefit. For those
who remarried before the law was enacted, there was a 1-year
period to apply for reinstatement. Communication in the form of
outreach was lacking during the retroactive period.
Therefore, we request two changes to the law. A, allow
survivors to retain DIC on remarriage at age 55 in order to
bring this benefit in line with rules for SBP and other Federal
survivor programs. And, B, open up the reinstatement period
with renewed outreach efforts to make survivors aware of their
eligibility.
There is a grievous oversight concerning the $250 child
DIC. The program evaluation of benefits study recommended that
surviving spouses with dependent children receive the $250 for
5 years instead of 2 years and that amount should be indexed to
inflation to avoid a devaluation of the benefit. Unfortunately,
those receiving the $250 child DIC are not receiving it for 5
years and are not receiving even a small $10 cost-of-living
adjustment.
CHAMPVA, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, currently does not carry with
it a dental plan. In order to increase beneficiaries' access to
dental care at a reasonable cost, Gold Star Wives seek for
widows and all CHAMPVA beneficiaries the ability to purchase a
voluntary dental insurance plan. It may be similar to the model
of the TRICARE program for military service retirees for dental
care in which the payment of premiums for services is
completely funded by the enrollee. This would require a
modification to Title 38, Chapter 53.
We would like to begin the process of reviewing how the DIC
rate is established which is currently a flat rate. The SBP is
calculated at 55 percent of retired pay. We recommend that the
DIC be calculated in a similar manner, at 55 percent of the
disabled veteran's 100 percent disability compensation amount
which will provide more equitable compensation to our
survivors. Currently DIC is 41 percent of the 100 percent
disability compensation rate. We firmly believe that an office
should be established that would provide oversight to the
policy issues of survivors and be a transitional assistance to
survivors and the main coordinator between the Department of
Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Without such an
entity, widows are left to make their own way through a
bureaucratic maze at a time in their life that could be no
worse.
Complications arise in this current conflict because it
presents issues that we had not had to deal with before in that
there are National Guard Members whose families are not near a
military installation and find it difficult to learn about
their benefits and burial information and so forth.
There are other important issues that we have included in
our written statement that we request your attention.
In conclusion, we do not want our widows forgotten whether
they are experiencing their losses currently or whether they
are Members of the so-called greatest generation and
experienced their loss many years ago during World War II. When
the ultimate sacrifice is given, there is a family left behind.
Let us show the spirit of this Nation by not forgetting these
widows whose numbers grow daily.
I regret if I show some frustration in this next remark.
These are issues we have addressed to the Congress over many
years before. We have faith that when you ask the question,
``Have we done enough?'' that you will, with determination, try
to close the gap to ``enough.'' It is time to move forward with
these issues.
I thank the Subcommittee for using this hearing as one more
avenue of awareness and education and for giving me an
opportunity to share my thoughts and the goals of Gold Star
Wives. We are happy to work with your Subcommittee on any of
these initiatives. Thank you so much.
[The statement of Ms. Lee appears on p. 53.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, Ms. Lee.
And the Chair will now recognize Patricia Barron. Push the
button on your microphone, please.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA MONTES BARRON
Ms. Barron. Chairman Hall and distinguished Members of the
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, the
National Military Families Association would like to thank you
for the opportunity to present testimony today on whether we
are indeed doing enough for the survivors of those who have
sacrificed their lives in service to this Nation.
The families here today have eloquently raised the
difficulties they have encountered in the awarding of survivor
benefits to the children of single servicemembers. NMFA has
always emphasized that servicemembers and families must
understand there is a package of survivor benefits. More
details can be found in our statement submitted for the record.
But that gratuity was originally intended to act as a financial
bridge to help with living expenses until other benefits such
as the dependency and indemnity compensation payment, the
survivor benefit annuity, the Social Security benefits begin to
be paid.
The servicemembers' group life insurance, as its name
implies, is an insurance plan. The death gratuity is not an
insurance payment even though its $100,000 amount is bigger
than many civilian life insurance payouts.
The law as it is currently written, the death gratuity must
be awarded to the next of kin. When the beneficiary is a minor
child, it would be placed in a trust for that child subject to
State laws. The servicemember may designate multiple
beneficiaries for the SGLI and there is no stipulation in the
SGLI regarding the use of that money for any particular
purpose.
It is of utmost importance, and I say that again, of utmost
importance in light of increased value of the survivor benefits
that the servicemember be informed about the difference between
the death gratuity and the SGLI payment.
It is also important that servicemembers and their families
discuss the implications and disposition of these payments
prior to their deployment, especially when there is a minor
child involved or when there are children from a prior marriage
or relationship to consider. This is just absolutely
imperative.
With the increased amount of the survivor benefits, it is
incumbent upon single servicemembers with children or dual
servicemember couples with children to create not only a family
care plan but estate planning as well. That might seem a little
odd when we are talking about young adults in our Nation's
military, that they would have to go and do estate planning,
but when we are talking about a sum of $500,000, it is
absolutely imperative that they pay attention to this before
they leave, before they are deployed.
NMFA is concerned that the legal necessities of appointing
a guardian for a minor child upon the death of their single
servicemember parent may cause a delay in accessing the death
gratuity at a time when a family may need this bridge payment
the most.
Legislation to change the way the death gratuity is awarded
must meet two goals, assist with immediate financial needs
following the death of the servicemember and protecting the
benefits due to the minor child.
NMFA would support legislation to allow designation of a
servicemember's parent or sibling as the recipient of a portion
of the death gratuity payment if there is a guarantee that
payment would be used as that financial bridge for the minor
child until other benefits are awarded, with the remainder
being placed in trust for that child.
The protection of the financial future of the child is
paramount. If the servicemember wants to provide for other
family members, there are proper mechanisms to designate those
family members as beneficiaries to the SGLI.
The VA provides a monthly transition benefit of $250 for 2
years following the death of the servicemember for surviving
spouses with children. NMFA would support the extension of this
benefit to the guardians who are caring for the minor child of
the deceased servicemembers.
NMFA believes the surviving children of single
servicemembers who die on active duty require special
protections to ensure the proper financial disposition of the
enhanced survivor benefits.
NMFA asks Congress to provide the proper protections for
the children if allowing a guardian to receive the death
gratuity and to remember the original intent of the death
gratuity payment was to serve as a financial bridge until the
initiation of the payment of the survivor's benefits.
While survivors can never be fully prepared for the news
their loved one has died in the line of duty, certain
preparations can and should be made to assume casualty
assistance is rendered and benefits are awarded quickly.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
recognizing the need to fix the DIC offset to the SBP and for
the very real need of creating an Office of Survivors within
the VA, combining both VA and DoD resources.
Talking about the what ifs is not pleasant, but preparation
in this time of war is necessary. NMFA appreciates the
responsiveness of the VA and DoD to surviving families when
needs arise and their continued support. These families deserve
no less for the sacrifice they have made for our Nation.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today, and I welcome your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Barron appears on p. 56.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Ms. Barron, for your very specific
suggestions and written testimony and your oral testimony will
be very helpful to this Subcommittee.
And now the Chair will recognize for her testimony
Christine Cote, Staff Attorney of the National Veterans Legal
Services Program.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE COTE
Ms. Cote. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee.
Mr. Hall. Good morning.
Ms. Cote. I am Christine Cote from the National Veterans
Legal Services Program. I am a litigator for them.
I am here today to talk about what happens to a VA claim
for benefits when the claimant dies during the claims
adjudication process and to offer some NVLSP recommendations on
some legislative changes that might improve this area of the
law.
I am sure a lot of you are aware that if a person is
seeking VA benefits and dies while the claim is pending before
the regional office, the Board of Veterans Appeals, or the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Veterans Court, that
claim dies with the claimant.
Congress has provided a limited opportunity for survivors
to obtain the benefits that the veteran would have been
entitled to at his death. But as I will describe, they are
exceedingly limited.
NVLSP urges that qualifying survivors should be able to
step into the shoes and continue the claim started by the
deceased veteran or the deceased claimant because it is unduly
harsh to require a survivor to file a brand-new claim. It is a
brand-new claim for entitlement to accrued benefits. And the
survivor has to file this claim all the way back at the
regional office level regardless of where the claim had
progressed in the claims adjudication process.
So the claimant, the survivor, who is often elderly or
infirm, has to start all over again, go to the back of the
line, and this can add years to the VA claims process which is
already a painfully slow one.
Another problem is that only very specific family members
may qualify as claimants for accrued benefits purposes under
the statute, 5121. If there is a surviving spouse, the
surviving spouse may qualify as a claimant for accrued
benefits. If there is no surviving spouse, the children can
qualify as survivors for accrued benefits purposes but only if
they are unmarried and under the age of 18 or under the age of
23 and enrolled in a course of study in higher education at the
time of the grant of benefits.
This requirement is very harsh for the surviving children.
We urge a change in this area. If a child was a qualifying
child under the accrued benefits framework at any time during
the pendency of the parent's claim for benefits, then that
child should be permitted to qualify as a claimant for accrued
benefits purposes. It is not fair to penalize the children
because of the slow VA claims process. And we ask for a change
in that area.
Another limitation is that there is a time limit for filing
claims for accrued benefits. A survivor has to file this brand-
new claim within 1 year of the veteran's death or the
claimant's death. And this filing deadline is much too short.
Family members may not be knowledgeable about VA claims law
and VA procedure, plus, more importantly, they are probably
preoccupied with funeral and burial issues and just the
grieving process itself.
So we would suggest that something more in the line of 5
years or so, something that is more--five years or so from the
date of the veteran's or the claimant's death would be a more
realistic and a more fair deadline. We certainly would not want
VA to be liable, ad infinitum, but something more fair. One
year is just not a fair deadline for that.
Another limitation in these claims is that no new evidence
may be provided, may be introduced for consideration by these
survivors in an accrued benefits claim. It is our position that
if a veteran or claimant who had this derivative claim and then
died would have been able to submit the evidence that could
establish his or her claim while he lived, the surviving family
member should be able to introduce that favorable evidence as
well.
So in that situation, survivors would be foreclosed from
introducing evidence, even medical nexus evidence that could
have served to show that the veteran was due benefits at the
time of his death; surviving family members are not free to do
that under the current structure.
Another limitation with which we take issue is the
requirement in the accrued benefits statute that the derivative
claim, the underlying claim, was one for periodic monetary
benefits. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has
defined periodic monetary benefits as recurrent payments
occurring at fixed intervals. So that would include monthly
disability benefits and the like.
But a good example of why this does not work is the case
Pappalardo v. Brown, in which the benefits court had no choice
but to deny reimbursement for a specially adapted housing
reimbursement payment.
The 20-year service-connected veteran has lost the use of
both legs. He had worked with the Boston regional office to
make sure that the plans to modify the house passed muster and
he died during the pendency of his claim for reimbursement. And
it was too bad the family had already paid the money and
because of this requirement of periodic monetary benefits, the
family could not collect. That is not fair. We urge that 5121
be modified in that area. If a family has already borne the
financial burden, then the family should be reimbursed for that
cost.
And, finally, I just do want to highlight the case of
Padgett v. Nicholson. The Federal Circuit last month carved out
a very narrow exception to the general rule that a claim dies
with the claimant.
For 12 years, Mr. Padgett, who was a World War II combat
veteran, he had been service connected back in 1945 for a leg
disability, was seeking service connection for a related hip
disability.
So he battled the RO and appealed to the Board. It went
from the Board to the RO, back to the Board, up to the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims, back down to the Board, and
finally 12 years later it made it back up to the court, briefs
were filed, went to oral argument, supplemental briefing
happened.
It was finally submitted to the court for full decision in
September of 2004. In April 2005, we were pleased as punch when
the court reversed the Board's denial as clearly erroneous,
which would have meant a full grant of benefits. The trouble
was that Mr. Padgett has passed away in November 2004.
VA immediately moved to have the favorable decision
dismissed, rescinded, and we moved to have Mrs. Padgett
substituted as a party to the appeal. CAVC, bound by this rule
that the claim dies with the claimant, dismissed the appeal.
We took it to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit has
this limited exception now where: the veteran or the other
claimant had appealed his claim to the CAVC; where all briefs
were filed; where there was nothing left to do but issue a
decision; and where there was an identifiable survivor for
accrued benefits purposes, the CAVC would not be forced to
remove the decision from the books making it retroactive to the
date of the veteran's death, nun pro tunc, and the survivor
could substitute.
So it is great for Mrs. Padgett, but a lot of survivors
would not be able to fit into this very limited exception and
we would urge that qualifying survivors be able to keep the
claim going if they choose to do so.
And I see I have gone over and I apologize.
[The statement of Ms. Cote appears on p. 60.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much for your testimony. That is
the most unfortunate record, out of the many tales, many
stories that I have heard, that we have heard in testimony
before this Subcommittee. So far for me 12 years I think is a
record. And it is unfortunate whenever the recipient passes
away before the claim is granted.
And it actually reminds me a little bit of what many people
say about the private insurance industry, health insurance
industry, which is that they are looking to deny, deny, deny as
long as they can because that way they hold on to the money as
long as possible.
And during that time, people die or those with the least
education, the least persistence, the least means to hire
attorneys or to put their lives aside to keep pursuing a case
or pursuing a reimbursement give up or those of an older
generation who are used to listening to an authority figure and
going, gee, I guess they told me that I am not covered, I guess
I am not covered.
I hear that in the private insurance field, it is somewhere
around 50 percent of those who are initially denied a claim for
health insurance coverage just go away and pay it and that that
is a windfall that is currently accruing to all of the health
insurance companies.
I am ashamed to think, and dread to think, that our VA
might be following a similar policy. But all of your stories
and those of the other panelists lead me to believe that there
may be a systematic attempt to pay late, to underpay, to avoid
paying what the full disability may warrant.
I just wanted to ask a couple of quick questions. Ms.
Barron, how would you address the issue of a mother or father
who leaves SGLI to a spouse mistakenly believing that the
spouse would take care of his or her child from a prior
relationship? The spouse does not take care of the child and
has no legal responsibility to do so. Should Congress get
involved and, if so, how in resolving this issue?
Ms. Barron. I think your first line of defense would be the
actual deployment briefs that the servicemember attends prior
to deployment and that is where I was talking about the estate
planning.
The misconceptions that are out there among our
servicemembers, they do not fully understand their benefits.
They do not fully understand the package of benefits and what
goes to whom.
I think if you made that very clear and you somehow
enforced that estate planning just as you enforce a family care
plan before they are allowed to deploy, I think you would see
some success with that. It really is a matter of explaining
what the benefit package is and making sure that they are
adequately addressing the needs of their children.
Mr. Hall. And could I ask you also are survivors offered
formal financial services counseling to include benefits
counseling in any part of their survivor benefit process?
Ms. Barron. If I am not mistaken, I think financial
counseling is available through the VA, but I can get back to
you on that.
Mr. Hall. OK. Any other panelists want to comment on that?
In your experience, is there financial counseling provided as
part of survivor benefit process?
Ms. Lee. Chairman Hall, there are facilities available
through the VA. They have the vet centers and they do provide
counseling, all kinds of counseling, counseling for PTSD, and I
believe they would also take care of financial counseling as
well.
And I think the Department of Defense has recently improved
some of their offices' services and financial counseling is
going to be one of them as well.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mrs. Lee.
Could I also ask you, based upon the survivors you have
been in contact with, what percentage are affected by the SBP
DIC offset?
Ms. Lee. Well, I think there is probably about 61,000
total. The ones whose husbands did pay into it, they had to be
eligible for retirement. And those who did retire of
disabilities and when he dies, his widow is also eligible for
DIC.
And by the way, SBP is an optional premium-based insurance
type program. Not everyone buys into it. But those who do buy
into it, they have this offset because they also receive the
DIC.
The new widows, I might say those who are from the current
war since 9/11, are given the SBP without having to serve at
least 20 years. Obviously most of them are much too young to
have served 20 years.
But there was a law that has passed since 9/11 that permits
these new widows to also be eligible for SBP. And, of course,
since their husbands died, then their SBP is offset and
oftentimes it is offset completely because of the lower grade
or rank of the soldier who died.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mrs. Lee.
And, Ms. Cote, would you support legislation that permitted
spouses and children to pursue claims after the veteran has
died and why or why not?
Ms. Cote. Certainly. I think the biggest problem with this
whole--and it is not just a problem for the survivors, it is an
undue burden on VA as well. You can have a claim that has been
developed and adjudicated and moved on. Would it not make more
sense for the agency even from an efficiency standpoint to just
continue the claim, keep developing evidence as you would if
the survivors want to do that?
Maybe it is my economics background, but it just seems like
that is the most logical course. And if the families want to
choose that route, why would you not? I mean, first there was
one claim that progressed through the adjudication process. All
of a sudden, you start all over again from scratch back down at
the regional office level. It just does not make any sense. So
certainly we would support that.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much.
And my time has been unfortunately consumed, and we are now
going to ask our Counsel for the Minority to ask questions on
behalf of Mr. Lamborn, who had to go to his other duties.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of Mr. Lamborn, ladies, thank you for being here,
and all of our panelists, thank you for being here today.
This question is for Mrs. Lee and, Rose, good to see you
today. This question was going to be posed by Mr. Bilirakis,
who cannot be here, but he wanted me to ask. He was pleased to
see in your written testimony that the Gold Star Wives support
legislation that would allow the surviving spouses of veterans
to remarry after age 55 and retain their DIC benefits.
As you know, Mr. Bilirakis introduced House Resolution 704,
which would achieve this important legislative goal. If House
Resolution 704 were enacted, do you have an estimate on how
many surviving spouses might want to take advantage of the
reduction in age and remarry at age 55 instead of age 57 as
current law allows?
Ms. Lee. Well, no, I do not have an estimate, I am sorry to
say, but we do constantly get letters from various Members who
ask when is this going to pass. But I am sorry I do not have an
estimate of how many.
Mr. Phillips. But you certainly have----
Ms. Lee. We do have some, right, right, right.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, one more question if I may.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Phillips, go ahead.
Mr. Phillips. And this is for any one of our panelists. We
have today heard testimony about a grossly disappointing lack
of responsiveness and sheer courtesy from government personnel
who are supposed to help.
Aside from matters of just an equitable compensation, do
the people you have interacted with at VA or DoD or any other
department truly act as if they want to help and are focused on
your needs? In other words, is there an attitude among them of
service and stewardship?
Ms. Barron. I will go ahead and try to answer that
question. I do feel strongly that DoD and VA, the overall
impression is that they do really want to help. There is no one
out there that wakes up every morning and says today I am
really going to make someone's day bad.
But as information trickles down and you go to I would say
the soldiers of those two agencies that deal with family
members, you do not always get the proper type of responses.
You do not get the type of attitude that you would like to see.
And I see this as an active-duty spouse myself, I see this
in a lot of different areas, not just dealing with the kinds of
issues that we are dealing here.
