[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


               PROTECTING BENEFITS FOR ALL SERVICEMEMBERS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2019
                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-40
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
       
       
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
       


                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
                    
                              ___________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
41-245                     WASHINGTON : 2022                       
                    
                    

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                   MARK TAKANO, California, Chairman

JULIA BROWNLEY, California           DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee, Ranking 
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York               Member
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Vice-      GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
    Chairman                         AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 
MIKE LEVIN, California                   American Samoa
MAX ROSE, New York                   MIKE BOST, Illinois
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia            JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
SUSIE LEE, Nevada                    JIM BANKS, Indiana
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina       ANDY BARR, Kentucky
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, JR.,           DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
    California                       STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota        CHIP ROY, Texas
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
    Northern Mariana Islands
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York

                 Ray Kelley, Democratic Staff Director
                 Jon Towers, Republican Staff Director

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                    MIKE LEVIN, California, Chairman

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York           GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Ranking 
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York               Member
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia            JIM BANKS, Indiana
SUSIE LEE, Nevada                    ANDY BARR, Kentucky
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina       DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania

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

                              ----------                              

                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2019

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Honorable Mike Levin, Chairman...................................     1
Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, Ranking Member (No Opening Statemnet)

                               WITNESSES

Major General Dawne Deskins, Director, Manpower and Personnel, 
  National Guard Bureau..........................................     3

Major General Michael C. O'Guinn, Deputy Chief, Army Reserve.....     4

Mr. Daniel Elkins, Legislative Director, Enlisted Association of 
  the National Guard of the United States........................     5

Mr. J. Roy Robinson, President, National Guard Association of the 
  United States..................................................     7

Ms. Susan Lukas, Director, Legislation and Military Policy, 
  Reserve Officer Association of the United States...............     9

                                APPENDIX
                    Prepared Statement Of Witnesses

Major General Dawne Deskins Prepared Statement...................    25
Major General Michael C. O'Guinn Prepared Statement..............    25
Mr. Daniel Elkins Prepared Statement.............................    26
Mr. J. Roy Robinson Prepared Statement...........................    34
Ms. Susan Lukas Prepared Statement...............................    35

 
               PROTECTING BENEFITS FOR ALL SERVICEMEMBERS

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 23, 2019

            U. S. House of Representatives,
              Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
                            Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 
Room 210, House Visitors Center, Hon. Mike Levin [Chairman of 
the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Levin, Brindisi, Pappas, Lee, 
Cunningham, and Banks.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, CHAIRMAN