So I think part of the problem again is that our tempo is
incredibly high. We are going full speed ahead in a lot of
different directions. And that includes the people that work
for the DoD and VA as well. So someone has to stop for a minute
and remind themselves or the people that they work with that
these are special people out there that deserve special
treatment.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
And I want to thank our three panelists very much for your
testimony. And I will add my voice to those other Members of
the Subcommittee who are aghast that we are so good at starting
a war and sending our men and women in uniform out and they do
such a fantastic job when it is asked of them, but when they
come home, they and their families are not handled with that
same efficiency and competence and, frankly, with the respect
that they are due in getting them all the help and assistance
that they need.
So we are going to work very hard to try to improve this
process. And this panel is now excused. Thank you for being
here.
And we will call our fourth panel, which consists of Jack
McCoy, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program
Management, Veterans Benefits Administration of the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs; accompanied by Director Thomas
M. Lastowka, I presume I am putting the right emphasis on the
right syllable, Mr. Lastowka, Director of the Philadelphia
Regional Office and Insurance Center, Veterans Benefits
Administration, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Thank you for your patience and for being with us
throughout this morning's hearing. And the Chair will now
recognize Mr. McCoy for his testimony. Good morning.
STATEMENT OF JACK McCOY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS M. LASTOWKA, DIRECTOR, PHILADELPHIA
REGIONAL OFFICE AND INSURANCE CENTER, VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. McCoy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
the important issue of survivor benefits. Providing benefits
for the surviving family members of our veterans is one of the
core responsibilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I
am pleased to be accompanied by Mr. Thomas Lastowka, Director
of VA's Philadelphia Regional Office and Insurance Center.
VA provides a wide range of benefits to the surviving
spouses, dependent children, and dependent parents of deceased
servicemembers and veterans. We have experienced counselors
ready to help survivors to understand the benefits to which
they may be entitled and to assist them in filing claims.
Veterans Benefits Administration casualty assistance
officers positioned at each VA Regional Office work closely
with military casualty assistance officers. They visit
survivors of servicemembers who die on active duty at a time
appropriate for the family and assist them in applying for all
benefits.
Dependency and indemnity compensation is paid to the
surviving spouse, children, and parents of a servicemember who
died in the line of duty in active service or a veteran who
died after service as a result of a service-connected or
compensable disability.
We are currently paying this benefit to 328,000 survivors.
The DIC application has been streamlined for in-service deaths
through the use of a special worksheet and claims processing
has been centralized to the VA Regional Office in Philadelphia.
The goal is to process all in-service death claims within 48
hours of receipt of all required documents.
Surviving spouses currently receive $1,067 a month with
additional amounts payable for children under the age of 18 or
if the surviving spouse is in need of regular aid and
attendance.
A surviving spouse who has a child or children under age 18
and receives DIC is also entitled to a transitional benefit of
$250 per month. The surviving spouse receives this additional
benefit for 2 years after entitlement to DIC begins or until
all of the surviving children have reached 18 years of age,
whichever is earlier. Surviving spouses may continue to receive
DIC benefits upon remarriage if the remarriage takes place
after the spouse's 57th birthday.
VA also pays DIC benefits to parents of deceased veterans
if the parents' income is below a certain amount. The maximum
rate currently payable to a sole surviving parent is $524 per
month. If a sole surviving parent is in need of aid and
attendance to perform daily activities such as bathing,
dressing, or eating, an additional amount is payable. The
maximum monthly benefit in these cases is $808 per month.
If a veteran's survivors do not qualify for DIC because the
veteran did not die in the line of duty in active service or
after service as a result of a service-connected or compensable
disability or was not totally disabled by a service-connected
disability at the time of death, they still may be entitled to
death pension. Eligibility for pension is based on financial
need.
The general requirement for this benefit is that the
veteran had served at least 90 days in active service with at
least one of those days occurring during a period of war or at
the time of death was entitled to receive compensation or
retirement pay for a service-connected disability.
The Dependents Education Assistance Program provides up to
45 months of educational benefits to surviving spouses and
dependent children of servicemembers who died on active duty or
veterans who died or became permanently and totally disabled as
the result of a service-connected disability.
The Dependents Education Assistance Program was recently
expanded to include the child or spouse of a servicemember who
was hospitalized or receiving outpatient treatment for a
permanent and total disability. This change was effective
December 23d of 2006.
VA is authorized to pay up to $2,000 toward burial and
funeral expenses in cases of service-connected deaths. Veterans
Administration administered and supervised life insurance
programs provide over $1.1 trillion of coverage to nearly 7.3
million veteran servicemembers and their families. In fiscal
year 2006, the VA life insurance programs paid $2.3 billion in
death benefits to nearly 144,000 beneficiaries.
Servicemembers' group life insurance covers active-duty
servicemembers and Reservists, including the Coast Guard and
uniformed Members of the Public Health Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The servicemembers'
group life insurance participation rate is 98 percent for
active-duty servicemembers and 92 percent for Reservists.
An analysis of the beneficiaries who have received payment
under the service group life insurance program indicates that
42 percent of beneficiaries are parents, 28 percent are
spouses, 10 percent are children, and 10 percent are siblings.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. We will be happy
to answer any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The statement of Mr. McCoy appears on p. 64.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, sir.
And we have a statement for the record from Congressman
Solomon Ortiz which will be added to the record.
Mr. Lastowka, are you here to answer questions or would you
like to make a statement also?
Mr. Lastowka. I am here to help Jack with questions.
Mr. Hall. Okay. Great. Just checking.
All right. So thank you very much for your testimony, Mr.
McCoy. And my thanks to you and to everybody at the VA who I
know are working very hard and trying to cope with the need to
do so much with what seems like less all the time.
What percentage of in-service death claims achieve the goal
of a 48-hour processing time and how long does it take after
processing to communicate results back to the survivor?
Mr. McCoy. Ninety percent of those claims that we receive
with all the documentation are processed within 48 hours. And I
believe the notification to the beneficiary is immediate, mail
time.
Mr. Hall. So it is 90 percent as long as all the
documentation is there?
Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hall. What changes can and should be made to the
current process of administering benefits for survivors in your
opinion?
Mr. McCoy. I think we strive to and I think we can always
do better on outreach. I think we heard a number of times today
that one of the things that beneficiaries complain about is the
fact that they are not notified timely or they do not know what
benefits they are entitled to. So we are striving to do that.
We have created very recently a new Web site for
beneficiaries that literally can walk you through what you
actually need to do to file a claim for death benefits. And, of
course, we take over ten million phone calls a year. We do have
trained counselors at all of our regional offices to help
someone file a claim.
Mr. Hall. You just listed off a dozen or so benefits for
survivors. Is there separate paperwork required for each
benefit, SGLI, DIC, SBP, and so forth? Could these be
consolidated as suggested by Amy Clark into an initial packet?
Mr. McCoy. I do not believe it could. The one reason that
comes to mind is that, so often, the benefits are applied for
at different times. Someone who comes in to apply for education
benefits might not apply at the same time for DIC benefits.
Mr. Hall. OK. And how many survivors approximately take
advantage of the beneficiary financial counseling service? Has
there been an upward trend since 1999 and how much is spent on
education and outreach for this program?
Mr. McCoy. I will ask Tom to address that.
Mr. Lastowka. And if I could interject something quickly,
sir.
Mr. Hall. While you are crunching numbers, I will ask Mr.
McCoy while you are looking that up if you have an opinion on
House Resolution 67, which would enable States to help with the
outreach. Are you familiar with the bill that is in the
Subcommittee?
Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir. I personally think it is something
that has to be looked at very closely. If I am on the right
subject, we are talking about the States who would develop
claims. This would not----
Mr. Hall. This is for helping with outreach.
Mr. McCoy. For helping with outreach?
Mr. Hall. For States to help with outreach.
Mr. McCoy. States do that now. County Service Officers,
State Departments of Veteran Affairs, they all help us with
outreach. We work very closely with them to do outreach.
Mr. Hall. This is $25 million, approximately one dollar for
each veteran.
Mr. McCoy. I guess I would say I would want to know more
about it.
Mr. Hall. About where that goes?
Mr. McCoy. How that money is going to be distributed and to
whom.
Mr. Hall. OK. And then did the Blackberry or calculator
come up with its----
Mr. Lastowka. Yes, sir. I am sorry, sir. I was checking
that. I thought I had that information.
Mr. Hall. Maybe you could just get that information to the
Subcommittee if you could, please, how many survivors are
taking advantage of the beneficiary financial counseling
service, has there been an upward trend since 1999, and how
much is spent by the VA on education and outreach for this
program. This is information we would like to have at whatever
time you could get it to us.
[The following was subsequently received from the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs:]
1. How many survivors are taking advantage of the BFCS?
In calendar year 2006, 13,875 individual beneficiaries were
eligible for Beneficiary Financial Counseling Services (BFCS) as a
result of payments they received from one of the following programs:
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
Traumatic Injury Protection under SGLI (TSGLI)
Family SGLI (FSGLI) (spousal coverage)
Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI)
If there are multiple beneficiaries, each is entitled to
counseling.
Of the 13,875 eligible beneficiaries, 1,344 contacted Financial
Point:
450 individuals requested the Financial Point kit/
application
29 completed the process and received written
financial plans.
894 additional individuals called to ask questions.
Based on these figures, the overall SGLI utilization rate of BFCS
is 9 percent. That includes phone calls, receipt of the Kit, and other
contacts in addition to completion of the full Financial Plan.
Regarding the utilization rate, the following points should be
noted. First, the BFCS utilization rate for the SGLI Programs compares
very favorably to that of Prudential's other corporate customers, for
whom the participation rate is less than 1 percent. Despite the
relatively high utilization rate, we are continually looking for ways
to increase it. We are currently conducting a survey of beneficiaries
to improve awareness of and participation in the program, especially
among beneficiaries who have the greatest need for this service. We
periodically meet with representatives from the military casualty
offices to solicit feedback and suggestions for improvement, and we
plan to do the same with the Gold Star Wives and others.
2. How much is spent by VA on education and outreach for this
program?
The counseling services are free to beneficiaries. There are also
no costs to VBA, VA, or the Government for the actual BFCS services.
Like all SGLI Program administrative expenses, the costs are borne by
the SGLI program. Total 2006 Financial Point costs were $227,960. This
is comprised of:
The cost of the 450 kits that were requested, which
are charged to the Program @ $415 per kit ($186,750).
There is also a charge to the Program for any face-
to-face meeting requested by a beneficiary. There were 26 face-
to-face meetings in 2006, charged at $1,585 per meeting ($41,
210).
The BFCS expenses are low enough that they have no impact
whatsoever on the premium charged to servicemembers.
3. Has there been an upward trend since 1999?
No. The utilization rate has remained stable since 1999.
Mr. Hall. And that is it for my time, and ask Mr. Phillips
if he would like to ask questions.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple
of questions.
Mr. McCoy, good afternoon. Thank you gentlemen for both
being here today.
We see how in some cases a surviving spouse gets SGLI,
other payments and then leaves, remarries, and so forth, and
leaves a child and the guardian, whether that is a grandparent
or an aunt or uncle or someone else, high and dry.
Would VA have any suggestions for remedies, assuming that
there are remedies? I would assume that there must be.
Mr. McCoy. We have had a lot of discussion. Tom?
Mr. Lastowka. First of all, I think you have to put into
perspective what numbers we are talking about. We have done a
review of the SGLI payments made within the last 2 years. There
was a total of over 5,000 paid. There were 11 where there was
some kind of contest involved. And in some of them the child of
the previous marriage had been made the beneficiary.
So in terms of absolute volume, there is not a lot. The
services do counsel members on beneficiary designations.
Obviously the marriage and family situation today is not what
it was 50 years ago, so you have more blended families.
And I think there is evidence in what married
servicemembers do to suggest that they are making the
distinction. While 75 percent designate only their spouse,
another 11 percent are designating their spouse and someone
else, often a dependent, the child of a previous marriage or
previous encounter. And another 15 percent make another
designation completely.
So I think there is strong evidence that servicemembers in
general are addressing individual situations. I think what
would be best is to improve counseling at the point when people
are making their decisions as to who should be their
beneficiaries.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lastowka, you have a
sterling reputation in the community and I am sure you do not
need to be reminded that one veteran, one instance of this is
100 percent to the people going through it and it is too much.
So we have to be very careful about it.
Mr. Lastowka. I understand that. But as we have looked at
who is the ``right'' beneficiary, it is a very difficult
question for someone other than the servicemember to answer.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
And I have just one more question, are veterans' life
insurance programs assignable to funeral homes?
Mr. Lastowka. No. There is no assignment in any of the VA
government life insurance programs for veterans. The testimony
that I heard earlier today referred to the Veterans Life
Insurance Company, which is a private firm. I have no idea what
they do.
Mr. Hall. In that case, I have one more question. Mr.
McCoy, how would you address the issue of a mother or father
who leaves SGLI to a spouse, mistakenly believing that that
spouse would take care of his or her child from a prior
marriage, the spouse does not take care of the child and has no
legal responsibility to do so? Should Congress get involved
and, if so, how?
Mr. McCoy. That is a very tough question obviously. And I
would only say that we have always made it a right of the
servicemember to designate who that life insurance goes to. And
I would like to see that abided by.
Mr. Lastowka. If I can, sir. When a servicemember dies,
there are several streams of money that are paid to survivors.
Some are paid with public funds and then there is the SGLI
insurance funds, which are paid for by the servicemember.
I think if we were to review which funds should have a
designated guaranteed beneficiary and which ones should be at
the discretion of the servicemembers, those that have been paid
for by the servicemembers may be the last that we would want to
designate.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, Mr. Lastowka and Mr. McCoy.
I appreciate your testimony very much and your patience waiting
to go last.
And thank you, and this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York
Thank you all for coming today. I am pleased that so many folks
could attend this oversight hearing on ``Helping Those Left Behind: Are
We Doing Enough for the Parents, Spouses and Children of Veterans?''
As the title suggests, I want to use this hearing to examine how
effective our government has been in assisting the families of
veterans. I have noticed on several occasions that when we begin a
discussion about taking care of veterans, we sometimes bypass or
overlook the veterans' family. And, when we do get around to the
veterans' family, we are apt to apply a cookie cutter, one size fits
all approach. For example, we assume that the veteran is a male and the
children live with both biological parents; however, this is not always
the case.
The current military is made up of many so-called mixed or blended
families, in which children do not necessarily live with one or both of
their biological parents. Furthermore, the population of women serving
in the military continues to grow. More than 160,000 women have been
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. As of February 2007, over 143 single
parents have died in Iraq and the vast majority were women. As a
result, we are witnessing a new phenomenon of grandparents raising
grandchildren that have been orphaned by the Iraq War. We will hear
from some of those grandparents today.
I also hope today's hearing will allow the Subcommittee to look at
how we can better assist those whose spouses have died on Active Duty.
One reoccurring theme that I have heard on this issue is the difficulty
in navigating the bureaucratic maze immediately after the
servicemember's death. And, I want to say at the outset that this is no
critique of the VA because I think they try to be helpful, but the
nature of the dual system in which both the VA and DoD provide benefits
makes it very hard for an individual who has just lost a loved one. I
would be interested in learning more about a proposed idea to create an
Office of Survivors, which combines VA and DoD resources in one
location.
In addition, I am concerned about those veterans who are facing a
terminal condition and or who die before the completion of their
benefits claim. This is of great importance to the families of
veterans, especially those of the Vietnam era who in many instances get
overlooked because of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I want to know the current law with respect to an individual who
files a claim but dies before the claim is fully adjudicated. Can the
spouse or the children of that individual continue the claim? In the
108th Congress, legislation was introduced to permit such
action. I would like to know if such legislation is still necessary.
I am also interested in learning more about possible fixes to SBP
and DIC, so spouses stop getting the short end of the stick.
In closing, I just want to say that when we speak about veterans we
must always remember to include their families.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican
Member, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and
a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado
Thank you Mr. Chairman for recognizing me, and for holding this
hearing.
We are here today to discuss how we can best care for the family
members of our veterans.
The emotional demands that descend onto their loved ones are
immense, and we have a sacred responsibility to help them bear that
burden.
In reading the witnesses' testimony I learned about a number of
issues that are facing survivors and the failings of DoD and VA in this
area.
I was especially troubled by the situation that the Heavrin family
has described in their testimony.
Their daughter, Hannah, lost her life in Iraq. Because of the way
her Servicemembers Group Life Insurance and indemnity compensation
policies were written; her husband became the sole beneficiary.
However, a son she has from a previous relationship receives nothing.
Even worse, her current husband apparently has done nothing to help
support the child.
It is now up to the Heavrin family to raise their grandchild and
find the money to do so. I am not sure what course of action should be
undertaken in this situation, but I suspect that something can be done
to reduce the possibility that this happens to some other family.
I am also very interested in the concerns of the Gold Star Wives
and the National Military Family Association.
Sitting here with these deserving families about to speak to us, I
must note that this session we have heard promises to provide billions
of dollars to valiant Merchant Marine and Filipino veterans of World
War II. We have also noted dozens of other deserving veterans of that
war, such as the Woman Airforce Service Pilots.
These families have made great sacrifices for our freedom. It is my
hope that as we consider compensation and legislation, these families
will also be accorded due consideration.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. I
know many of you have traveled from far away to come educate us on this
issue and I thank you.
Thank you especially for your sacrifice and your fidelity to our
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Statement of the Honorable Brad Ellsworth, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana, on behalf of Ron Nesler, New Harmony, IN
(Caregiver of Adult Dependent)
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
Honey Sue and the Nesler Family of New Harmony, Indiana. Today, I will
read the heartfelt testimony prepared by Honey Sue's father, Ron
Nesler. Mr. Nesler has detailed his family's daily struggle to provide
care for Honey Sue who has a complicated neurological disorder rooted
in Spina Bifida. Honey Sue's condition is the result of her birth
father's exposure to Agent Orange while he served three tours of duty
as a Marine Rifleman in the Vietnam War. It is my hope that Honey Sue
and the estimated 200 children with Level III Spina Bifida as caused by
a parent's exposure to Agent Orange receive the same full health care
coverage as the 100% Service Connected military veterans.
Statement of Ron Nesler (Father of Deceased Veteran)
I am Honey Sue Newby's stepfather, Ron Nesler. My wife Suzanne
Nesler is Honey Sue's birth mother. Suzanne and I are Honey Sue's court
appointed guardians and full time care givers. Honey Sue is a beautiful
36-year-old child with complicated neurological disorders rooted in
Spina Bifida. She requires around the clock aid and attendance care and
extensive medical care. The VA concedes that Honey Sue's condition is
the result of her birth father's exposure to Agent Orange while serving
three separate 13 month tours in combat as a Marine Rifleman in the
Vietnam War.
Honey Sue is very bright, happy, and gregarious. But emotionally
she operates at about the 10- to 12-year-old level and always will. She
is the greatest joy in our lives. We are grateful for the opportunity
to care for her.
Honey Sue's birth father was a 3 tour combat Marine Rifleman in the
Vietnam War. Honey Sue is diagnosed with Spina Bifida as the root cause
of her neurological problems. When the VA Spina Bifida Program was
started, her mother and I applied for VA compensation for Honey Sue.
The VA acknowledges about 1200 children of Vietnam Vets as having some
degree of disability caused by Spina Bifida as related to a birth
parents exposure to A/O in Vietnam. The children are rated as Level I
through Level III according to their degree of disability with Level
III being the greatest degree of disability.
Honey Sue is one of only about 200 of the 1200 children rated as
Level III. We are told by the VA that this is the approximate
equivalent of a 100% Service Connected Disability rating for a military
veteran. All 1200 children are paid monthly monetary compensation by
the VA. The amount of the monthly compensation is based on their degree
of disability. As a Level III totally disabled A/O Spina Bifida child,
Honey Sue receives about $1,500 per month in VA compensation.
A 100% Service Connected (SC) military veteran whose situation
seems to mirror Honey Sue's situation exactly as to cause and result
receives about $2,500 per month. Honey Sue and the roughly 200 other
Level III children receive only scraps of very difficult to access
health care coverage from the VA. And these bits and pieces of health
care specifically exclude Honey Sue's greatest need which is aid and
attendance care. The 100% SC military veteran receives full medical
care including aid and attendance when needed.
Our position is that since the Congress created the law recognizing
the 200 Level III children as totally disabled as a direct result of a
birth parents military service, Congress should ensure full health care
benefits including aid and attendance care for these 200 children.
Our greatest concern is who will care for and protect Honey Sue
when her mother and I are gone? We feel the Congress owes a debt to
provide full health care for the Level III children including aid and
attendance care. These children should receive the same care as is
provided for a 100% service connected disabled veteran. No more and no
less.
Both Honey Sue and the 100% SC disabled military veteran are
conceded to be totally disabled as a result of military service. They
should be treated the same.
While the VA does provide some level of health care to the totally
disabled Level III A/O children it is very difficult to access. The
first hurdle is to find a doctor who is willing to write a letter to
the VA prior to treatment stating that the necessary medical care is
needed as a direct result of Spina Bifida. After the letter is sent we
typically have to wait several months to get approval for the VA
payment. Then even if the care is finally approved the same daunting
process is required the next time the same condition requires
treatment. This is a bureaucratic nightmare.
This obviously does not work in the emergencies which frequently
arise in caring for Honey Sue. The best way we have found to deal with
this is to pay out of pocket for Honey Sue's care and then battle it
out with the VA after the fact for reimbursement. Or, we depend on
welfare or private charities to provide the needed care. Honey Sue has
received more and better health care through the years as charity from
the Shriners and the Elks than she has as compensation through the VA.
We feel that this is a national shame.
We wonder what happens to Level III children like Honey Sue whose
parents do not have the money to pay up front and then fight a battle
for repayment with the VA. What if the parents do not have the verbal
or paper work skills to fight the battles with the VA or they do not
know how to access care from private charities? Without strong
advocates, these children will not receive the necessary care. We also
wonder what happens when we finally face a need for care for Honey Sue
that we are unable to fill ``By Hook or By Crook'' through welfare or
private charity as we are presently forced to do. We know that day will
likely eventually come. The fact we are becoming elderly and less able
makes it even more likely and frightening.
To exacerbate our situation, the local Social Security
Administration (SSA) office is at this very moment engaged in forcing
us to apply for Medicare benefits for Honey Sue that even they admit it
may cost her the loss of a significant amount of her Medicaid coverage
and leave her with even less health care protection than she currently
has. We are told that this is ``the law'' and we must comply or they
will cancel all of Honey Sue's SSI and Medicaid benefits as a penalty
for noncompliance. SSA says we have no recourse even though they agree
that to do this is obviously against Honey Sue's best interests. I am
worried. Honey Sue's mother is sick and distraught over this threat to
Honey Sue's well-being.
This is not how things should be. We do not think it is how the
Congress intended things to be when the VA Spina Bifida Program was
created. The government has admitted that the total disability of these
200 Level III kids is the result of military service. They should not
have to fight like dogs competing for scraps to get needed medical
care. It should be automatic just like the 100% service connected
disabled veteran who has the same situation as Honey Sue's.
We include with this letter a legislative Memorial passed by the
state legislature of the State of New Mexico. The memorial was
sponsored by State Representative Nate Cote in the New Mexico House of
Representatives and by Senator Leonard Lee Rawson in the New Mexico
State Senate. It was supported by Secretary John M. Garcia the
Secretary of New Mexico Department of Veteran Affairs and backed by the
national office of the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). The intent of
the Memorial is to recognize the plight of the A/O Spina Bifida
children and their families and to urge Congress to finally pay its
debt to these children who are victims of friendly fire from the
Vietnam war by providing them full health care coverage and full aid
and attendance care through the VA Spina Bifida Program. We have
included the copy of the New Mexico state legislative Memorial to
demonstrate that others besides our family recognize the injustice of
the treatment dished out to the Level III children.
The people to whom I am very grateful for being involved in passing
this New Mexico state legislative memorial for Honey Sue are:
1. Rep. Nate Cote originally sponsored the memorial in the
New Mexico House of Representatives. Rep. Cote's phone number
is (505) 202-1872 and his e-mail is [email protected].
2. Senator Leonard Lee Rawson sponsored the memorial in the
New Mexico State Senate. Senator Rawson's phone number is (505)
647-3568 and his e-mail is [email protected].
3. Secretary John M. Garcia, Secretary of the Department of
Veteran Affairs for the state of New Mexico supported the
memorial for Honey Sue and is a true friend of veterans. His
phone number is (505) 469-4986 and his e-mail address is
[email protected].
4. Lou Helwig is an assistant to Secretary John M. Garcia in
the New Mexico Department of Veteran Affairs. He is very
knowledgeable of Honey Sue's situation and testified in support
of the memorial in the New Mexico state legislature. Mr
Helwig's phone number is (505) 827-6312 and his e-mail is
[email protected].
5. Rick Weidman ([email protected]), Sharon Hodge
([email protected]), and John Rowan ([email protected]) of the
Vietnam Veterans of America were all supportive of the memorial
for Honey Sue they may be reached by phone at (301) 585-4000.
6. Richard Curry is a writer for the ``Veteran'' the magazine
of the Vietnam
Veterans of America. He has contacted our family about doing a
story in
the near future about the many challenges facing Honey Sue as a
Level III
Agent Orange Spina Bifida child. Mr. Currey's e-mail address is
[email protected].
The financial cost of paying the debt to these children would be
very small due to the fact that there are only about 200 of them.
Ironically, we feel the reason that this sad situation is allowed to
persist is exactly because only 200 such Level III children exist.
We ask that Congress create legislation providing full health care
coverage including aid and attendance care for the fewer than 200 Level
III Agent Orange Spina Bifida children currently acknowledged by the
VA. Thank you for your interest.
__________
HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 5
48th legislature--STATE OF NEW MEXICO--first session, 2007
Introduced By
Nathan P. Cote
A Joint Memorial
URGING CONGRESS TO FULLY FUND MEDICAL CARE AND AID AND ATTENDANT CARE
SERVICES FOR HONEY SUE NEWBY AND THE OTHER LEVEL THREE SPINA BIFIDA
CHILDREN OF PARENTS WHO SERVED IN VIETNAM AND WHO ARE TOTALLY DISABLED.
WHEREAS, the Federal department of veterans affairs acknowledges
that one thousand two hundred children of Vietnam war veterans have
some degree of disability resulting from their birth parents' exposure
to agent orange during military service in the Vietnam war; and
WHEREAS, approximately two hundred of these children of war
veterans are designated as level three spina bifida children, who are
considered to be totally disabled; and
WHEREAS, these children, designated as totally disabled as a result
of their birth parents' exposure to agent orange during military
service in Vietnam, are in a situation that is indistinguishable from
that of any one hundred percent service-connected disabled veteran who
is totally disabled as the result of military service; and
WHEREAS, these two hundred level three spina bifida children of
Vietnam war veterans are not treated equally with the disabled military
veterans as regards compensatory medical care and aid and attendant
care; and
WHEREAS, the financial cost for families of these children can be
crippling, and many proud American military veterans and their families
must depend on welfare or charity to provide the vital medical care and
attendant care their children need; and
WHEREAS, at least one of these children, Honey Sue Newby, whose
birth father served three tours as a marine infantryman in Vietnam,
resides in New Mexico; and
WHEREAS, the legislature seeks to honor and encourage fair
treatment of all persons who have made personal sacrifices in the
military defense of our Nation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
NEW MEXICO that it urge the United States Congress to provide full
medical care and attendant care to Honey Sue Newby and the other level
three spina bifida children who are totally disabled as a result of
their birth parents' military service in Vietnam; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the New Mexico congressional delegation
be requested to work vigorously for adequate funding to provide full
medical care and aid and attendant care to all level three spina bifida
children who are totally disabled because of the effects of agent
orange used in Vietnam; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be transmitted
to each member of the congressional delegation, the chief clerks of the
United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate and
the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
Statement of the Honorable Tom Latham, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Iowa
Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn, Members of the Subcommittee,
I am honored and privileged to have the opportunity to testify before
you today and to introduce two of my constituents who will be appearing
shortly.
Many of our Nation's service members are single parents who rely
upon grandparents or other relatives to care for their children while
they are deployed. It has been reported that out of the 3,323 U.S.
service members killed in the War on Terror, more than 143 were single
parents.
Unfortunately, the families of these soldiers have unintentionally
been excluded from important benefits intended to help them. Under
current law, the $100,000 gratuity paid upon a soldier's death must go
to any surviving children if there is no surviving spouse. If the
surviving children are minors, the money is put into a trust account
according to the laws of their state, which they cannot access until
the age of 18. This oversight in the original law excludes grandparents
or other relatives from access to the benefit of this payment to help
raise the service member's children, even if that was the service
member's wish. As we will hear shortly, the Jaenke family from my
district knows first hand the difficulties these restrictions cause.
To address this flaw in the death gratuity benefit I have
introduced H.R. 1115. If enacted, this legislation would allow service
members the option of voluntarily designating a parent, brother or
sister who would have custody of the service member's children, as the
recipient of all or part of the death gratuity.
For deaths occurring before enactment, the bill provides an opening
for courts to redistribute death gratuity funds to caretakers, if a
clear expression of intent regarding the use of the funds was left by
the service member.
While this situation may not affect a large number of our men and
women serving in the armed forces, I believe a change in the law is
needed as a matter of fairness to our service members who put
themselves in harms way and to their families. That is why I encourage
the Subcommittee to give this issue its full consideration. I look
forward to working with each of you in furthering the cause of our
Nation's veterans and their families.
Now I would like to introduce Susan Jaenke from Iowa Falls, Iowa
and her granddaughter Kayla. Her daughter, Naval Petty Officer 2nd
Class Jamie Jaenke, served as a reservist with the Seabees. Tragically,
she was killed last summer while serving freedom's cause by a roadside
bomb in Iraq. Our nation will be forever grateful for Jaime's
dedication and service, and the sacrifice she made for our nation. As
Commander David Marasco said of Jamie during a memorial service for her
last year, Jamie ``willingly accepted risks in order to put herself in
a better position to help others.'' She is the type of dedicated
soldier that we use as an example to our children and grandchildren
when we talk about the definition of a true American Hero. Welcome
Susan and Kayla, and thank you for making the long trip from Iowa to
share your personal story with my colleagues today.
Statement of Susan Jaenke, Iowa Falls, IA (Mother of Deceased Veteran
and Guardian of Grandchild)
In January of 2006, my daughter Jaime was deployed on the first
tour of Iraq. A Navy Corpsman, Jaime was excited to be heading
overseas. Always one for adventure, she knew that she was heading into
harms way, but she was confident that she would make it home. As she
prepared to leave, I whispered to her ``Please don't go where I can't
follow.'' She just laughed at me and reminded me to take care of her
daughter and her horses. That was the last time I saw my daughter. She
was killed by a roadside bomb on June 5th of 2006.
I have tried to keep my promise to her, but the road to where we
are today has come with a price tag that I don't have the finances to
cover.
When Jaime was deployed, she left me money that was to come from
the gratuity that all families that lose a warrior in combat. Unless
you are a family as ours. In a letter that she sent me, she wanted me
to use $75,000 of that $100,000 for the raising of Kayla and $25,000
for a business that we had started together. Thanks to a clause that
was put into that gratuity, we were not able to get it but it was put
into a trust for my granddaughter that cannot be accessed until she is
18. I have 9 years before that happens. Then as it is set up it will be
issued to Kayla.
Without that money I have been faced with bills that far exceed my
income. I have tried to keep up my end of the deal that I made with my
daughter but that has failed. Not by my hand, but by the hand of our
government.
In the days and weeks that followed her death, we had to get
permanent custody of Kayla that took an attorney. We had to file for
Social Security and fill our files of paperwork for the Navy so that we
could get some help in raising Kayla. These papers were filled out by
me and given to our CACO Chief Erdman. These papers took a good part of
an hour. After doing all this, I said it was a relief that we had that
done. He laughed at me and told me that it would not be the only time
that I have to do it. I thought that that statement was a strange thing
to say. He was right, I was wrong. Over the next 6 months, I filled out
the same paperwork over and over again. Sometimes up to 6 times.
Calling Millington became a distasteful thing.
I kept a journal at my phone and got names and extensions just so I
got the same person all of the time or wrote down names of people never
to call again. Two of the most memorable was the lady that had me
apologizing to her for interrupting her day and the gentleman that said
he got the papers, two days later didn't get the papers, faxed me the
papers which I faxed back. Two days later, he called me back to yell at
me because now he had 3 copies (my originals and two more), and he
wanted to know what I was trying to pull. Amazing isn't it?
Or the Commander that is second in charge of the funds that Kayla
gets every month. A retired General that I know from Iowa Falls found
his name and wanted him to explain to me what a parent who was given
the gratuity from her daughter that was killed in action could not get
that money. After receiving his sympathy, he proceeded to tell me that
it was my government's fault that we could not get this money and that
Kayla would have to learn to do without. That she would not be able to
get things that she wants. He also told me that he had a daughter from
a second marriage, and she couldn't have the things that she wanted
because he had to pay child support and spousal support. I thought that
was really strange. After all, his daughter still has parents and
brother and sisters. Kayla has no parents and will never have any
siblings. Some of these things have just amazed me.
In the mean time it took 3 months to get any money and the first
was Social Security. This I had, then didn't have, and had, and didn't
have, because the woman, Thai, was to take care of that made a mistake.
By the time I was 3 months behind on my house payments and the money
that Jaime was sending me to take care of our business was cut off and
her death, so I got behind there and I had a little girl that needed
food and new clothing to get ready for school. You see, I am myself
disabled and cannot work to make money to have ends meet. By the time
we got the Social Security, I was further behind.
It took a month more to get money from DFAC and from the VA. By
December, I had everything that we were to get for help with Kayla, and
at that time, I was so far behind that I didn't even have money for
Christmas. If it weren't for a local VFW, we would not have had a
Christmas. They and Target came up with $1,000. Any money that I got
after that was like sand of a fire. It just smoked.
Then came that day that I got a call from the Washington Post and
Donna St. George. I call her our guardian angel because with a story by
her everything started to change. People got to know of our trouble and
with the help of strangers (not my government), I was able to get my
house payments caught up, our electric bills and heating bills and so
many bills that I couldn't pay since my daughter's death. At that time,
I was 2 weeks away from foreclosure. Now I am caught up. I guess no one
knew that if I lost my house, where would Kayla live? My struggles are
not over yet, I still have a long way to go. Every month I am still
worrying.
I know that the money for the gratuity changed to protect the
children of the warriors that have fallen, but that doesn't always
work. I have heard where it still is going to the wrong people. All it
would take for this to be fixed so that it did work, would be for
counselors to be brought in and lawyers to be brought in when there is
a deployment. For these people who are already on staff to help our
warriors make the right decisions and to fill our wills so that the
people who need to be protected are protected. In my daughter's case, a
little help in that area would have made the difference.
It is obvious that she thought she was doing the right thing. She
wouldn't have written the letter to me telling me what to do with that
$100,000 if she had know that there would be complications. So through
all of this attention that we have gotten, I get emails on a regular
basis that come from our enlisted people saying that they have looked
at their paperwork and found things that are wrong. I have had tearful
conversations that tell of how the wrong person would have gotten their
money in case of their death, most of these coming from single parents.
Most of them not knowing about the clause.
I am grateful for this opportunity to talk to you. I am grateful
that there is someone listening. But it is time to start listening and
time to start hearing and making a difference. Because I have already
lost a daughter. What else do you want me to lose?
Statement of Amy Clark, Bartow, FL (Spouse of Terminally Ill Veteran)
Dear Members of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance &
Memorial Affairs of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I am here
to speak on behalf of all Veterans not just my Husband Russell E. Clark
whom is a Viet-Nam Veteran himself. I, at the time didn't know what
Viet-Nam was, I was just a child so therefore I didn't live Viet-Nam,
but I am living it now every day with my husband Russell. I can't tell
you how much it pains me to see a once vibrant man, now just a skeleton
of what he used to be. Let me share with you why I say I am now living
in Viet-Nam. On January 8th, 2007, Russell was in the hospital and I
went to see him and Russell said, ``There is a card from a doctor he
wants you to call him.'' Which the date I just mentioned is our wedding
anniversary. So I stepped outside to return the call to the doctor. The
doctor said, ``Mrs. Clark I am sorry to inform you that your husband
has Lung Cancer.'' I said ``Well since you have ruined my day, my life
and my anniversary why don't you just tell me how bad the situation
is?'' He declined and said he would come the next day to the hospital
and talk to Mr. Clark and me. Of course I was shattered and didn't tell
my husband.
The problem with the VA is that there is too much red tape when a
situation arises such as this. That is why claims sit on someone's desk
or just get ignored completely until it is too late. There is
bureaucratic doublespeak (taken from the article in the Lakeland Ledger
Dated Sunday April 15th 2007). More truer words couldn't have been
spoken. Yes, the VA offers you a book of benefits that you may be
entitled to. But, try and get them. It is totally ridiculous that there
are so many forms and questions to answer for even the most minimal
benefits. I can tell you that to date I have over 400 pages of
documentation that I have turned into the VA just for Mr. Clark, thus
leading me to the next point that the system must be changed so that
justice can be given to all veterans and their families. I have had to
stop working and quit going to college to stay home and care for my
husband. This system is just so unqualified. People need education on
how to apply for benefits. It is extremely overwhelming to have to wade
through the mountains of paperwork that the VA requires. There is no
communication set up to help civilians understand what needs to be done
and the proper procedures to go through. I was fortunate to find Ernie
Roberts and Donna Adams two very knowledgeable people to help me with
my husband's situation which is still not resolved. Mr. Clark's time is
short and we need to change things now. I can't even speak to the VA
unless they speak to Mr. Clark first due to privacy issues, is what I
am told. Well to be quite frank about the matter, there are days when
Mr. Clark can't speak clearly because of the medication he is on for
his cancer.