    Mr. Levin. Good morning. I call this hearing to order.
    I want to thank everyone for joining us today in the 
Economic Opportunity Subcommittee as we examine benefit 
eligibility for National Guard and Reserve servicemembers.
    Ranking Member Bilirakis is sorry he can't make it to 
today's important hearing due to a family emergency, but he 
will be submitting his questions for the record, and I 
obviously have my thoughts with Gus and with his family.
    Over the last several years, the Reserve Components have 
shifted from a strategic Reserve to an operational Reserve. 
This means they are no longer a, quote, ``Break glass in case 
of war force,'' but are now continuously utilized here at home 
and around the globe. With this shift, it is time that we 
reexamine our policies and benefits for Reserve Component 
servicemembers.
    The decisions on how to utilize, structure, and determine 
the size of the Armed Forces and specifically the Reserve 
components happen outside our Subcommittee and the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee as a whole. However, our Subcommittee must 
understand these changes and keep pace with regards to the 
benefits eligibility, transition process, and employment 
prospects of servicemembers.
    With the increased use of National Guard and Reserves, we 
are seeing more instances of servicemembers from different 
components serving next to each other, doing the same or 
similar jobs, but receiving different pay and benefits. It is 
clearly not fair.
    The Committee began to address this issue in the Forever GI 
Bill by expanding GI Bill eligibility to servicemembers 
deployed on 12304b orders, but that addressed only part of the 
complex duty status problem.
    We are seeing the National Guard and Reserves being 
required to maintain higher readiness standards to fulfill 
deployments and contingency planning requirements. This means 
the servicemember must spend more time away from home and work 
than the traditional one weekend a month and two weeks in the 
summer. This also means more time operating heavy machinery, 
driving on convoys, maintaining equipment, and conducting field 
maneuvers, all of which carry potential for injury or death, 
and this means more frequent transitions between military and 
civilian life.
    We as a Congress and a Nation have decided to defend our 
Nation through an all-volunteer force. We have also decided to 
maintain the same active duty and strength level while 
increasing requirements, meaning that the services are 
stretched thinner and that the Department of Defense must 
utilize the Reserve components to fill the gaps much more 
frequently.
    As we continue to utilize the operational Reserves, we must 
ask if we have fundamentally changed our unspoken agreement 
with servicemembers, their families, and their employers. Are 
servicemembers being fairly compensated or are they losing 
income while attending drill? Will families tolerate their 
servicemember's more frequent absences, the increased risks 
they face, and the constant interruption of their day-to-day 
lives? And will employers continue to hire Reservists and 
National Guardsmen and Women if they are gone much more than 
expected?
    We don't know the answer to these questions yet, but the 
Reserve components may already be feeling the impacts.
    We have heard our senior enlisted leaders say that the best 
and worst recruiters are veterans and servicemembers talking to 
their family and friends about their experience in the 
military. Servicemembers will vote with their feet and will do 
what is best for their families.
    The Committee heard from Texas National Guard leadership 
this week that the number one concern raised by their 
servicemembers was benefits disparity and why they did not 
receive the same pay as the active component servicemembers 
they work with and next to.
    If Congress and the Nation are not providing equitable pay 
and benefits, and ensuring that Reserve Component 
servicemembers can maintain employment, this will impact our 
all-volunteer force. We can either pay for equitable benefits 
now or pay to drastically expand the active component in the 
near future, or, far worse, suffer on the battlefield later on.
    The Committee is here today to ask three key questions. 
First, do we need a specific transition assistance program for 
Reserve Component servicemembers that is tailored to their 
monthly transitions between civilian and military life. Second, 
do we need to update benefits for Reservists and National 
Guardsmen and Women so that every day in uniform counts, no 
matter their duty status. Finally, third, how do we incentive 
employers to hire and promote Reserve Component servicemembers 
into fulfilling careers while strengthening USERRA protections, 
cracking down on bad actors, and identifying unemployed or 
underemployed servicemembers.
    I would like to note that while we may ask some pointed 
questions to the National Guard Bureau and Army Reserve's 
representatives here with us today, they are executing the laws 
Congress has passed. The fixes to these issues start here in 
Congress, though I expect the Department of Defense and service 
branches to speak frankly about problems, be proactive in 
identifying issues, and stand ready to make changes. It would 
be a serious misstep to downplay the impact of the operational 
Reserve concept on servicemembers in an effort to protect the 
organization.
    Welcome, Mr. Banks. How are you? Did you have an opening 
statement or--
    Mr. Banks. No.
    Mr. Levin. Okay, great.
    Well, with that, I would like to turn to our panelists, and 
I would like to thank you all very much for being with us this 
morning.
    Joining us on the panel we have Major General Dawne 
Deskins, Director of Manpower and Personnel with the National 
Guard Bureau; Major General Michael C. O'Guinn, Deputy Chief of 
the U.S. Army Reserves; Daniel Elkins, Legislative Director 
with the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the 
United States; J. Roy Robinson, President of the National Guard 
Association of the United States; and Susan Lukas, Director of 
Legislation and Military Policy with the Reserve Officer 
Association of the United States.
    Thank you all very much for joining us. As you know, you 
will have 5 minutes for your oral statement, but your full 
written statement will be added to the record.
    Major General Deskins, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.

            STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL DAWNE DESKINS

    General Deskins. Chairman Levin and distinguished Members 
of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on 
National Guard and Veterans Affairs matters. On behalf of the 
Chief, National Guard Bureau, General Joseph Lengyel, thank you 
for your support of and commitment to our National Guard 
Soldiers, Airmen, their families, and supporting employers.
    The National Guard consists of nearly 450,000 citizen 
Soldiers and Airmen of the Army and Air National Guard. They 
represent the finest National Guard force in our Nation's 
history, and I am honored to be here today to advocate for them 
along with their families, their communities, and their 
employers who support them.
    The National Guard of today is not the National Guard of 
yesterday. Today's National Guard, in fact today's Reserve 
Component, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines, are an 
integral part of this Nation's military capability. The 
Department of Defense cannot meet the objectives outlined in 
the national defense strategy without a robust National Guard 
and Reserve.
    Unique to the National Guard, however, is our dual 
capability to be used in a Federal or state status. In addition 
to providing forces to combatant commanders for the overseas 
war fight, the National Guard stands ready to assist local and 
state authorities in response to natural and other disasters at 
home. Tens of thousands of National Guard Soldiers and Airmen 
are on duty at home and overseas on any given day in support of 
our national security.
    The foundation of our National Guard's strength and a key 
to our readiness is our people, the team of Soldiers and Airmen 
we build through recruiting and retention programs; men and 
women who join our ranks and continue to serve out of 
patriotism, a sense of duty, and love of country and community.
    The benefits and entitlements provided to them as a result 
of their service are critical to retaining this all-volunteer 
fighting force. The men and women who serve in the National 
Guard are always ready to meet America's needs. Knowing that 
their employers and families will have the necessary support 
they need will allow them to focus on their training to build a 
more ready and lethal force.
    Legislation such as USERRA and the Department of Defense's 
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program not only incentivize Guard 
Members' continued service, but provide peace of mind to 
Soldiers, Airmen, and their families.
    To the Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for your 
time today to discuss these important topics, and I look 
forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Major General Dawne Deskins 
appears in the Appendix]

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Major General Deskins.
    Major General O'Guinn, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.

         STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL C. O'GUINN

    General O'Guinn. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Levin 
and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee. It is a 
pleasure to be here today, and I would like to submit my 
written statement for the record at this time.
    On behalf of America's Army Reserve, thank you for the 
opportunity to be here today, and for your support of our 
soldiers, civilian employees, families, and employers.
    As stated in the National Military Strategy, we are 
emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our 
competitive military advantage has been eroding. We are facing 
increased global disorder, characterized by a decline in a 
longstanding, rules-based international order, thereby creating 
a security environment more complex and volatile than any we 
have experienced in recent memory.
    Interstate strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the 
primary concern in U.S. national security. This strategic 
competition is driving the Army Reserve to a new state of 
operational readiness, improving the posture and capabilities 
of our forces to respond quickly to evolving threats from 
multiple sources.
    As the sole dedicated Federal Reserve of the Army, Army 
Veterans Soldiers and units from across the Nation must be able 
to quickly mobilize, deploy, fight, and win as part of the 
total force anywhere in the world.
    The Army Reserve comprises nearly 20 percent of the Army's 
organized units, half its total maneuver support and 
sustainment capabilities, and a quarter of its mobilization 
base-expansion capacity. With more than 200,000 Soldiers and 
civilian employees, and 2,000 units spread across 20 time 
zones, America's Army Reserve is positioned and ready to 
support the war fighter anywhere in the world.
    Meeting the challenge of fielding a robust, capable, ready, 
and lethal array of forces from the ranks of a part-time force 
is no small task, particularly in today's evolving and 
increasingly dynamic global security environment. But that 
part-time force is also our strength, for it encompasses a new 
generation of Army Soldiers and leaders, highly skilled and 
educated in 148 career fields that correspond to the 
capabilities our forces require to conduct, sustain, and 
prevail in combat operations.
    As Lieutenant General Lucky, the Chief of the United States 
Army Reserve, reminds our force daily, our challenge remains 
straightforward and dynamic: this team needs to be ready enough 
to be relevant, but not so ready that our Soldiers cannot 
maintain good, meaningful civilian jobs and healthy, sustaining 
family lives. This challenge is exacerbated by the simple fact 
we must recruit and retain our Soldiers where our Soldiers live 
and work, and anticipate emerging demographics by moving force 
structure to not only where the talent resides today, but where 
we will be tomorrow. This process demands agility, 
synchronization, and integrated planning.
    Recruiting and retaining the Nation's finest also requires 
adequate compensation. Soldiers from all three components stand 
shoulder-to-shoulder with the Joint Force, Allies, and partners 
to protect our interests and uphold our shared values. 
Therefore, troops serving side-by-side and conducting the same 
mission should receive equal pay and benefits, regardless of 
the uniform they wear or the component they serve. Parity of 
benefits are an important part of overall readiness and morale.
    We appreciate Congress' continued support, engagement, and 
counsel. With your help, we will continue to provide the ready 
capabilities the people of the United States expect and 
deserve, and will remain postured to meet modern day challenges 
and future threats. In these dynamic and challenging times, we 
stand ready to continue to build the most capable, combat-
ready, and lethal Federal Reserve in the history of the Nation.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Major General Michael C. O'Guinn 
appears in the Appendix]