1. When a veteran requests a fiduciary it should be granted. No one
should be threatened and told that whatever benefits you are getting
will be stopped while that process is being taken care of--How terrible
to be threatened that way.
2. The older veterans, especially the Viet Nam veterans, who have
been shoved under the carpet for many years and the veterans coming
home now, seem to get their benefits at the drop of a hat.
3. No one should have to produce documentation such as a morning
report which is what I was requested to do. Needless to say, Mr. Clark
happens to have just that in his possession, of which I am sure not
many veterans do.
4. The nonsense about having this medal or that medal is totally
ridiculous, when in fact John Kerry threw his medals over the wall at
the White House some time ago for all the world to see.
5. When a veteran has a DD2-14, that should be sufficient
information to show what time they put in the service and where they
where.
6. Does it matter what their job was? Of course not. They gave so
that we may live in the United States of America the land of the free
and the home of the brave.
7. The Blue Water Act was a good thing, but still there are
veterans that flew B66's and can't get benefits, because they can't
prove they were in Viet Nam.
8. Life insurance policies issued by the Veteran's Life Insurance
Co. must be changed so that they can be assignable to a funeral home.
Most people don't have the money for funeral expenses just sitting in
the bank.
9. Buddy letters shouldn't be requested as too many veterans have
been killed in action or died along the way.
Mr. Clark himself was told we are just going to keep burying the
paper work until all the Viet Nam veterans are dead and then we won't
have to pay off on any claims. This is just stupid; someone's idea of a
bad joke. Mr. Clark has been fighting a separate issue for PTSD for
quite sometime and each time he is denied because they say there isn't
enough information to prove he has PTSD. Yet Mr. Clark has
documentation in his possession from the Veterans Hospital in Tampa
Florida stating his main Diagnosis is PTSD. Imagine that if you will.
One thing stated in that documentation is you don't have all the
symptoms. Well if I am depressed, do I have to have all the symptoms of
depression to be diagnosed with depression?
The issue of stressors that the VA looks for just seems to be more
bureaucratic doublespeak. I was told the stressors could be things like
gunfire, picking up dead bodies, shooting women and children and so
forth. Mr. Clark himself was part of assassinations--If that isn't a
stressor I don't know what is.
Now the new stressors have come out just recently, such as
diabetes, heart disease, and strokes and on and on. So if the
documentation is provided by civilian doctors that should be good
enough. Why torment these veterans any more? Give them what they
deserve.
It is my understanding as well that the VA doesn't like when a
veteran gets a civilian doctor or any civilian information for that
matter. They claim they are too overworked and too underpaid to handle
all of these themselves so why put up a stink when it comes to the
documentation. If the documentation is presented that should be good
enough. I was told I could get a ``rent a doctor'' to sign any
documentation that Mr. Clark might need and it would be accepted. What
is all this craziness? Let's take care of all the veterans but let us
take care of the older veterans first and make the younger ones wait
just like the Viet Nam veteran's have had to wait. This system is just
wrong.
1. When a veteran dies and his/her spouse and children are entitled
to DIC. Let's stop the nonsense and just have a short form for them to
fill out and turn in the necessary documentation and not be told this
will take 6-8 months or longer to complete. It is no wonder the
Department of Veterans Affairs can't get their jobs done. They make it
more difficult on themselves.
2. Each veteran should be given a packet the first time they ever
walk into a VA office with all the forms that they may need all in a
nice little packet since the VA is so big on paperwork.
I had the most awful time getting added to be my husband's
dependent as when we went to the VA in 2004. They filled out a form
making me his dependent, but only in the event that he should die in a
VA facility. The man that did this was Alex Benjamin, whom I understand
is no longer with the VA. He never told us that because Mr. Clark's
first wife was deceased and that because I had been married before,
that we would have to present the former Mrs. Clark's death
certificate, our marriage certificate, as well as my divorce decrees.
How insane is this? Had we been told in 2004, we could have done so
then, and not go crazy now trying to scramble for this information. All
of the information that they requested is of course a matter of public
record, thus they have access to it already. I feel that the only
documentation that should have to be presented in this situation is the
marriage certificate. That is an official document, thus being all that
is needed. What about the young mother that was just recently killed in
action and the grandparents have the child now and can't get benefits
because they don't have proper documentation such as a will? For
heavens sake, this is nuts. The young mother wrote on a paper that her
benefits were to go to her child. What does it take to get someone to
listen? The first and most important step in communication is
listening. Can you tell me is anyone listening?
My sincere thanks, Amy M. Clark.
Statement of Matthew B. Heavrin, Redlands, CA (Father of Deceased
Veteran and Guardian of Grandchild)
My name is Matthew B. Heavrin. My wife's name is Barbara Jean
Heavrin. We live in Redlands, California. We have four children,
Matthew, our oldest is at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD. He will
graduate this May. Our daughter Hannah Leah served in the U.S. Army as
a quartermaster in Iraqi freedom until she was killed September 4,
2006. Our third child Philip, serves in the United States Marine Corp
and is currently based in Camp Pendelton, California. Our fourth child
is Ruth Ann, she will be graduating from Redlands High School this June
and will be attending Cal State San Bernardino this fall. I, myself am
a U.S. Navy veteran. I work as a Power Plant Operator for Los Angeles
County. My wife is a Registered Nurse and is employed by The San
Bernardino County Sheriffs. As you can see, our family has served and
will continue to serve this country and mankind. My wife and I have
instilled in each of our children the importance of love for country
and to make this world a better place through service and responsible
living.
Our daughter Hannah had aspirations to go to college after high
school. We had some money saved up but not nearly enough to afford the
full tuition. Our goal was for Hannah to go out and look for grants,
scholarships and other financial aids that would fill the gap. She came
home one afternoon with an Army recruiter. We listened to him and asked
Hannah if this is what she truly wanted. She said yes and off to the
army she went. After her basic training she went to AIT (individual
training) and met a young man there who was also in the Army. The two
began a relationship and had planned on marriage and Hannah became
pregnant. Their relationship failed and Hannah returned home after
being discharged from the Army. Shortly after giving birth to her son
Todd on November 02, 2004, she returned to the army against our wishes.
I personally got on my knees and pleaded with her not to go back into
the Army. That she would most certainly end up in Iraq. She said that
she was told that the army does not send single mothers on deployment.
She did indeed reenlist and went to another Army specialized school to
become a quartermaster and left Todd in our care. While at
quartermaster school she met Chris McKinney, someone she had gone to
high school with in Redlands. After Hannah was finished with
quartermaster school, she was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington. I
moved all of Hannah and Todd's personal belongings from Redlands to
Fort Lewis in July of 2005, and helped her find a townhome in Tacoma,
Washington and assisted her in securing childcare on the base. A few
weeks later, she told us that she was assigned to the 542nd
Maintenance Co. as a quartermaster. In September I learned that the
542nd would be deployed to Iraq. My heart sank, and I almost
knew her fate right then. I flew up to Tacoma to stay with my grandson
while Hannah went with her unit for maneuver training in Oregon. While
staying in her townhome I couldn't help but notice all of the love
letters that Chris McKinney had written to Hannah. They were pasted on
the wall like wallpaper. Just before the 542nd Maintenance
Co. deployed, Hannah brought Todd and some of his things down to us
along with a power of attorney so that we could make decisions for Todd
on Hannah's behalf. It was then that I learned that Hannah had gotten
married to Chris McKinney. We had not even met Chris at this point and
had only a brief description of him. It was late October 2005 and
Hannah's unit deployed to FOB Taji, Iraq in the middle of November
2005.
While in Iraq, Hannah would phone home and occasionally write. She
would tell us how she was re-assigned from the quartermaster office to
security. She spent nearly all of her time up in a guard tower along a
perimeter road around FOB Taji. She also sent some photographs to show
the desolation where she was posted and the conditions that she served
in. What stood out to me was how lonely she was and how much she wanted
to get home. She missed her son Todd and her new husband Chris. In May
of 2006, she was flown home for 2 weeks R&R. She was so happy to be
home and did not want to go back. Todd recognized her almost
immediately. Chris, Hannah and Todd rented a convertible and had a
wonderful time as the newly formed family spent their time together. We
had talked and even began preliminary plans for Chris and Hannah to
have a church wedding and then Chris would adopt Todd. A few days
before she was to return to Iraq, Hannah's demeanor changed. She was
regretting separating from us and Chris and Todd again. She even asked
me if I would break her arm for her so that she wouldn't have to
return. Of course I did not and Hannah did return to Iraq. Chris
returned to Fort Lewis. Todd stayed with us in Redlands.
On the morning of September 04, 2006, I was at work, when I
received a phone call from Barbie. She explained to me that I needed to
get home right away. There were two army chaplains at our door.
I cannot describe to you the range of emotions that I personally
endured and grieved with Barbie as she went through hers. From the time
of the chaplain visit, to planning the funeral, to sorting out Hannah's
life and that in relation to Todd's. We have shed buckets of tears,
felt guilty, angry inadequate, and generally depressed. Through it all
we have endured through our faith, our friends and each other. We have
been taking care of our grandson since the day he was born. We
videotaped Todd in various stages of his young life so that we could
share the moments with Hannah in Iraq. The video CD's were packaged and
ready to be mailed out and they would have been if Monday weren't a
holiday.
The cause of Hannah's death was under investigation and it was
difficult to determine how or why she died. As the investigation
progressed, we learned that the circumstances revolving around Hannah's
death were criminal in nature. Never before have I felt this way. It is
though we were betrayed by the sense of honor and service we adhered
by. Our daughter died for one man's selfish satisfaction. As an NCO in
the army, he was to be about the business of looking after his
subordinates. He did otherwise. We feel cheated. Todd's mother is gone.
He was cheated. Hannah's siblings have lost a wonderful friend,
confidant, and sister. They were cheated. Chris lost his wife. He was
cheated.
It has come to our attention that each soldier had a $100,000
``death gratuity'' and a group life insurance policy for $400,000. We
were not aware of these policies until of recent. We also learned that
Chris McKinney received both. I do not know if my daughter so
designated Chris or if it was automatically paid out to Chris as the
survivor since he is the husband. We believe that the assumption was
made that Chris is caring for Hannah's son Todd, which he is not. The
burden of raising our grandson has been on us only. We receive support
from no one. Nor has Chris McKinney offered any of his $500,000 to us
or to Todd. We are not in the business to take anything that does not
belong to us, but to have our daughter taken from us in the manner that
she was, and for Todd to grow up without his mother, without her death
benefit, is just plain wrong. We believe this is an anomaly that needs
to be remedied to benefit the surviving sons and daughters of deceased
soldiers, sailors and airmen to assist the grandparents who raise them.
Statement of Kimberly Dawn Hazelgrove, Lorton, VA (Widow), and Member
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
``With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in
the right, as God gives us to see right, let us strive to finish the
work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who has
borne the battle, his widow and his orphan.''
--President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March
4, 1865
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Chairman Hall, Representative Lamborn, and Members of the House
Veterans' Affairs Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today on behalf of all Gold Star Wives regarding the
importance of addressing critical services for America's military
widows and widowers and their children.
My name is Kimberly Hazelgrove. I am the widow of CW2 Brian D
Hazelgrove, a native of Edinburgh, Indiana. My husband entered the US
Army shortly after graduating high school and served over ten years.
Brian was an energetic and charismatic leader. His soldiers and
superiors always had the utmost respect and admiration for his ethics,
compassion and abilities. He was a career soldier full of goals,
ambition, dedication and potential.
Brian was also a husband and father to Taylor, Zachary, Brandon and
Katelyn. He was a gentle and loving father who never failed to prove he
adored his children. At times we both had to endure single parenthood
while the other was deployed and understood the important balance of
family and mission. And Brian was dedicated to both. He faithfully
deployed to Iraq in support of America's mission in November 2003. On
January 23, 2004, Brian was flying a mission in support of ground
troops in Iraq with pilot CW2 Michael Blaise when their helicopter
crashed. Both Brian and Michael were killed. Brian was 29. Our youngest
child was just 7 months old.
I am here before you as a representative of America's military
widows and widowers and as a Member of Gold Star Wives. My hope is that
by the end of my testimony; you will see the need to act immediately to
rectify the unfair and inadequate resources that Gold Star Families
endure after notification of death of their service member.
I was a Sergeant First Class in the U.S. Army stationed at Fort
Drum, the mother of our infant and toddler, step-mother to two children
and the wife of a deployed soldier. Life was difficult, but with the
support of our units and families, I was independently managing the
household and raising our family, always with the hope that Brian was
safe and anticipating his return. Our lives were changed forever when
Brian was killed.
A year passed before I was able to present the Department of the
Army's Casualty Assistance Office feedback on the various aspects of my
case. They responded with appropriate measures to correct discrepancies
and implemented procedures to ensure further training of personnel and
strict adherence of policy within their area of responsibility.
However, much still needs to be done to secure quality of life for all
survivors.
PERSONNEL TRAINING
I feel that adequate training and resources are still lacking for
all personnel who function in the various roles while supporting a
Casualty's family. Across the spectrum of DoD and VA, there is not one
single dedicated office for the Military Survivor. It is left to the
various representatives of these organizations to do their best to
inform, assist and support the family member in their time of need. And
they can only do so much within their subject area of expertise. After
the initial response of support has ended, family members struggle to
research, understand and stay informed of changes to benefit
entitlements and legislative actions.
Notification Officers face the most daunting task of all; informing
the family of their loss. These brave men and women face a number of
scenarios of reactions, ranging from avoidance to violence, and will
likely come face to face with multiple reactions during their time with
the family. Unfortunately for these personnel, notification procedures
across the military are still inconsistent. Unsuspecting Notification
Officers (Primarily a Chaplain and an Assistant) are sent to the wrong
address. In my case, the Notification Officers received the wrong
address from Fort Drum's Casualty Assistance Office and actually had to
call me in the middle of the night before arriving at my house. By the
time they arrived, I knew why they were coming. I was a soldier and had
received training on this scenario. Now, I was the recipient. I know my
husband filled out all of the appropriate paperwork that was required
before his deployment because I was present at the time. In addition,
copies of this paperwork was kept at the unit, sent home with him and
also put into his personnel file. Where was the breakdown in
communication and procedures that provided these soldiers the wrong
address?
Casualty Assistance Officers (CAO) provide initial and essential
support to meet any need within their power of the grieving family
members. My Casualty Assistance Officer (CAO) was an extraordinary
person and I owe most of my recovery from this tragedy to him. I met
CPT Brian Batchelder early the next morning at my home. With very
little training, inadequate resources and at times minimal support from
outside personnel, he loyally devoted himself to meet our needs. He
escorted me throughout the application process to initiate my benefit
entitlements, tracked my sister's safe and prompt arrival back into the
country from her own deployment, helped facilitate funeral
arrangements, assisted in the relocation of my family and provided
unlimited emotional support. Although extremely helpful and intuitive,
CPT Batchelder was not an expert on benefit entitlements or transition
procedures.
As a Casualty Assistance Officer, CPT Batchelder was not provided
the basic resources to perform the essential duties of the task he had.
Adequate workspace with communication equipment was not provided. Many
times he was forced to return to his office within his unit to work on
my case. While there, he was tagged with responsibilities outside of
his Casualty Assistant duties. Left with no options, he worked out of
his home or car to minimize the impact on my family.
CPT Batchelder was assigned to my case for a period of about 6
months and then reassigned for a deployment tasking. A new CAO was
assigned to my case to complete outstanding issues, including the
formal results briefing on my husbands death and lingering benefit
entitlements that had been interrupted. This new CAO, a very young
lieutenant inexperienced with the various military programs and
services, demonstrated a lack of motivation or initiative and lacked
the exposure to the events that had transpired over the previous
months. After a couple meetings with this person and lack of
assistance, I did not pursue further communication.
Like many widows or widowers, I moved away from where I was
stationed with my husband to start a new life. I gave up my Army career
and moved to Lorton, VA in January 2005. At this time, I had not
received Survivors Benefit Plan payments from the Defense Finance and
Accounting System for which I was entitled since May 2004. The payments
had stopped just 3 months after he was killed because of a clerical
issue with my original documentation. Repeated attempts to correct my
Survivors Benefit Plan entitlement through two local Retirement
Services Officers (RSO) also failed. The Retirement Services Officers
that I contacted were unfamiliar with the procedures or policies
affecting these types of benefits and I found myself educating them on
what needed to be done.
I eventually contacted the Department of the Army's Casualty
Assistance Center. I recruited the help of Dan Ruiz and LTC Logan. With
their help, I made contact with the correct office and person within
the Defense Finance and Accounting Office and was able to reactivate my
Survivors Benefit Plan in September 2005, 18 months after I was
entitled to the benefit.
BENEFIT ENTITLEMENTS
Six months is a very short time to require a family that has
experienced a traumatic life altering event, even under the best
circumstances, to be able to navigate the current complexities of the
military survivor system. For the widow or widower of an active duty
service member, like myself, the military expects a transition of
responsibility from the active military component to Veteran's Affairs.
A family previously established in family housing and accustomed to
living on the military base has increased financial burdens to absorb
and a new identity to grasp. The response to family members is critical
within the first year after the loss of their loved one. However, it is
imperative that there be continuity of service and support to the
families of our service members after the initial response has faded
away.
As a widow, I receive monetary supplements because of my husband's
death while serving his country. I applaud your success in increasing
the initial death payments and SGLI payments to families of the
deceased service member. I would like your support in fulfilling the
commitment to fully sustain the benefits of our widows and widowers and
those of our children for the future.
The SBP payment that I worked so hard to receive for almost 2 years
brings a total of $99 a month into my household income. My full
entitlement a month as a surviving spouse is $1166. The dollar for
dollar offset generated by the income I receive from the VA's
Dependency Indemnity Compensation reduces my entitlement by over $1000
a month. Because of my husband's rank and years of service when he
died, I actually receive a little left over money, where most spouses
receive no money at all. This offset does not benefit any military
survivor and especially victimizes those families whose deceased
service members were junior enlisted and/or with less years of service.
Most of these families are young families like mine. My $99 a month
from my Survivors Benefit supplements increased child care, healthcare
and household expenses that I incur as a single working mother and sole
provider for my children. I would like this panel to realize the entire
scope of inequity of this offset. Disabled military retirees, Federal
retired annuitants and their survivors receive their full benefit
without offset of VA benefits. I ask you here today, how is the
military survivor any different?
I have reached the 3 year milestone of widowhood and my dental and
healthcare coverage under TRICARE PRIME have ceased. I am currently
researching my options through my local TRICARE Representative. There
are increased costs associated with continued coverage that did not
exist while I was covered under the Active Duty Tricare Prime program.
CONCLUSION
I ask the panel to understand that many widows and widowers are not
able to make the monetary sacrifice that I have made here today in
order to testify. Fortunately, I am able to be here before you with the
blessing of my company to enlighten you of the burden that my family
has had to endure over the past 3 years and the continued inequity of
entitlements directly related to inconsistent years of service
commitments. I ask you to remember the young widows and widowers at
home caring for their young children who can not be here before you. I
ask you to remember the widows and widowers in other states who can not
afford be here before you. Your decisions make a difference in their
lives.
As my children grow older and our lives change, so do our benefits.
I continually need to seek out subject matter experts within the
benefits arena on my own. Healthcare, Education, Social Security,
Survivors Benefit annuity and Dependents Indemnity Compensation all
have different requirements. Legislative actions on benefits continue
to influence entitlements. Tracking these changes is time consuming and
tedious task as the information and experts are currently
compartmentalized and geographically dispersed. I work a full time job
and raise two small children. This has not left me with much time to
track down the exact person who is going to help me get a specific
benefit.
Gold Star Wives of America has been a source of support and
information beyond anything I have received thus far. The ladies
volunteer their time and efforts into educating me on the process that
forever lies ahead of me as a widow. I firmly stand behind and support
the Gold Star Wives request that Regional Survivors Offices should be
established to meet the needs of military survivors during and after
the Casualty Assistance Officer has finished his duties. This office
would provide oversight to the policy issues of survivors, provide
transitional assistance, legislative feedback and act as the main
coordinator between the Department of Defense and the Department of
Veterans Affairs. This is a key component to ensuring the commitment to
your service members that their families will be taken care of.
As a service member entering military service, no where are you
told that your family will have to fight to receive adequate benefits
upon which they are entitled in the event of your death. Families plan
for financial stability in the event of tragedy based on our promise
that they will be taken care of. And yet I testify before you here
today as an example that this has not happened to the full extent. I
implore our leadership to immediately cease the DIC offset to SBP for
all widows and widowers.
I thank this Subcommittee for using this hearing as one more avenue
of awareness and education and for giving me an opportunity to share my
thoughts and experiences as a Gold Star Wife. I will be happy to work
further with the Subcommittee on any initiatives. Thank you for your
time and consideration.
Statement of Rose Elizabeth Lee, Chair, Government Relations Committee,
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
``With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in
the right, as God gives us to see right, let us strive to finish the
work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who has
borne the battle, his widow and his orphan.''
--President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4,
1865
INTRTODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Chairman Hall, Representative Lamborn, and Members of the House
Veterans' Affairs Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today on behalf of all Gold Star Wives regarding the
importance of addressing critical services for America's military
widows and their children.
My name is Rose Lee. I am a widow and I am here before you as the
Chair of the Gold Star Wives (GSW) Committee on government Relations.
For many years now I have been working to achieve the overall goals of
the Gold Star Wives, in various national and local positions, and more
specifically to assist our young, new widows, one by one, wind their
way through the maze that lies before them with first notification of
the death of their loved one.
The Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. was founded in 1945 and is a
Congressionally chartered service organization comprised of surviving
spouses of military service members who died while on active duty or as
a result of a service-connected disability. We could begin with no
better advocate than Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, newly widowed, who helped
make GSW a truly national organization. Mrs. Roosevelt was an original
signer of our Certificate of Incorporation as a Member of the Board of
Directors. Many of our current membership of over 10,000 are the widows
of service members who were killed in combat during World War II, the
Korean war, the Vietnam War and the more recent wars including the one
we are currently in.
In my testimony, I will respond to your request for our views on
``Helping Those Left Behind: Are We Doing Enough for the Grandparents,
Spouses, and Children of Veterans?'' In doing so, I will present to you
the collective goals of the Gold Star Wives with the hopes that they
will alert you to certain discrepancies and inefficiencies that you may
be able to alleviate in your deliberations this year.
I do want to thank the Members of this Subcommittee and the staff
for your continued support of programs that directly support the well-
being of our service members' widows and their families. It is
imperative that the difficulty of the sacrifice of our husbands' lives
should not be compounded by lack of information, confusing information
and sometimes even erroneous information that prevent our widows from
accessing the assistance she needs to begin the rest of her life
without that core person who had been her most critical support.
THE CHALLENGE
Let me be clear from the start. We are NOT doing enough. We are
unmistakably in a time of war. Warriors are dying and leaving behind
young families. If there is one message I could leave you with today it
is that there is never enough good communication. The Casualty
Assistance Calls Officers (CACOs) have a difficult mission in a
difficult time. They act to assist survivors from the death
notification to assistance with coordinating funeral arrangements to
applying for benefits and entitlements. They do a valiant job but CACOs
are not trained to be the subject matter expert for the benefits and
entitlements managed by the VA or the DoD.
Our widows need our help. We need to identify and reach out to
them. The National President of the Gold Star Wives sends a condolence
letter to new surviving spouses. In addition, we must coordinate with
our counterparts in other agencies to ensure that the message given is
thorough and consistent as they transition to their lives made forever
different by the loss of a loved one.
BRIDGING THE GAPS
Getting the right information to the right people at the right time
is important. Getting the right benefit is important as well. There are
gaps in the benefits for survivors that we have called for corrective
action on over time. If we are serious about addressing the question,
``are we doing enough,'' then it is time to respond to these issues
where we clearly fall short of `enough.'
1. Despite valiant efforts over the past years, the dollar for
dollar offset of Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity payments by
benefits from the VA's Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program
was not eliminated. The SBP was voluntarily purchased by the disabled
retiree and provided by Congress to the servicemember who dies on
active duty in order to assure a continuation of the retired pay for
their survivor. This income is not protected when the DIC benefit
offsets the SBP income to which a survivor is entitled, sometimes
eliminating the entire SBP. We recognize you must act with your
colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services on this issue. We
encourage Congress to provide this real relief for our military
surviving spouses now. All we seek is equity with benefits provided by
Congress to the disabled military retiree and Federal civilian workers.
Disabled military retirees, Federal retired annuitants and their
survivors receive their benefit without offset of VA benefits. The
military survivor benefit should be similar.
2. The law currently allows for surviving spouses who remarry after
age 57 to retain their VA DIC survivor benefit. For those who remarried
before that law was enacted, there was a 1-year period to apply for
reinstatement. Communication in the form of outreach was lacking during
the retroactive period. Therefore, we request two equitable changes to
the law:
a. allow survivors to retain DIC on remarriage at age 55 in
order to bring this benefit in line with rules for SBP and
other Federal survivor programs; and
b. open up the reinstatement period with renewed outreach
efforts to make survivors aware of their eligibility.
3. The additional monthly $250 child DIC payment per family only
applies to survivors of deaths after January 1, 2005. This too should
be linked to October 7, 2001. It makes no sense that the survivors of
those who died `first' should be prohibited from accessing a benefit
given to survivors of those who died later in the same war. This money
was provided to the surviving spouse, and if there is no surviving
parent, the child does not receive this money.
4. There's another grievous oversight concerning the $250 child
DIC. The program evaluation of benefits study recommended that
surviving spouses with dependent children receive the $250 for 5 years
instead of 2 years and that amount should be indexed for inflation, to
avoid a devaluation of the benefit. Unfortunately, those receiving the
$250 child DIC are not receiving it for 5 years and are not receiving
even a small $10 Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).
5. CHAMPVA, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, currently does not carry with it a
dental plan. In order to increase beneficiaries' access to dental care
at a reasonable cost, GSW seeks for widows and all CHAMPVA
beneficiaries the ability to purchase a voluntary dental insurance
plan. We are in agreement that the model of the TRICARE program for
military service retirees for dental care in which the payment of
premiums or services is completely funded by the enrollee is an
acceptable model. Beneficiaries are simply looking for affordable
dental care, which can be accomplished through a group plan. Allowing
for assignment of VA benefits to cover the cost of dental insurance
premiums would be an additional benefit to ease the payment process.
This would require a modification to Title 38, Chapter 53.
6. We would like to begin the process of reviewing how the DIC rate
is established, which is currently a flat rate. The SBP is calculated
at 55 percent of retired pay. We recommend that the DIC be calculated
in a similar manner at 55 percent of the disabled veterans 100 percent
disability compensation amount. We would welcome the opportunity to
work with the Committee in determining how to implement these changes,
which will provide more equitable compensation to our survivors.
7. Importantly, we have long been aware that survivors are forced
into a fragmented approach to determine their benefits and rights. We
need to examine the coordination process between agencies more closely
and work hard to prevent these widows and their children from
encountering gaps in identifying benefits. Further complications arise
in this current conflict because it presents issues that we have not
had to address before in that there are National Guard Members whose
families are not near a military installation and find it difficult to
learn about their benefits, burial information, etc. We firmly believe
that an office should be established that would provide oversight to
the policy issues of survivors, and be a transitional assistance to
survivors and the main coordinator between the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Without such an entity, widows
are left to make their own way through a bureaucratic maze at a time in
their life that could be no worse.
Finally, there are three other issues that we want to bring to your
attention:
1. Widows whose husband died in VA hospitals due to wrongful VA
hospital care receive only DIC without any other VA benefits (Title 38
USC 1151). We urge the Subcommittee to support the measures necessary
to allow these widows to be entitled to the same VA benefits as
provided widows by wrongful deaths by friendly fire.
2. We recommend that the Subcommittee ensure that medical benefits
be provided fairly and equitably to include surviving spouses and
eligible children (i.e., seek legislation to remove part B penalties
and interest for late enrollment and promote a feasibility study to
convert VA facilities to Long Term Care facilities which would welcome
widows/widowers).
3. Education benefits for surviving spouses who are on active duty
should be able to use the education benefit derived from her deceased
husband while still serving on active duty. Currently, the active duty
widow must resign from the military in order to use the derived
educational benefit.
4. There is a small group of widows whose husband died short of
twenty years of military service between 1993 and 2001 without SBP or
rank-based DIC. This small group should be considered for an equity
benefit as support payments.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we do not want our widows to be forgotten whether
they are experiencing their losses currently or whether they are
members of the so-called Greatest Generation and experienced their loss
many years ago during World War II. Whenever the ultimate sacrifice is
given, there is family left behind. In the same way we have asked some
to give their lives, we have also asked some to continue their lives
with a chasm so large it is difficult to transgress. Let us show the
spirit of this nation by not forgetting these widows, whose numbers
grow daily.
I regret if I show some frustration in this next remark. These are
issues we have addressed to the Congress over many years now. We have
faith that when you ask the question, ``Have we done enough?'' that you
will, with determination, try to close the gap to `enough.' It is time
to move forward with these issues.
I thank this Subcommittee for using this hearing as one more avenue
of awareness and education and for giving me an opportunity to share my
thoughts and the goals of the Gold Star Wives. We will be happy to work
with the Subcommittee on any of these initiatives. Thank you.
Statement of Patricia Montes Barron, Deputy Director, Government
Relations, National Military Family Association
Chairman Hall, and Distinguished Members of the Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, the National Military
Family Association (NMFA) would like to thank you for the opportunity
to present testimony today on whether we are indeed doing enough for
the survivors of those who have sacrificed their lives in service to
this Nation.
With the increased number of casualties as a result of Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom over the past several
years, many aspects of the casualty notification process and the
survivor benefits package have been changed and enhanced. Several
Federal agencies have a part in providing benefits to survivors and it
is important to view the benefits as a package, one crafted to help
surviving families cope with the loss of their loved one and transition
into a new phase of their life. They are many-faceted, encompassing not
only financial but housing, educational, medical and counseling
benefits. NMFA has included an appendix that gives an overview of the
benefits at the end of this statement.
Responding to the Needs of Surviving Families
The different agencies, the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA),
the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Social Security Administration
(SSA) have been most responsive in developing ways to smooth the
process and respond to the concerns of the families when they raise
them. Although we realize the focus of this Subcommittee is on the
benefits the VA provides, it is important to see how those benefits and
the improvements the VA has implemented are part of the broader package
of changes being made by all the agencies.
The creation of the dedicated Survivor page on the VA website
(www.va.gov) has been a most welcome resource. Providing a one-stop,
easily accessible site for survivors to learn about education benefits,
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), bereavement and financial
counseling, and support available from other agencies, it simplifies
the information-gathering process. The VA also developed a folder that
describes all VA resources, which is included in the new DoD Casualty
Organizing Notebook, The Days Ahead.
Many of the surviving widows of service members who have died in
OEF and OIF are young and have very young children. It could be
difficult for them to care for those children and take advantage of the
VA education benefit at the same time. NMFA commends the extension of
the eligibility period for accessing those benefits to twenty years for
these widows. It makes good sense.
NMFA appreciates the work being done by DoD and the Services to
provide training to casualty assistance officers and to make sure
survivors are receiving accurate information in a timely manner. The
survivor guide published by DoD and available online, A Survivor's
Guide to Benefits: Taking Care of Our Own, has already been updated
several times as new benefits were implemented or needs for information
identified. The Army set up the Families First Casualty Call Center,
recently renamed Long Term Family Case Management (LTFCM), a one stop
resolution center to assist surviving family members with questions
concerning benefits, outreach, advocacy, and support. This call center
is available for immediate and extended family members. The other
Services have also become more responsive in their outreach to
surviving family members.
The DoD/VA Survivors forum is an example of this outreach. Made up
of staff members from DoD, the VA and the Services and other
stakeholders including the Service Aid Societies, groups like the Gold
Star Wives, TAPS and NMFA, and surviving spouses, it meets three times
a year, reviewing concerns as they arise. At the meeting just this
week, a recent policy change on how the remains of deceased service
members are moved from Dover was discussed. Since January, each
escorted coffin is placed on a military or military contracted plane
and transported to the location of the funeral. This was in reaction to
a perception on the part of some families that the remains of their
loved ones were being handled like cargo on commercial flights and not
being treated with the respect they deserved. An honor guard meets each
plane when it reaches its final destination. Also discussed was the
implementation of a new policy extending the eligibility of the SBP
child-only option to some surviving families who had been inadvertently
left out of the original legislative language. Participants also
learned of proposed DoD changes for FY 09.
NMFA has surfaced concerns from family members who have reached out
to us to the appropriate chains of command within DoD and the VA and to
Congress. We have been pleased at the response of all the specific DoD
and Service casualty assistance offices to these families.
Unfortunately, we still occasionally hear of widows or parents who
still do not know who to call when there is a concern.
The advent of instant communication from the battlefield has made
it more important than ever that the survivors receive the most
complete information from the command in the most compassionate and
efficient way possible. The next of kin should be the first to know of
the casualty. In an effort to help their neighbors through a difficult
time, some Army installations have created Care Teams to assist
families when the unit has a casualty. The concept behind the Care Team
is that rear-detachment commanders and Family Readiness Group leaders
have volunteers ready to provide immediate support as the notification
teams leave, rather than scrambling around. Care Teams--each with two
or three members--train to do everything from looking after children,
to anticipating potential crises, to fending off ``concerned''
neighbors at a vulnerable time. Each Care Team goes through careful
screening and training, then undergoes debriefings after helping
families to make sure they do not suffer themselves from what is always
an emotional test.
NMFA also sees a need for specific training in bereavement and
other counseling for family readiness group leaders, ombudsmen, and key
volunteers. Many widows say they suddenly felt shut out by their old
unit or community after the death of their service member. Often the
perceived rejection is caused by a lack of knowledge on the part of
other families about how to meet the needs of the survivors in their
midst. Because they find contact with survivors difficult, they shy
away from it. In some communities, support groups outside the unit
family support chain have been established to sustain the support of
the surviving families in the days and months after the death of the
service member. As part of the standardization and improvement of the
casualty assistance process, more effort needs to be placed at the
command level on supporting the long-term emotional needs of survivors
and of communities affected by loss. The implementation of the Care
Team process on a broader scale not only supports survivors, but also
those community volunteers who bear the burden of support.
Because the VA has as part of its charge the ``care for the widow
and the orphan,'' NMFA was concerned about recent reports that many VA
Counseling Centers did not have the qualified counseling services they
needed to provide promised counseling to survivors, especially to
children. Families are also concerned about distances from VA
counseling centers. We were heartened to hear at the aforementioned
DoD/VA Survivors Forum that many VA counseling centers are increasing
their efforts to find local resources and provide case management for
families who do not live near a center or when the center itself does
not have counselors that are equipped to counsel children. DoD and the
VA must work together to ensure surviving spouses and their children
can receive the mental health services they need. The VA must also
reach out to parents and siblings of deceased service members, who do
not have access to mental health benefits through TRICARE.
New legislative language governing the TRICARE behavioral health
benefit may also be needed to allow TRICARE coverage of bereavement or
grief counseling. While some widows and surviving children suffer from
depression or some other medical condition for a time after their loss,
many others simply need counseling to help in managing their grief and
helping them to focus on the future. Many have been frustrated when
they have asked their TRICARE contractor or provider for ``grief
counseling'' only to be told TRICARE does not cover ``grief
counseling.'' Available counselors at military hospitals can sometimes
provide this service and certain providers have found a way within the
reimbursement rules to provide needed care, but many families who
cannot access military hospitals are often left without care because
they do not know what to ask for or their provider does not know how to
help them obtain covered services. Targeted grief counseling when the
survivor first identifies the need for help could prevent more serious
issues from developing later.
NMFA applauds the enhancement of medical benefits included in the
FY 2006 NDAA making surviving children eligible for full medical
benefits to age 21 (or 23 if they are enrolled in college) bringing
them in line with the active duty benefit for dependent children. To
complete the benefit package we ask Congress to allow surviving
children to remain in the TRICARE Dental Program until they age out of
TRICARE and, in cases where the surviving family had employer-sponsored
dental insurance, treat them as if they had been enrolled in the
TRICARE Dental Program at the time of the service member's death.
Caring for the Youngest Survivors
Recently, a story in the Washington Post raised concerns about some
of the difficulties families encounter in the awarding of survivor
benefits to the children of single service members. NMFA has always
emphasized that service members and families must understand there is a
package of survivor benefits. The death gratuity was originally
intended to act as a financial bridge, to help with living expenses
until other benefits such as the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
(DIC) payment, the Survivor Benefit annuity, and Social Security
benefits begin to be paid. The Servicemembers Group Life Insurance
(SGLI), is, as its name implies, an insurance plan. The death gratuity
is not an insurance payment, even though its $100,000 amount is bigger
than many civilian life insurance payouts. Service members may thus
regard it as just another insurance plan.
As the law is currently written, the death gratuity must be awarded
to the next of kin. The service member may designate multiple
beneficiaries for the SGLI. If the parent or sibling of a service
member is named as the single beneficiary or one of multiple
beneficiaries, there is no stipulation in the SGLI regarding the use of
that money for any particular purpose. It is of utmost importance, in
light of the increased value of the survivor benefits, that the service
member be informed about the difference between the death gratuity and
the SGLI payment. It is also important that service members and their
families discuss the implications and disposition of these payments,
especially when there is a minor child involved or when there are
children from a prior marriage or relationship to consider. With the
increased amount of survivor benefits, it is incumbent upon single
service members with children or dual service member couples with
children to create not only a family care plan, but an estate plan as
well.