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Major General O'Guinn.
    Mr. Elkins, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF DANIEL ELKINS

    Mr. Elkins. Chairman Levin, Members of the Committee, thank 
you for hosting this hearing today and for honoring all members 
of the Reserve Component. The Enlisted Association of the 
National Guard of the United States is a non-profit 
organization that is dedicated to promoting the status, 
welfare, and professionalism of the enlisted members of the 
National Guard. And our association has long believed the 
Members of this Committee have been instrumental in protecting, 
supporting, and honoring the service and sacrifice of the 
National Guard by ensuring they receive the benefits they have 
earned and that these benefits remain protected.
    Since the inception of the Servicemember Readjustment Act 
in 1944, which has become known as the first GI Bill, education 
and health benefits have made it possible for generation of 
veterans to succeed in growing their careers, providing for 
their families, and has allowed them to continue to give back 
to their communities.
    As education and health benefits have evolved over the 
years, so too has the role of the National Guard within the 
uniform service. We are now at the fourth iteration of the 
National Guard. Starting with its historical inception of 
citizen soldiers, we evolved from an all-volunteer force in the 
1970s, and further integrated with the active component, 
becoming a Ready Reserve in the 1980s. After September 11th, 
the National Guard again changed to become an Operational 
Reserve, with larger and more frequent deployments.
    Today, with Guard 4.0, individual Soldier readiness has 
become paramount with increased obligations for the National 
Guard servicemembers to maintain their health, knowledge, and 
training at a pace rivaling active duty components.
    As a result, members of the National Guard have been 
protecting our Nation and our interests equally with active 
component, and often at a significantly less cost to this 
country. However, this comes with a significant high price for 
our warfighters in the communities that support them. That 
price has been paid in the form of increased difficulty 
accruing benefits, difficulty in accessing mental health 
protections, and difficulty in navigating the bureaucracy of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs. This includes the weakening 
of USERRA protections to secure their livelihoods and not 
qualifying for SCRA protections when an emergency strikes, and 
we are called upon to serve.
    Today, we are here to highlight an idea that we 
wholeheartedly believe in, that is, every day in uniform 
counts. Regardless of what orders you are on, regardless of 
whether you are drilling or training, or serving on the border, 
if you are serving in uniform, you should be eligible in 
accruing benefits just like active duty counterparts.
    Unfortunately, we hear from our members that parity issues 
are drastically impacting the force and, as we speak, thousands 
of National Guard servicemembers are fulfilling their duties in 
responding to a national emergency declared by President Trump. 
These men and women serving on the border are responding to a 
Federal call to action made specifically by the Commander in 
Chief, and still the mass majority of these servicemembers are 
unable to earn the same Federal benefits as their active duty 
counterparts, even though they are performing similar duties in 
similar locations.
    Servicemembers from various states around the country, and 
possibly the districts you represent, are working side-by-side 
to fulfill the same Federal mission, but are being treated 
differently than their brothers and sisters on active duty. 
These men and women are serving our country, but current 
loopholes and inequities keep our country from serving them.
    Under the current law, many will not achieve veteran 
status, few will earn GI Bill eligibility they deserve, and 
some will have no access to VA care. The definition and status 
of a veteran regardless of what type of orders we serve under 
must be addressed, especially as we deal with the epidemic of 
suicide amongst our servicemembers. Members of the Committee, 
today 20 veterans will commit suicide, 5 out of 20 will be from 
Reserve Component, and three of those five will have never been 
placed on active duty orders, but all have served. All have 
trained and every one of them wore the uniform with pride, and 
yet they have no direct access to mental health care at the VA. 
Why? That is because they have been denied these benefits from 
the start and something has to change. We all wear the uniform 
with pride; every day in uniform counts.
    I look forward to answering your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Daniel Elkins appears in the 
Appendix]