NMFA is concerned that the legal necessities of appointing a
guardian for a minor child upon the death of their single service
member parent may cause a delay in accessing the death gratuity at a
time when the family may need this bridge payment the most. Legislation
to change the way the death gratuity is awarded must meet two goals:
preserving the intent of the death gratuity as a payment to assist with
immediate financial needs following the death of the service member AND
protecting the benefits due the minor child. NMFA would support
legislation to allow the designation of a service member's parent or
sibling as the recipient of a portion of the death gratuity payment if
there is a guarantee the payment would be used as that financial bridge
for the minor child until other benefits are awarded, with the
remainder placed in trust for the child. The protection of the
financial future of the child is paramount. If the service member wants
to provide for other family members, the proper mechanism is to
designate those family members as beneficiaries of all or part of the
SGLI.
The VA provides a monthly transition benefit of $250 for two years
following the death of the service member for surviving spouses with
children. NMFA would support the extension of this benefit to the
guardians who are caring for the minor children of deceased service
members.
The surviving children of single service members who die on active
duty require special protections to ensure the proper financial
disposition of the enhanced survivor benefits. NMFA asks Congress to
provide the proper protections for the child(ren) if allowing a
guardian to receive the death gratuity and to remember the original
intent of the death gratuity payment was to serve as a financial bridge
until the initiation of the payment of the survivors' benefits.
Eliminate the DIC Offset to SBP
NMFA still believes the benefit change that will provide the most
significant long-term advantage to the financial security of all
surviving families would be to end the Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) offset to the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Ending
this offset would correct a longstanding inequity. Each payment serves
a different purpose. The DIC is a special indemnity (compensation or
insurance) payment from the VA to the survivor when the service
member's service causes his or her death. It is a flat rate payment,
currently $1,067 for the surviving spouse and $265 for each surviving
child. The SPB annuity, paid by DoD, reflects the longevity of the
service of the military member. It is ordinarily calculated at 55
percent of retired pay. Military retirees who elect SPB pay a portion
of their retired pay to ensure that their family has a guaranteed
income should the retiree die. If that retiree dies due to a service
connected disability, their survivor becomes eligible for DIC.
If there is no surviving spouse, surviving children of a single
service member, who are in the custody of the former spouse of the
service member or a guardian, are eligible for SBP and DIC payments.
The amount of the SBP annuity is divided among the children who are
recognized as dependents of the service member. As children age out of
eligibility, the portion provided to each of the remaining children
increases. The DIC payment amount for these children is greater than
for children with a surviving parent. The table of payments is found at
www.va.gov. Disabled children receive the SPB and DIC payments for a
lifetime.
Four years ago, survivors of service members killed on active duty
were made eligible to receive SBP. The amount of their annuity payment
is calculated as if the service member was medically retired at 100
percent disability. The equation is the basic pay times 75 percent
times 55 percent. The annuity varies greatly, depending on the
servicemember's longevity of service.
Surviving active duty spouses can make several choices, dependent
upon their circumstances and the ages of their children. Because SPB is
offset by the DIC payment, the spouse may choose to waive this benefit
and select the ``child only'' option. In this scenario, the spouse
would receive the DIC payment and the children would receive the full
SBP amount until each child turns 18 (23 if in college), as well as the
individual child DIC until each child turns 18 (23 if in college). Once
the children have left the house, this choice currently leaves the
spouse with an annual income of $12,804, a significant drop in income
from what the family had been earning while the service member was
alive and on active duty. The percentage of loss is even greater for
survivors whose service members served longer. Those who give their
lives for their country deserve more fair compensation for their
surviving spouses. We urge Congress to intensify efforts to eliminate
this unfair ``widow's tax'' this year.
NMFA believes several other adjustments could be made to the
Survivor Benefit Plan. These include allowing payment of SBP benefits
into a trust fund in cases of disabled children and allowing SBP
eligibility to switch to children if a surviving spouse is convicted of
complicity in the member's death.
NMFA recommends the DIC offset to SPB be eliminated to recognize
the length of commitment and service of the career service member and
spouse and relieve the spouse of making hasty financial decisions at a
time when he or she is emotionally vulnerable.
Preparing for the unthinkable
While survivors can never be fully prepared for the news their
loved one has died in the line of duty, certain preparations can and
should be made to assure casualty assistance is rendered and benefits
are awarded as quickly and as compassionately as possible. Talking
about the ``what if'' is not pleasant, but preparation in this time of
war is necessary. NMFA appreciates the responsiveness of the VA and DoD
to surviving families when needs arise and the continued support these
agencies provide. These families deserve no less for the sacrifice they
have made for our Nation.
Overview of Survivor Benefits April 2007
Benefits paid by the Department of Defense (DoD):
Death gratuity--$100,000 (increased in P.L. 109-163)
This is paid to the designated next of kin and is not taxable.
This is supposed to be paid within 24 hours of notification of
death. The purpose of this payment is to help the survivors in
their readjustment and to aid them in meeting immediate
expenses.
Burial benefits--DoD will process, transport and
inter remains. A casket, vault and headstone are provided or
costs of up to $7,700 may be reimbursed if the family elects to
make private arrangements. Transportation costs for the
immediate family are reimbursed if they must travel for the
funeral (but not for a memorial service).
Military Health and Dental Care Benefits--All
otherwise eligible spouses and children remain eligible for
military health care coverage. For the surviving spouse, for
three years from the date of death, TRICARE benefits, including
co-pays, remain the same as active duty family benefits. After
3 years, the cost of TRICARE and TRICARE co-pays rise to those
of retirees. With the passage of P.L. 109-163, surviving
children remain eligible for active duty family member medical
benefits under TRICARE until they reach age 21 or 23 if
enrolled in college. In most cases, the surviving spouse and
children receive dental insurance premium-free for 3 years,
before becoming eligible for the premium-based Retiree Dental
Program. The spouse loses eligibility for medical and dental
benefits upon remarriage. They may not be reinstated.
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)--Surviving spouses of
service members who die on active duty are entitled to SBP
benefits. SBP payments equal 55% of what the member's retired
pay would have been had the member been retired at 100%
disability, i.e. 75% of the basic pay (Basic pay times 75%
times 55%). SBP is automatically adjusted annually for cost of
living increases. SPB payments are subject to Federal income
taxes. The spouse may decide to waive their payment and have
payment made to children only until the children reach age 18
or 23 if enrolled in school. If the spouse remarries before age
55, SBP payments cease. If the subsequent marriage ends in
death, divorce or annulment, SBP may be reinstated. If the
spouse remarries after age 55, the SBP payments continue.
Spouse SBP payments are offset by Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) payments.
Housing benefit--Surviving families may occupy
government quarters or be paid housing allowances for 1 year
effective with the passage of P.L. 109-163 in 2006. These
allowances vary according to rank and geographic location. In
addition, the family is eligible for one move at the cost of
the government.
Service member's Group Life Insurance (SGLI)--All
service members are automatically enrolled for $400,000 of
coverage unless they explicitly decline the insurance or
purchase lower levels of coverage. SGLI will be paid to the
individual designated on the service member SGLI election and
certificate form. If no beneficiary is elected by the service
member, the proceeds are paid first to the surviving spouse; if
none, the child(ren) (natural, adopted or illegitimate) in
equal shares; if none, to the parents (natural or adopted).
Other DoD benefits--Spouses are eligible for
Commissary, Exchange, and Morale, Welfare and Recreation
activities privileges indefinitely unless they remarry.
Children maintain eligibility until age 18 or 23, if still
enrolled in college.
Benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Transition Assistance--a monthly payment of $250 paid
to surviving spouses with children for two years from the date
of death of the service member to help with transition.
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC)--
Surviving spouses and children (and some dependent parents) are
eligible for DIC. The rate has been adjusted annually for cost
of living increases. The 2007 spouse DIC rate is $1067 monthly.
The DIC payment is non-taxable. Additional amounts, also
adjusted annually, are authorized for a surviving spouse with
minor children. The current monthly benefit for 2007 is $265
for each child. Unmarried children are eligible for the benefit
until they reach the age of 18 (19 if still in secondary
school), between 18 and 23 if they are attending a VA approved
institution of higher learning or for life if they are disabled
while still eligible for the benefit. Children of a deceased
member, who did not have a spouse at the time of death, receive
a different monthly benefit. If the spouse remarries before age
57, payment of the spouse's DIC ends. The children's DIC
payment continues as long as they are eligible. If the
subsequent marriage ends in death, divorce or annulment, DIC
will be reinstated.
Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance
Program--Surviving spouses and children are eligible for up to
45 months of education benefits. Beginning 1 July 2005, the
surviving spouse of a service member killed on active duty has
an extended eligibility for education benefits of up to 20
years after the date of the member's death. Children are
normally eligible to receive the educational benefits between
their 18th and 26th birthdays. The
current monthly benefit is $860 per month and increases every
year.
Home Loan Guarantees--An unremarried surviving spouse
is eligible for GI home loans and retains eligibility if
remarriage occurs after 57th birthday.
Benefits paid by the Social Security Administration:
Social Security monthly benefits--paid to a spouse or
a divorced spouse regardless of age if the children of the
deceased service member are under age 16 or are disabled and
meet Social Security requirements. The amount paid can only be
determined by the Social Security Administration.
Social Security Lump Sum Death Benefit--a payment of
up to $255 is paid to the surviving spouse living with the
member at the time of death or to the oldest surviving child if
there is no spouse.
Some states also pay death benefits or provide other support,
especially to the survivors of National Guard or Reserve Members killed
on active duty. The scope of these benefits and eligibility for them
varies by state.
Statement of Christine Cote, Staff Attorney, National Veterans Legal
Services Program
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you on behalf
of the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP). NVLSP is an
independent, non-profit veteran service organization that has been
assisting veterans and their advocates for 27 years. We publish
numerous advocacy materials, recruit and train volunteer attorneys, and
train service officers from such veterans service organizations as The
American Legion and Military Order of the Purple Heart in veterans
benefits law. NVLSP also represents veterans and their families on
claims for veterans benefits before VA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (CAVC), and other Federal courts.
My testimony today will focus on what happens when an individual,
whose claim for VA benefits is pending, dies before the adjudication
process is complete.
A. The Current Law
If an individual, who has filed a claim for VA benefits, dies while
the claim is pending before a VA regional office, the Board of
Veterans' Appeals, or a reviewing court, the pending claim dies as
well. This is true for claims for disability compensation, pension,
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), and death pension. See
Richard v. West, 161 F.3d 719 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Zevalkink v. Brown, 102
F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42 (1994). A
survivor may not step into the shoes of the deceased claimant to
continue or to appeal the claim--no matter how long the claim has been
pending in the VA claims adjudication process.
B. The Route Surviving Family Members Have to Travel to Obtain Benefits
Based on the Deceased Claimant's Claim
As a logical matter, some benefit claims that do not result in a
final decision because the claimant dies before a final decision could
be issued would result in a grant of benefits if the claimant had
lived. Congress has provided a limited opportunity for certain specific
surviving family members to obtain the benefits the deceased claimant
had been seeking at the time of death. This opportunity for accrued
benefits is quite limited however, as I will describe below.
1. Only Certain Family Members May Apply for Accrued Benefits
In order to obtain the benefits that the deceased claimant was
seeking at the time of death, a brand new claim for benefits, called
accrued benefits, must be filed. See 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5121, 38 C.F.R.
Sec. 3.1000. Only certain surviving family members may pursue a claim
for accrued benefits. An individual satisfying the definition of a
surviving spouse may apply for accrued benefits. If there is no
surviving spouse, a surviving child may qualify as a claimant, but only
if he or she is: (a) unmarried and under the age of 18; or (b) under
the age of 23, unmarried, and enrolled in an institution of higher
education. If there is no surviving spouse or qualifying surviving
child, a surviving parent may apply for accrued benefits but only if he
or she was financially dependent on the claimant at the time of the
claimant's death. No brothers or sisters or other family members may
apply for accrued benefits. See 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 101, 5121; 38
C.F.R. Sec. 3.1000(d).[1]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] There is one narrow exception: Accrued benefits may be paid to
reimburse any individual who bore the expense of the last sickness or
burial--but only to the extent of the actual expenses incurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Time Limits
The application for benefits must be filed within one year of the
date of the claimant's death. VA regulations do allow for extensions of
time to file outside of the 1-year period, but only if the survivor is
able to demonstrate ``good cause''. 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.109(b). Thus, the
VA may allow for an extension of time, but is not required to do so.
3. No New Evidence Can Be Submitted
The survivor also cannot submit new evidence to show that the
deceased claimant is entitled to the benefits sought. Accrued benefits
determinations can only be ``based on evidence in the file at date of
death.'' 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5121 The VA regulations provide that ``evidence
in the file'' means evidence within the VA's constructive possession,
on or before the date of death, but that would only include evidence
like existing service personnel records or existing VA medical records.
See 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1000(a); 67 Fed. Reg. 65,707 (2002). [2]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2] The accrued benefits statute does provide that if a survivor's
application ``is incomplete at the time it is originally submitted, the
Secretary shall notify the claimant of the evidence necessary to
complete the application.'' 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1000(c)(1) However, this
``evidence necessary to complete the application for accrued benefits''
is information necessary to establish that the survivor is within the
category of eligible survivors and circumstances exist that make the
survivor the specific person entitled to the accrued benefits. That is
to say, materials including the death certificate of the deceased
claimant, marriage certificates demonstrating the status of an
individual as a surviving spouse, birth certificates demonstrating the
status of an individual as a child, or documentation of enrollment in
studies at an educational institution are the only types of additional
evidence that may be introduced. 67 Fed. Reg. 65,707 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Limitations on the Types of Benefits that Qualify as Accrued
Benefits
The opportunity for a qualified survivor to receive accrued
benefits under section 5121 is restricted to pending claims of the
deceased for ``periodic monetary benefits.'' To be a claim for
``periodic monetary benefits'', the benefits must be the type that are
``recurring at fixed intervals'', such as disability compensation.
Many claims are for benefits that are not periodic monetary
benefits. For example, in Pappalardo v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 63 (1993),
the Court held that a claim for a one-time payment for specially
adapted housing reimbursement assistance under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 21 did
not qualify as a claim for periodic monetary benefits for purposes of
section 5121. This is so even though the family had already incurred
the expense of remodeling the home in accordance with standards
approved by the Boston VARO to meet the needs of the veteran, who had
lost the use of both lower extremities 20 years earlier due to service-
connected post-encephalitic Parkinson's disease, and who died while the
housing assistance claim was pending. Thus, an accrued benefits claim
may only be granted if the deceased claimant would have been entitled
to a benefit like monthly disability compensation or special monthly
compensation benefits.
5. Limitations on the Amount of Benefits
The amount of accrued benefits available to a survivor may also be
limited. For veterans who died prior to December 16, 2003 (the date of
enactment of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003), family members cannot
receive more than 2 years' worth of accrued benefits, even if, for
example, the survivor is able to prove that the veteran was entitled to
10 years worth of benefits. The enactment of the VBA of 2003 removed
the 2-year cap, but only when the claimant with a pending claim died on
or after December 16, 2003. Pub. L. No. 108-183, Sec. 104, 117 Stat.
2651 (Dec. 16, 2003).[3]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[3] For deaths occurring on or after December 16, 2003, successful
accrued benefits claimants are now entitled to the entire amount of
benefits that would have been paid had death not occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Recent Court Decision Carving Out an Exception to the Harsh
Rules that Currently Exist
Probably the harshest part of the rules that apply when a claimant
with a pending claim dies before a final decision is rendered is that
the survivor must start the claim all over again at a VA regional
office, regardless of how far the pending claim had proceeded in the
adjudication process. Even if the pending claim had made it up the
chain to a reviewing court, which often takes many years, the survivor,
who may be elderly or infirm, must still file a new claim at the VA
regional office level and ``go to the back of the line.'' The inability
of the survivor to substitute and pick up where the claimant left off
can add years to the claims process and add to the burden of the
agency, which must now address an entirely new claim where there had
already been development of another claim raised by the deceased.
Frustrated survivors have long sought to continue to prosecute a
deceased claimant's disability compensation claim at the Court level.
See, e.g., Zevalkink, supra; Landicho, supra at 47. In Padgett v.
Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir. 2007), issued just last month, the
Federal Circuit carved out a very limited exception to the harsh rule
that a claim dies with the claimant.
1. The facts
Mr. Barney Padgett, a World War II combat veteran, was awarded
service connection by the VA for residuals of a left-knee injury in
August 1945. In June 1976, service connection was granted by the VA for
traumatic arthritis of the left knee and for a residual sprain of the
left knee.
In March 1993, Mr. Padgett sought service connection for a right
hip disorder--which he alleged was caused by the service-connected
left-knee disability. The VA regional office denied the claim. On
appeal, the Board, in an April 1997 decision, remanded the claim for
further development, including a hearing. The regional office continued
the denial in an August 1997 rating decision. In August 1999, the Board
forwarded the claim to the VA Medical Center in Columbia, South
Carolina for a medical opinion. The Board continued its denial in a
December 23, 1999 decision.
On appeal to the CAVC, the Court remanded the claim back to the
Board for readjudication on March 26, 2001. The Board issued a new
decision on August 8, 2002, again denying service connection for a
right hip disability.
Mr. Padgett appealed the matter for a second time to the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims. Briefs were filed, and oral argument was
conducted in April, 2004. The parties filed supplemental pleadings and
briefs and the matter was referred to the full Court for disposition in
September, 2004.
On April 19, 2005, more than 12 years after Mr. Padgett initiated
his claim, the Court issued a decision reversing the Board's denial and
ordering the VA to grant the veteran's disability claim for a hip
condition. That same month, however, counsel for the veteran learned
that Mr. Padgett died on November 3, 2004, before the Court's decision.
The Secretary immediately filed a motion to rescind the reversal and
dismiss the appeal. The veteran's surviving spouse, Mrs. Padgett, filed
a motion to be substituted as a party to the appeal. The CAVC granted
the VA's motion to dismiss and denied Mrs. Padgett's motion for
substitution, following the normal rule that the claim died when Mr.
Padgett died.
2. The Federal Circuit's Decision
NVLSP appealed the Veterans Court's decision on Mrs. Padgett's
behalf to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. NVLSP
argued that applying to the Padgetts the normal rule that a claim dies
with the veteran would be exceedingly harsh. Mr. Padgett spent the last
12 years of his life battling the VA for disability benefits for his
hip disability. He finally won that battle in April 2005, when the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Appeals ruled that the Board's denial of
his claim was clearly erroneous.
But merely because Mr. Padgett died a few months prior to the
Veteran's Court decision, the Veterans Court wiped this victory off the
books. For Mrs. Padgett to recover the 12 years of disability benefits
that would have been owed by the VA to her husband if he had lived
longer, the normal rule required her to start the process all over
again by filing a new claim with the VA regional office for accrued
benefits. And to add insult to injury, because the normal rule required
the Veterans Court to wipe its April 2005 decision off the books as if
it had never occurred, the regional office would not be required to
grant Mrs. Padgett's claim for 12 years of accrued benefits. The
regional office would be free to deny Mrs. Padgett's claim for the same
reason that it had denied Mr. Padgett's claim on numerous occasions
over the preceding 12 years.
Recognizing the harshness of the normal rule that a claim dies with
the claimant, the Federal Circuit responded to Mrs. Padgett's appeal by
carving out a very narrow exception. In a case like Mr. Padgett's, in
which: (a) the veteran had appealed his claim all the way to the CAVC;
(b) the CAVC issued its decision before it became aware that the
veteran had died; and (c) the death occurred after all of the legal
briefs had been filed with the CAVC so that there was nothing left to
do but to issue a decision; then (d) the CAVC could keep its decision
on the books by making it effective retroactive to the date of the
veteran's death, and allow the surviving spouse to substitute for the
veteran in the appeal before the CAVC.
As a result of the Federal Circuit's decision, Mrs. Padgett quickly
received over $50,000 in tax-free VA benefits--representing 12 years'
worth of disability benefits for Mr. Padgett's hip disability. Because
of the harsh rule that the claim dies with the claimant, most surviving
family members of a veteran who dies while his claim is pending before
the VA are not this lucky.
A recent VA General Counsel Opinion, VAOPGCPREC 2-2007, held that
the decision in Padgett would have no effect on an appeal pending
before the BVA when a claimant dies. The General Counsel held that 38
C.F.R. Sec. 20.1302 would require the Board to dismiss an appeal
pending before the Board when the claimant dies--and survivors of a
deceased claimant seeking accrued benefits at the Board level will
still have to go to the ``back of the line''.
Thank you for holding such an important hearing and allowing us to
highlight some of the problems faced by survivors when a veteran or
other claimant dies. I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have at this time.
Statement of Jack McCoy, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy
and Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the important issue of survivors'
benefits. Providing benefits for the surviving family members of our
veterans is one of the core responsibilities of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). I am pleased to be accompanied by Mr. Thomas
Lastowka, Director of VA's Philadelphia Regional Office and Insurance
Center.
VA provides a wide range of benefits to the surviving spouses,
dependent children, and dependent parents of deceased servicemembers
and veterans. We have experienced counselors ready to help survivors to
understand the benefits to which they may be entitled and assist them
in filing claims.
Casualty Assistance Program
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) casualty assistance
officers, positioned at each VA regional office, work closely with
military casualty assistance officers. They visit survivors of
servicemembers who die on active duty at a time appropriate for the
family and assist them in applying for benefits. Information is
provided about Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, Insurance
benefits, Dependents' Educational Assistance, home loan guaranty
benefits, and the availability of bereavement, vocational, and
financial counseling services, as well as other benefits available
through the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Social Security
Administration.
To ensure consistent delivery of services, VBA representatives at
both the national and local levels provide training to newly assigned
military casualty assistance officers to ensure accurate information
about VA benefits is provided to survivors. VA, along with
representatives from DoD and the various military service departments,
serves on the Casualty Advisory Board. Through this strong working
relationship, we are able to get information out quickly to all
military casualty assistance officers to advise them of any changes in
VA benefit programs or procedures.
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) is paid to the
surviving spouse, children, and parents of a servicemember who died in
the line of duty in active service or a veteran who died after service
as the result of a service-connected or compensable disability. Under
certain circumstances, DIC is also paid to the surviving spouses and
children of former POWs and other veterans who were totally disabled at
the time of death, regardless of the cause of death, if the death was
not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct. We are
currently paying this benefit to 328,000 survivors.
The DIC application process has been streamlined for in-service
deaths through use of a special worksheet, and claims processing has
been centralized to the VA Regional Office in Philadelphia. The goal is
to process all in-service death claims within 48 hours of receipt of
all required documents. At the time of the initial visit, family
members are in an acute stage of grief and are not always able to
absorb and understand the full range of benefits available to them. To
ensure that surviving spouses and children are aware of all benefits, a
6-month follow-up letter is also sent reminding them of the benefits
and services. A special brochure, VA Pamphlet 21-02-1, Benefits and
Services for Survivors of Servicemembers Who Die on Active Duty, is
given to survivors.
Surviving spouses currently receive $1,067 a month, with additional
amounts payable for children under the age of 18 or if the surviving
spouse is in need of regular aid and attendance. A surviving spouse who
has a child or children under the age of 18 and receives DIC is also
entitled to a transitional benefit of $250 per month. The surviving
spouse receives this additional benefit for 2 years after entitlement
to DIC begins or until all of the surviving spouse's children have
reached 18 years of age, whichever is earlier. Surviving spouses may
continue to receive DIC benefits upon remarriage if the remarriage
takes place after the spouse's 57th birthday.
In partnership with the Department of Defense, VA established the
Survivors' Group Forum to work with agencies and organizations that
work directly with survivors to develop procedures and programs to
improve assistance to this special group of beneficiaries.
Representatives in this forum include Gold Star Wives, military
department Casualty Assistance Program Managers, the National Military
Family Association, military relief societies, the Tragedy Assistance
Program for Survivors, and the Retired Enlisted Association. A special
Survivors Benefits website was activated in 2005 to provide complete
information to survivors and other interested individuals about
benefits and services available to survivors.
Parents' DIC
VA also pays DIC to parents of deceased veterans if the parents'
income is below a certain amount. The maximum rate currently payable to
a sole surviving parent is $524 per month. If a sole surviving parent
is in need of aid and attendance to perform daily activities such as
bathing, dressing, or eating, an additional amount is payable. The
maximum monthly benefit in these cases is $808.
Death Pension
If a veteran's survivors do not qualify for DIC because the veteran
did not die in the line of duty in active service or after service as
the result of a service-connected or compensable disability or was not
totally disabled by a service-connected disability at the time of
death, they may still be entitled to death pension. Eligibility for
pension is based on financial need. The general requirement for this
benefit is that the veteran had to have served at least 90 days in
active service with at least one of those days occurring during a
period of war, or at the time of death was entitled to receive
compensation or retirement pay for a service-connected disability. The
maximum death pension benefit is currently $7,329 per year for a
surviving spouse with no child of the veteran in the spouse's custody,
and $1,866 for a surviving child of a veteran not in the custody of a
surviving spouse. An additional amount is payable if the surviving
spouse who is entitled to pension is in need of aid and attendance.
Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA)
The Dependents' Educational Assistance program provides up to 45
months of educational benefits to surviving spouses and dependent
children of servicemembers who died on active duty; or, of veterans who
died or became permanently and totally disabled as a result of a
service-connected disability. These benefits may be used for degree and
certificate programs, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training.
Remedial, deficiency, and refresher courses may be approved under
certain circumstances.
The DEA program was recently expanded to include the child or
spouse of a servicemember who is hospitalized or receiving outpatient
treatment for a permanent and total disability. This change was
effective December 23, 2006.
In addition to biological children, step-children and adopted
children are also eligible to receive DEA benefits, and a child's
marriage does not affect his or her eligibility. A son or daughter may
generally receive benefits under this program from age 18 to 26.
Individuals receiving DEA benefits may also be eligible to receive
tutorial assistance and work-study benefits from VA. The maximum
monthly benefit for tutorial assistance is $100, and the maximum total
benefit is $1200. Individuals participating in the work-study program
are paid at either the Federal or state minimum wage, whichever is
greater.
Educational and Vocational Counseling
VA provides a wide range of vocational and educational counseling
services to qualified family members. These services are designed to
help an individual choose a vocational direction and determine the
course needed to achieve a chosen goal. Assistance may include interest
and aptitude testing, occupational exploration, and locating
educational or training facilities that might be utilized to achieve an
occupational goal.
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Transfer of Entitlement
Another option for spouses or children of servicemembers wishing to
pursue an educational or vocational program is the MGIB Transfer of
Entitlement Program. The Secretary of each military service has the
sole discretion to determine if that service will offer the
transferability of entitlement option.
Each branch of service may establish its own requirements for
transferring entitlement. A servicemember may transfer a maximum of 18
months of Montgomery GI Bill entitlement to his or her dependents;
however, a servicemember may not transfer more entitlement than he or
she currently has remaining. Requests to transfer entitlement are
handled by the appropriate branch of service, typically at the time of
reenlistment. The death of an individual transferring an entitlement
does not affect the use of the entitlement by his or her dependents.
Home Loan Guaranty
The VA Home Loan Guaranty Program provides veterans the opportunity
to become homeowners and assists them in retaining those homes in times
of financial hardship. Unlike some other VA benefits, a veteran's
family is not granted home loan benefits separate and apart from those
provided to the veteran. However, an unmarried surviving spouse of a
servicemember or veteran whose death was related to military service
may qualify for home loan guaranty benefits in his or her own name.
VA requires a servicemember or veteran obtaining a VA guaranteed
loan to occupy the property as his or her home. However, when he or she
is on active duty and cannot personally occupy the house, VA permits
occupancy by the spouse to satisfy this occupancy requirement. Spouses
receive the same supplemental servicing benefits available to veterans
during times of financial hardship.
Burial Benefits (Headstones, Markers, Presidential Memorial
Certificates)
VA is authorized to pay up to $2,000 to cover burial and funeral
expenses in cases of service-connected deaths. VA also pays a burial
allowance of $300 and a plot and interment allowance of $300 in cases
where the veteran's death was not service-connected and the veteran was
entitled to receive compensation or pension at the time of death, or
died in a VA medical facility.
In addition, VA provides burial in national cemeteries, burial
flags and markers for the graves of deceased veterans, and a
Presidential Memorial Certificate, which honors their memory.
Life Insurance
VA's administered and supervised life insurance programs provide
$1.1 trillion of coverage to nearly 7.3 million veterans,
servicemembers, and their families. These programs, while providing
coverage to servicemembers, veterans and their families, are actually
benefits for survivors. The purpose of life insurance is to provide
financial security for one's dependents--to bridge the gap between the
financial needs of dependents and the amount available to them from
other sources, to ensure that they are not burdened with debt following
the insured's death. In fiscal year 2006, the VA Life Insurance
programs paid $2.3 billion in death benefits to nearly 144,000
beneficiaries.
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
SGLI covers active duty servicemembers and reservists, including
the Coast Guard and uniformed members of the Public Health Service and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The SGLI
participation rate is 98 percent for active duty servicemembers and 92
percent for reservists (reservists called to active duty are included
in the 98 percent active duty participation rate). From October 7, 2001
through April 10, 2007, the SGLI program paid $1 billion to more than
4,700 beneficiaries of servicemembers. An analysis of the beneficiaries
who have received payment under the SGLI program indicates that 42
percent of beneficiaries are parents, 28 percent are spouses, 10
percent are children, and 10 percent are siblings.
Spousal Notification in the SGLI Program
Under Public Law 109-80, effective September 1, 2005, the uniformed
services are required to notify the spouses of servicemembers insured
by SGLI of changes to coverage amount or beneficiary that were elected
by the member in certain specified circumstances. These notifications
inform spouses if the servicemember designated as the SGLI beneficiary
someone other than the member's spouse or the member's children, or if
the member elected less than the maximum available amount of coverage.
Congress enacted this law for the protection of the member's immediate
family.
Family SGLI (FSGLI) Program
FSGLI is a program extended to the spouses and children of
servicemembers insured under the SGLI program. FSGLI automatically
provides up to a maximum of $100,000 of insurance coverage for spouses,
and $10,000 for each child. While the premium rates for spouses are
age-based, child coverage is provided at no cost to the member. Family
SGLI provides $123 billion in coverage to more than one million spouses
and more than two million children. Although Family SGLI expires 120
days after certain life events, such as the servicemember's separation
from service, spouses have the option to convert their coverage to a
commercial policy. Child coverage cannot be converted.
Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
(TSGLI)
While TSGLI is paid directly to the servicemember, its intent was
to provide financial help to families as well. TSGLI was designed to
provide severely injured servicemembers who suffer certain losses as a
direct result of a traumatic injury with monetary assistance to help
the servicemembers and their families through what is often a long and
arduous treatment and rehabilitation period.
Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI)
Upon separation, servicemembers can convert their SGLI coverage to
VGLI, which provides lifetime renewable term coverage without proof of
good health. This program guarantees that separating servicemembers can
continue to provide financial security for their families following
separation, even if they are disabled. Currently, 11% of servicemembers
convert to VGLI.
Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance (S-DVI) and Veterans' Mortgage
Life Insurance (VMLI)
Two of our programs were designed specifically to provide life
insurance coverage to service-disabled veterans, to ensure they can
provide financial security for their families. The S-DVI program
provides $10,000 in life insurance coverage to veterans with service-
connected disabilities, and an opportunity for the most severely
disabled veterans to apply for an additional $20,000 in coverage. The
VMLI program provides up to $90,000 in mortgage life insurance to
recipients of VA's Specially Adapted Housing grant to lessen the
financial burden of surviving family members.
Insurance Outreach
Following separation from service, the Office of Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance (OSGLI) sends a series of three mailings to inform
servicemembers about their opportunity to apply for VGLI. In addition
to these mailings, since 2001 the VA Insurance staff has been
conducting a special outreach effort to servicemembers who separate
from service with a military disability rating of 50 percent or more.
Staff members personally contact these veterans by phone or letter to
ensure that they are fully informed about their post-separation life
insurance benefits. As a result of our efforts, we have provided $333
million in life insurance coverage and death benefits that otherwise
may not have been provided.
Beneficiary Financial Counseling Service (BFCS)
VA instituted BFCS in October 1999 to provide comprehensive
personal counseling to SGLI, VGLI, and TSGLI beneficiaries on managing
their finances to meet future needs, such as mortgage obligations,
retirement savings, and college costs. Beneficiaries receive several
notifications about the availability of this benefit following payment
of the insurance claim.
Assistance in Filing Insurance Claims
In the SGLI and Family SGLI programs, when a servicemember, spouse
or child of a servicemember dies, the branch of service Casualty
Assistance Office assists the beneficiary with filing a claim. It
provides the beneficiary with the claim form, and certifies to OSGLI
the amount of SGLI or Family SGLI coverage payable and, for SGLI, the
designated beneficiary. In the TSGLI program, VA and military
representatives assist wounded servicemembers who are hospitalized at
major military medical facilities with their claims.
The VA Insurance website (www.insurance.va.gov) has been available
since mid-1999 and provides information on all VA Insurance programs
including eligibility, how to file a claim, frequently asked questions,
and forms.
VA strives to get needed benefits as quickly as possible to the
family members of deceased servicemembers or, in the case of TSGLI, to
the servicemembers themselves, to help support them and their families.
Data from this fiscal year indicate that SGLI and VGLI death claims are
paid, on average, within four workdays of receipt of the required
documentation. Claims on servicemembers who were killed in Operations
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom are expedited and paid within 2
workdays. TSGLI payments are paid within 4 days of OSGLI's receipt of
the necessary documentation from the military branches of service.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
Statement of Peter S. Gaytan, Director, Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Commission, American Legion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for giving The American Legion the opportunity to submit
its views on the topic of ``Helping Those Left Behind: Are We Doing
Enough for the Parents, Spouses and Children of Veterans?''
It should first be mentioned that there is nothing the nation can
do to replace the lives of our heroes who fall as a result of their
service to our country. Acknowledging this at the outset should set the
tone of the discussion, that tone being one of profound gratitude,
sorrow and respect for the servicemember and those they leave behind.
Many words to that effect have been spoken in the past, the most well
known probably being those words from President Lincoln's Second
Inaugural Address which culminate in the words that have rightfully
become the mission statement of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his
widow. and his orphan . . .'' The former, and less quoted section of
that address is fulfilled by this Subcommittee's hearing today, ``With
malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as
God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we
are in . . .''
Whether a veteran dies as a result of war, or non-combat injuries
incurred in service, America should remain steadfast in its goal to
properly provide for and honor those who served by caring for those
left behind. Caring for the parents, spouses and children of veterans
is part of the continuing costs of war and the continual defense of
freedom.
The American Legion applauds the many VA programs currently in
place for survivors including Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
(DIC), Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA), Death
Pension, Work-Study Employment, Home Loan Guaranty, Burial Benefits
(Headstones, Markers, Presidential Memorial Certificates), Vet Center
Bereavement Counseling, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
Services, and Education Program Refunds.
Improve the Disability and Death Pension Program
After careful study, The American Legion has concluded that certain
inequities exist in the pension program for survivors. Under the
current Death Pension program, the annual benefit rate for a surviving
spouse with no income and no dependents is $7,329 or about only two-
thirds of the amount received by a veteran with no income and no
dependents. In addition, current regulations provide that surviving
spouses are not entitled to pension benefits for the month in which the
veteran dies, if they are found eligible for death pension. The
American Legion recommends that pension rates of surviving spouses be
established at 90 percent of the rate for a veteran without dependents
and that spouses become immediately eligible to receive benefits the
same month a veteran dies.
Under the current Death Pension program, the annual benefit rate
for a surviving child with no income where there is no surviving spouse
is $1,866 or 17 percent of the amount received by a veteran with no
income or dependents. This limited amount may impose a severe financial
hardship on the surviving child or children. Under title 38, United
States Code, section 1543 where the surviving child is residing with a
person who is legally responsible for such child's support, the income
and corpus of estate of that person is countable for the purposes of
determining entitlement or continued entitlement to pension benefits.
The American Legion recommends establishing the pension rate for a
surviving child, where there is no surviving spouse, entitled at 90
percent of the rate of a veteran without dependents and to delete the
requirement that the income and corpus of estate of a person legally
responsible for the support of a surviving child be counted in the
determination of annual income of such child.
Currently, when two veterans are married to one another where both
meet the disability, service and income requirements, basic pension
benefits are payable only at the rate of a ``veteran with one
dependent,'' which is currently $14,313 annually. The American Legion
believes that since each veteran in their own right meets the
eligibility criteria for pension with the exception of being married to
another veteran, this discriminatory provision of the law should be
eliminated and each veteran should be paid at the basic pension rate of
a single veteran without dependents which is $10,929, reduced by the
amount of countable family income.
In the determination of annual income, payments under all
Government Life Insurance programs are countable, but proceeds from
fire and casualty insurance policies may be excluded. Previous pension
programs have excluded the proceeds of Government Life Insurance
Policies in the determination of annual income. The American Legion
recommends determination of annual income payments exclude all proceeds
from Government Life Insurance policies.
Finally, the effective date of reduction or discontinuance of
pension based on a change of income is the last day of the month in
which the change occurred. The American Legion believes it would lessen
the financial hardship of such adjustments to pension if any such
change would be made as of the last day of the calendar year in which
the change occurred.