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Elkins.
    Mr. Robinson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF J. ROY ROBINSON

    Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Chairman Levin and other 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of almost 
45,000 members of the National Guard Association of the United 
States, and the nearly 450,000 Soldiers and Airmen of the 
National Guard, we greatly appreciate this opportunity to share 
with you our thoughts on today's hearing topics for the record. 
We also thank you for the tireless oversight you have provided 
to ensure accountability and improve our Nation's services to 
veterans and their families.
    In my testimony, I would like to focus on three specific 
issues impacting Guardsmen that fall under the jurisdiction of 
this Committee. These issues are expanding TRICARE to cover all 
servicemembers in all statuses, streamlining recordkeeping of 
service across the total force, and highlighting legislative 
initiatives as readiness requirements and operational tempo 
continue to increase.
    As the National Guard remains an integral part of our 
Nation's defense, both at home and abroad, increased training 
and readiness requirements, compounded with more frequent 
deployments, has strained the traditional citizen soldier 
construct, placing stressors on both the Guardsmen and their 
employers.
    While I cannot anticipate future operational demands, what 
is clearly true is that the era of one weekend a month and two 
weeks a year is over. Our members are serving more days 
throughout the year and often completing military tasks on 
civilian time, all while undertaking additional military, 
administrative, and training duties due to insufficient levels 
of full-time support personnel.
    As we continue to increase operational demands on our 
Soldiers and Airmen, their employers are feeling the effects of 
their extended absence. In the wake of this new reality, we ask 
that the Committee supports continued efforts to assist Reserve 
Component servicemembers and their employers.
    One major effort I would like to discuss with the Committee 
today is to alleviate some of the pressures of the idea of 
providing zero cost TRICARE health coverage to National Guard 
and Reserve members. While this is not an effort that will be 
concluded this year, I believe very strongly that the time is 
now to discuss if an Operational Reserve is better served 
through ensuring guaranteed medical coverage in lieu of the 
current disjointed system of third party health contractors and 
periodic health assessments.
    The benefits of zero-cost TRICARE coverage extend beyond 
medical readiness and well-being for Reserve Component military 
families. TRICARE, one of our top retention policies, will help 
us keep a manned and ready force, in addition to building 
medical readiness today. Providing preventive care throughout 
our servicemembers' careers will likely reduce medical 
expenditures when they transition from drilling Guardsman to 
veteran. Further, this will become a significant employer 
benefit when a CEO or hiring manager knows that this 
servicemember won't require health insurance coverage.
    As we ask more and more of National Guard and Reserve units 
in peacetime training, I worry that companies will start to 
choose equally qualified non-military candidates over our 
servicemembers simply because they are concerned that the 
Soldier or Airman will be away too often. We must find a way to 
better incentive these companies.
    Unemployment and underemployment also continues to be a 
concern for our members. We ask for your continued support in 
passing critical legislation creating gateways and pathways to 
steady employment for Guardsmen. We support Congressmen Ryan 
and Palazzo's legislation, H.R. 801, the Reserve Component 
Employers Incentive Compensation Relief Act of 2019, which 
grants tax credits to employers who employ members of the 
National Guard and Reserve. Legislation like this is critical 
to incentive National Guard employment as we continue to demand 
more training time of our citizen soldiers.
    A significant concern across the total force is easing 
burdensome bureaucracy, which limits the ability for our 
servicemembers to transfer among the different components. 
Creating hurdles to the continuum of service is a detriment to 
those currently serving and creates a significant hurdle in 
retaining servicemembers as individual frustration builds.
    One major concern is with Certificate of Active Service, 
the DD-214. Currently, on active duty service over 90 days is 
captured on this critical document of final service. If a 
Guardsman serves, but never goes on active duty, they currently 
don't receive a DD-214, which is generally seen as the gold 
standard of record of military service. Additionally, any 
active service under 90 days, which is quite common, will never 
be captured in cumulative data on the record. The current 
practices place the record-keeping burden on the veteran, as 
they have to maintain years of documents rather than having a 
cumulative document similar to their active duty counterparts. 
Streamlining this process will benefit the servicemember as 
well as the VA, as it will reduce confusion over what is a 
valid document. NGAUS firmly believes there needs to be one 
Total Force record of military service which includes Reserve 
Component duty.
    Thank you very much for your attention.