Restore and Increase Burial and Plot Allowance
The National Cemeteries Act (Public Law 95-73) enacted in 1973
established a burial allowance of $250 for eligible wartime veterans,
and a $1,500 burial allowance for veterans who died of a service-
connected condition. The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 limited the
payment of the burial plot allowance of $150, which was previously paid
to all honorably discharged wartime veterans, to only those veterans
who are indigent or who are in receipt of VA disability compensation or
pension. Although there have been subsequent increases in the
allowances, the infrequent incremental increases have meant that the
current $300 burial plot allowance and respective $300 and $2,000
burial allowances have not kept pace with inflation and increases in
the cost of living throughout the years. Today in the United States,
the average cost of a burial plot is more than $4,000, and with
additional expenses, such as embalming and a casket, the total cost for
a funeral and an in-ground burial, according to a survey of burial
costs conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP),
can easily reach $10,000.
The American Legion urges Congress to make the following changes:
1. Return the burial allowances and burial plot allowance to
all veterans who served during a time of war or conflict.
2. Increase, from $300 to $1,135, the burial allowance for
veterans now eligible under 38 United States Code (USC)
Sec. Sec. 2302 and 2303.
3. Increase, from $2,000 to $3,712, the burial allowance for
veterans who died as a result of a service-connected condition
as set forth in 38 USC Sec. 2307.
4. Increase the burial plot allowance from $300 to $670.
5. Require VA to annually adjust burial allowances and burial
plot allowance for inflation by tying the increased allowances
to the Consumer Price Index.
Reduce the Number of Years of 100 Percent Service Connection Required
for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Purposes
Title 38, United States Code, section 1318 provides that DIC shall
be payable as if the veteran's death were service-connected, if at the
time of death, the veteran has been rated continuously as totally
disabled for a period of 10 years or more.
The 10-year rule, although a longstanding policy, is an arbitrary
length of time. It is intended to recognize the fact that the veteran's
severe level of service-connected disability over a period of years has
significant impact on the economic welfare and well-being of the
veteran and his or her family. If this situation persists for 10 years
or more and the veteran dies of any cause, the family will continue to
receive VA financial assistance through the DIC program. However, many
veterans in this disability category, because of age and general ill
health, die of causes not directly attributable to their service-
connected condition before their total rating has been in effect for 10
years. This can leave the family in dire economic circumstances.
The American Legion seeks to protect the families of these severely
service-disabled veterans by having the time limit for DIC entitlement
reduced from 10 years to 5 years. Such a change would be consistent
with the DIC policy currently in place for those continuously rated
totally disabled from the date of military discharge for at least 5
years immediately preceding death.
Eliminate the bar to DIC benefits of surviving spouses who remarry
after age 55.
Public Law 108-83 provided that DIC benefits would not be
terminated if the surviving spouse remarried at age 57. Congress used
age 57 as a ``budget savings'' tool rather than opting for age 55. The
American Legion and VA have supported legislation to remove the
remarriage penalty for those surviving spouses aged 55 or older who
would otherwise have been entitled to DIC. This would better align DIC
benefits with benefits provided to surviving spouses of military
retirees under the Department of Defense's Survivor Benefit Plan, which
uses age 55, and to surviving spouses under Social Security, which uses
age 60.
The American Legion urges Congress to examine removing the bar on
the payment of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation benefits to
surviving spouses who remarry after age 55.
Eliminating the SBP/DIC Offset
Survivors of a military retiree are sometimes entitled to both the
DoD's Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and VA Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC). SBP is similar to a life insurance program that is
paid whether or not the death is service related. DIC is a flat rate
monthly payment available only to the survivors of veterans whose death
is service related. When survivors are eligible for both SBP and DIC,
one dollar of SBP benefit is offset by every dollar of DIC benefit.
There is a clear difference in structure and intent between the two
programs, thereby making it unfair to offset the two programs.
The American Legion urges this Subcommittee to work with the Armed
Services Committee in eliminating the SBP/DIC offset.
In conclusion, The American Legion believes that we, as Americans,
need to continually update and improve on the way we ``[to] care for
him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan
. . .'' Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present The American Legion's view on this issue. This
concludes my testimony.
Statement of the Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Last week, I introduced legislation (HR 1927) that provides relief
for widows of U.S. service members in fixing a longstanding problem in
our military survivors benefit system, by allowing widows to receive
all the benefits to which they are entitled, without one benefit
offsetting another. This affects 59,000 widows and is companion
legislation to S. 935, introduced by Senator Bill Nelson (FL).
Like most matters that involve Federal payments, this is a complex
yet pivotal matter of importance to the widows and dependents of our
service members. Essentially, if service members purchase a benefit
plan, the surviving spouse or dependents receive up to 55% of the
service member's retired pay. The VA also offers payments to survivors
of service members who die from a service-connected cause. Currently
the law subtracts the VA payment from the survivor benefits payment,
and that's the amount the widow or dependent will get. That's just
wrong.
For too long, the painful offset between two programs has done
precisely the opposite of what its purchasers intended it to do--
protect the surviving loved one. Where else is a personally purchased
annuity program able to refuse to pay benefits based on the ground of
another benefit being received? Nowhere. In fact, our Federal civil
servants receive both their personally purchased income protection
annuity and any disability compensation for which they may be entitled,
without an offset.
Why are the spouses and children of those who have made the
ultimate sacrifice for their country forced to have their benefits
reduced, solely based on a decision by their husband, wife, father or
mother to purchase future security for their loved ones? Retirees'
widows are being penalized for their husbands' efforts to care for them
after they die. My legislation corrects this reduction of benefits by
eliminating the offset. The survivors of those killed defending our
country deserve our very best support.
I urge this Subcommittee to support my legislation and work to
correct these injustices to our military spouses and children this
year. We owe it to them for the incredible sacrifices they have
endured; it is our obligation to correct this wrong, and it is
profoundly the honorable thing to do.
Statement of Priscilla Piestewa, Flagstaff, AZ (Mother of Deceased
Veteran and Guardian of Grandchildren)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am very honored and humbled to be able to have input into this
topic. I'm sorry we won't be able to attend in person.
In 1964 I met my husband. In 1965, he was drafted and served in
Viet Nam. He came home in March 1967, and we married in November 1968.
In December 1968, our oldest daughter was born. In March 1971, our son
was born. In October 1978, our second son was born. In December 1979,
our second daughter was born.
As God blessed us with our children we made investments in them.
They each made us proud in their own ways, and thus thanked us for the
investment we made in them.
Our youngest daughter joined the military and gave her life for us
and our country. However, she left behind 2 children. We received her
insurance money, and because we wanted to make life better for her
children, we invested the money for them in their names.
I'm not complaining because our grandchildren are very precious to
us. However, my concern is that the children have to file and pay taxes
on the money they receive, and on the interest they make on their
investments. They are only 7 and 8 years old. Was the death of their
mother not payment enough?
A monthly check for the children is issued to us in the amount of
$649.00, which we invest in the children's activities:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tae Kwon Do $200.00 (monthly)
Piano Lessons $130.00 (monthly)
Gymnastics $79.00 (monthly)
Wrestling $69.00 (seasonal)
Softball $95.00 (seasonal)
Baseball $95.00 (seasonal)
Schooling $6,000.00 (yearly)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are retired and live on our retirement pensions, and as my
husband would say, like so many others we live pay day to pay day.
Their mother gave her life, and we are grateful for the support we
do get, but why do the children have to pay taxes.
My husband and I are fortunate we can invest in and support our
grandchildren, but I know that there are others who find it hard to
make ends meet.
Thank you in advance for any other assistance you can give. It will
be greatly appreciated.
__________
The Forgotten Families: Grandparents Raising Slain Soldiers' Children
Are Denied A Government Benefit Intended to Sustain the Bereaved
By Donna St. George
Washington Post Staff Writer
February 16, 2007, A01
Her daughter was killed by a bomb in Iraq. Eight months later,
Susan Jaenke is both grief-stricken and strapped--behind on her
mortgage, backed up on her bills and shut out of the $100,000
government death benefit that her daughter thought she had left her.
The problem is that Jaenke is not a wife, not a husband, but
instead grandmother to the 9-year-old her daughter left behind.
``Grandparents,'' she said, ``are forgotten in this.''
For the Jaenkes and others like them, the toll of war can be
especially complex: They face not only the anguish of losing a son or
daughter but also the emotional, legal and financial difficulties of
putting the pieces back together for a grandchild.
They confront this without the $100,000 ``death gratuity'' that
military spouses ordinarily get--a payment intended to ease the
financial strain as families await government survivors' benefits.
``It really does get complicated for them,'' said Joyce Raezer of
the National Military Family Association. The load of responsibilities
placed on that generation--both during deployment and if a service
member is injured or killed--``is a huge issue.''
The case of Petty Officer 2d Class Jaime S. Jaenke, a Navy
construction-battalion medic killed last June in Anbar province, is
particularly striking because she was a single parent who clearly meant
to assign her mother the benefit. Jaenke, 29, filled in her mother's
name on a form and carefully spelled out her wishes in a letter.
But by law, the $100,000 benefit goes first to a spouse or a child.
So 9-year-old Kayla Jaenke collects the $100,000--plus $400,000 in life
insurance--after she turns 18, leaving Susan Jaenke to ask, ``What
about the next nine years?``
In some other families, the $100,000 death benefit has gone to
neither the children nor the grandparents who are raising them.
In California, Barbie and Matt Heavrin are caring for a 2-year-old
grandson without the death gratuity or life insurance. Their daughter,
Pfc. Hannah McKinney, assigned her $400,000 in life insurance to the
man she wed just before deployment, her father said; by law, her
husband also received the gratuity.
The Heavrins are happy to raise the boy--from an earlier
relationship their daughter had--but wonder why he would get nothing.
Five months after their daughter died last September, their only
assistance is monthly benefits they expect will total about $800, most
of which goes to day care.
In Missouri, grandmother Gail Kriete is raising 9-year-old Taylor
Purdy, the child of Lance Cpl. Erik R. Heldt, a Marine killed in Iraq
in June 2005. His wife collected the full $500,000. Kriete said none
went to his daughter, from a previous relationship.
``It just needs to be thought out a little more carefully,'' Kriete
said. ``There are so many blended families that the suffering is very
spread out.''
The death gratuity, more than many other benefits, adheres to a
strict next-of-kin rule, which Pentagon officials say makes it possible
to pay out the $100,000 within a few days. They say that, in the ``vast
majority of cases,'' spouses are most in need when paychecks stop.
But there have been thousands of single parents deployed into
combat zones since 2001. How many have died at war is unclear, but the
Jaenke case shows that, in those cases, the benefit may be at odds with
its original intent: to help the grieving family stay afloat when a
service member's income suddenly stops.
Susan Jaenke said her family fell behind shortly after Jaime died--
and has never caught up.
Larry Jaenke is a truckdriver, and Susan worked as a letter carrier
for 23 years until an accident left her disabled. Their daughter Jaime
and granddaughter Kayla lived with them. Susan provided child care when
Jaime worked, and Jaime contributed to the family income.
Jaime's passion for horses led the Jaenkes to start a business with
her on their 10-acre Iowa property. When Susan Jaenke got an insurance
settlement from her accident, she put much of it toward building a
horse stable on the property, which was Jaime's dream. Jaime--energetic
and skilled with power tools--did the drywall and flooring.
Not long afterward, Jaime--a reservist who was an emergency medical
technician in her civilian life--went to war.
Unable to Make Ends Meet
It was a June afternoon last year, and the Jaenkes were returning
from Kayla's softball game. She had made her team's only hit--and her
first hit ever. In a celebratory mood, they stopped to buy ice cream.
When they pulled into their driveway, the scene was one that no
parent of a deployed soldier wants to see: two uniformed Navy men,
waiting.
They soon learned that a roadside bomb had exploded near Jaime's
Humvee, killing her and a fellow Seabee.
At the funeral, Kayla stood solemn next to her mother's flag-draped
casket, the folded flag laid into her small arms.
Then came the dawning of the family's new reality--the emotional,
the practical, the financial.
There was a lawyer to hire to get legal guardianship. There were
survivors' benefits to apply for. There was a trust to set up. There
was health insurance to obtain for Kayla. Inexplicably, there was no
official will left behind.
For the Jaenkes, the trouble was not that raising Kayla is so
expensive but that their entire financial picture shifted with Jaime's
death. Jaime's checks immediately stopped. Larry Jaenke was out of work
for a time. The family paid $2,800 for a handsome headstone. The stable
was still losing money.
Last fall, Susan Jaenke watched as Jaime's pickup truck, and then
her car, were repossessed.
The family scraped by, thanks to acts of kindness, Susan Jaenke
said. When the Jaenkes' dryer broke, nearby Seabee units stepped up to
replace it. The Seabees have come three times to do finishing work on
the stable, which Susan Jaenke says she will not give up. Kayla is
there all the time, she said, and giving it up would be like losing
what is left of Jaime.
The local Veterans of Foreign Wars gave the family a $1,000 Target
gift card, which she said made the family's Christmas.
Since October, the Jaenke family has been collecting monthly
government benefits for Kayla's care--$1,700 in all--but not enough to
replace Jaime's contributions. From Iraq, she had been sending home
$3,200 a month, her mother said. The child's father, long estranged,
does not pay child support, Susan Jaenke said.
The Jaenkes can request money from Kayla's trust for certain
expenses related to the girl's ``health, education, maintenance and
welfare,'' but the process involves lawyers and court appearances. The
court recently agreed to a $200 monthly stipend for the family.
``The court is just very conservative here in Iowa,'' said Mona
Bowden, an attorney for the Jaenkes.
Clear Wishes, Clear Rules
Every now and then, Susan Jaenke rereads the letter that Jaime left
behind for her:
``I have got all my paperwork done and here is what I did. My big
policy [$400,000] goes to Kayla. That has to be put away for when she
gets 18. You will know what to do and how to handle it. There is a
smaller policy that goes to you. That is for 100,000. That is for you
to raise Kayla with and 25,000 goes to the barn. . . . I can't wait to
get home to my girl and my horses, so you had better take care of them
all.''
Patrick J. Palmersheim, executive director of the Iowa Department
of Veterans Affairs, explained that the problem came down to the fine
print on death gratuities. Jaime had written in her mother's name as
beneficiary, but in the same blank the form said ``No spouse or child
surviving.''
Susan Jaenke could be awarded the benefit only if there were no
spouse or child to receive it.
The tight regulations are meant to guard against fraud and abuse,
said Chief Petty Officer Randy Erdman, the Navy casualty assistance
officer who has worked closely with the Jaenke family. ``I see the need
for the money going to the right spot and being protected,'' he said,
``but at the same time I see what the family needs.''
In Washington, Lt. Tommy Crosby, a Navy spokesman, said the Navy
``recognizes the significant loss the family has suffered'' and has
done all it can, within the law, to help.
The death gratuity, created in 1908, originally was equal to 6
months' pay and was intended to ease financial burdens after a military
death.
During the war in Iraq, the gratuity was increased markedly; it had
been at $6,000, then grew to $12,000 and finally $100,000. Lawmakers
had said the original award seemed offensively low, especially in
contrast to the large settlements awarded to families of those killed
in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Still, there was little rethinking about beneficiaries for the
$100,000 gratuity, several experts said. To troops, the large lump sum
came to resemble life insurance, said Raezer, chief operating officer
of the National Military Family Association.
Jaime's handwritten letter and possibly her form suggest she did
not realize the gratuity could not go to her mother.
Whether that is because she misunderstood what was said during a
benefits briefing or was not advised well is unclear. ``They don't
always get that kind of counseling that they need,'' Raezer said.
The problem could have been avoided altogether if Jaime had
directed part of her life insurance money, rather than the death
gratuity, to her parents.
Steve Strobridge, government relations director of the Military
Officers Association of America, said Jaenke's case suggests that the
regulations should be reexamined.
``We certainly need to look at whether there needs to be some
additional flexibility in who the member can assign the death gratuity
to and whether we need to adjust the counseling requirements to help
protect people from unintended consequences,'' he said.
In her three-bedroom house in Iowa, Susan Jaenke said she has been
reduced to worrying about grocery money and dreading calls from
creditors. ``It just hurts bad in so many different directions,'' she
said. ``My girl was supposed to come back.''
Some days, the whole episode overwhelms her. Three of her four
children have served in the Navy, and she said she considers herself
``a flag waver.'' But she gets angry that her daughter's wishes are not
being honored and that the family now struggles.
``It's not bad enough that I lost my daughter,'' she said. ``What
else do they want me to lose?``
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Kayla Jaenke's mother, Jaime, was killed in Iraq last June. The Navy
medic wanted a death benefit to go to her parents, but it cannot. (By
Linda Davidson--The Washington Post)
----------
Help Needed: Grandparents Raising the Children of Fallen Soldiers, By
Carole Fleck, AARP Bulletin, April 2007
By Carole Fleck
AARP Bulletin
April 2007
Army Pfc. Hannah McKinney's young son, Todd, and new husband were
waiting for her to come home from Iraq last September. But just weeks
before they were to be reunited, McKinney, 20, was killed in action.
Now her parents, Barbie and Matt Heavrin of Redlands, Calif., are
raising 2-year-old Todd, McKinney's child from a previous relationship.
``Some days I'm overwhelmed with sadness thinking about Hannah,'' says
Barbie Heavrin. Despite the emotional devastation, grandparents and
other relatives who are left to raise a loved one's child don't get the
financial support from the government that a surviving parent would.
The Heavrins are rearing their grandson without the benefit of the
$100,000 ``death gratuity'' the government gives to next-of-kin--
defined as spouse or child--to offset the financial burden when a
service member is killed. Nor did the Heavrins, who have been rearing
Todd since their daughter's deployment to Iraq, receive the $400,000
from group life insurance in which soldiers are automatically enrolled.
McKinney had chosen her husband of less than a year as the beneficiary
of both, despite the fact that he was not living with or caring for the
toddler.
``You have an awful lot of grandparents who are care givers while
their children are deployed,'' says Kathleen Moakler of the National
Military Family Association in Alexandria, Va. Of the 3,131 soldiers
killed in Iraq as of Feb. 3, a total of 143 were single parents,
according to the U.S. Defense Department.
To assist caregivers in these situations, Congress is considering
legislation that would allow some or all of a soldier's death gratuity
to go to the children's grandparents or other guardians.
``The death benefit system overlooks that people other than spouses
would take care of a minor should the unthinkable happen,'' says James
Carstensen, spokesman for Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, who introduced the
legislation along with Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
``We need this legislation passed,'' says Susan Jaenke of Iowa
Falls, Iowa, who cares for her granddaughter, Kayla, 9. Jaenke's
daughter, who was a single parent, died in Iraq, and Jaenke didn't
receive the death benefits--they're set aside for Kayla to collect when
she's 18.
``I'm having trouble making ends meet,'' Jaenke says. ``It's pretty
scary.''