    [The prepared statement of J. Roy Robinson appears in the 
Appendix]

    Mr. Levin. Thank you.
    Ms. Lukas, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF SUSAN LUKAS

    Ms. Lukas. Chairman Levin and Members of the Committee, the 
states represented on this Committee have a total over 400,000 
Guard and Reserve in participating and retired categories. 
There are actually many more in your states, but they are not 
in DoD categories that we could get numbers from.
    ROA, who represents these members, is the only national 
military organization that exclusively supports the Reserve and 
National Guard. We appreciate the opportunity to testify to you 
today on these issues, because that is actually something that 
doesn't often happen for us.
    Our charter is a bit different than other associations in 
that our charter is to support national strategy with the 
Reserve Component members. So when we look at benefits and 
parity, we tend to look at it from the perspective of 
supporting, recruiting, and retention.
    Too often the Reserve Component is treated as an 
afterthought, despite its success in our wars and being 
responsible for up to 100 percent of certain mission areas in 
our military. This is why we began our written testimony on how 
the RC provides both strategic and operational support.
    The RC is quickly approaching the 1 million mark of 
servicemembers who have been activated since 2001. In 2014, the 
RC provided 17.3 million man days per year. As part of that 
duty, employment friction and unemployment problems today will 
increasingly plague Reserve servicemembers as we continue to 
rely on their operational Reserve support. We are seeing 
evidence of support for Reserve services eroding among 
employers who are weary of reported deployments. This is the 
reason that we also support tax credits. It is not just to 
incentivize them, but it also helps to offset some of the costs 
that they absorb when our members go through either overtime or 
having to do temporary employment, which cannot always be built 
into their budgets.
    We know from exist surveys that civilian employment 
problems can cause our servicemembers to leave the Reserve. 
This loss of skilled and experienced members erodes retention 
and readiness. Unlike those in the Active Component, RC members 
might use VA employment assistance while in service to support 
a successful career and not just on separation. I think that is 
really what defines the difference between a Reserve Component 
veteran and an Active Component veteran, we really will be 
using VA services throughout our participating career.
    A change in Federal hiring preference for veterans to 
qualify with 180 cumulative days versus 180 consecutive days 
for Federal employment veteran preference would help. 
Previously, the Committee had tried to carry that provision 
through; it didn't make it through, so we are hoping that you 
will take that up again, because as our suicide rate has 
continued and has not abated, one of the things that we know is 
that employment and financial stressors contribute to that 
suicide. Plus, if you look at the number of vacancies within 
the VA, it is a perfect fit for the Reserve Component to be 
able to qualify for those positions.
    Another change is, like we talked before, is we need the 
214--not a like form, but the 214, because whenever our members 
go to VA to get services, the issue of a 214 or a lack of a 
comprehensive 214 always seems to cause problems in VHA, VBA, 
and NCA. And they have actually come--our members have come to 
us and told us specifically how that has happened.
    We also have differences with how our veterans or our 
servicemembers use the GI Bill. One of the things that we know 
a lot of discussion has been on is 90-10. And we are not 
against the 90-10 rule per se, what we don't want to see is any 
unintended consequences for those public schools or for-profit 
schools that offer certificates and accreditation, because with 
our members having civilian careers, they don't always just 
need to go for a degree, they need to, you know, kind of bump 
up what they have. So we are looking at 90-10 from that 
perspective.
    Also, we know that there is legislation that is being 
proposed called the Post-9/11 Veteran Business Acceleration 
Act, and that is going to look at using the GI Bill a little 
different for entrepreneurial-ship, which is a good fit with 
our members too, because they have the civilian experience to 
have successful businesses.
    Finally, we did include in our testimony some information 
about VHA, which we know doesn't come under you, but what we 
were trying to say is, when it looks at the Guard and Reserve 
issue as a veteran, we really need a task force or something 
with DoD and VA to come together to look across the whole realm 
of VA to look at how services are being met with them, and we 
would enjoy that opportunity.

    [The prepared statement of Susan Lukas appears in the 
Appendix]

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Lukas, and thanks to all of you.
    With that, I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes 
to begin the question portion of the hearing. And I just wanted 
to thank again many of you for your service and for helping to 
inform this important discussion today.
    Committee staff had the opportunity recently to meet with 
the Texas National Guard, I believe it was on Monday, and one 
of the things that came from that was that, on average, Texas 
Army National Guard, traditional M-day Soldiers, did more than 
70 days of duty in fiscal year 2019.
    General Deskins and General O'Guinn, on average, how many 
days do M-Day Army, Air National Guard and Army Reserve 
servicemembers spend in uniform per fiscal year, and are there 
commands or units that are outliers, and are there differences 
for units under heightened readiness requirements.
    General Deskins. For the National Guard, as you pointed 
out, as we have shifted into an operational force, the number 
of days our Guardsmen and Women are serving in uniform has 
definitely increased. In the Army National Guard, nearly a 
third of the force is serving more than 50 days in uniform per 
year, so that is approximately 150,000. On average, for an 
Airman in the Guard wearing the uniform, they are doing 7 more 
days above the traditional 39 that we would think of in a 
normal Guard duty construct.
    And as far as the question on outliers, I would say units 
preparing for major training exercises or mobilizations will 
typically conduct additional training, so they will do more 
training prior to the event, and then of course unplanned 
domestic and emergency responses will increase the number of 
days in uniform.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you.
    General O'Guinn.
    General O'Guinn. Chairman, thank you. The traditional Army 
Reserve Soldier will do 12 weekends throughout the year, one 
each month. So that is, you know, 24 or 48 unit assembly 
training areas there. We also do a minimum of 14 annual 
training days a year to prepare for large-scale contingencies 
and deployment. So, on average, 60 days right there, just the 
basic. Most of our units are doing well above that. I think we 
calculate about 19 and a half days versus the 14 days for the 
annual training, but there are clearly some outliers.
    We have about a third of our force that has to go out the 
door in the first 100 days of a large-scale operation, those 
units require additional training days to prepare them. 
Clearly, it is our duty to prepare soldiers before we send them 
in harm's way. We have to make sure they are trained, ready, 
equipped before we can do that, it is our obligation. So they 
will spend a few more days in training to prepare for that.
    However, where we find units that have to do that, what we 
don't want to do is continue to send the same units to the same 
extended training year after year, burn the soldiers out, put 
more burden on the family, put more burden on the employers.
    We do find outliers. And so General Lucky, as the Chief of 
the Army Reserve, as he goes around and visits soldiers, visits 
training events, where he sees those pockets of people that are 
doing probably too much, because we have asked them to, we have 
opportunities to switch out units in future years to prepare 
them.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Levin. Follow-up to that. Can you tell us how many 
Guard and Army Reserve servicemembers have passed away while in 
uniform over the past 3 years? And, if possible, can you break 
down those numbers by combat, suicide, training, and other 
causes?
    General Deskins. For the National Guard, we looked back 5 
years, so I will have to take it for the record to get just the 
3-year look.
    Mr. Levin. Sure.
    General Deskins. But if we look at a 5-year look, in the 
past 5 years the total number of servicemembers deceased for 
all causes on or off duty for the Army is 1157, 1157, and Air 
is 333. And we will need to get you the breakout of that, 
because that does include all causes, which includes natural 
causes.
    Mr. Levin. Okay.
    General O'Guinn. Sir, in the past 5 years, the Army Reserve 
had a total of 779 reported deaths. The breakdown is 135 of 
those were on active duty at the time of the death--I am not 
sure how many of those were combat-related versus just occurred 
on active duty--and 664 were not on an active duty status. So 
our average death rate is 27 per active duty and 132 for not on 
active duty.
    I will tell you, part of this is the suicide prevention. We 
have seen this year, this calendar year in fiscal year 2019, we 
are 11 under. So last year at this time we had 40 Army Reserve 
Soldiers commit suicide, this year we are at 29. Clearly, every 
single suicide is one too many, but whatever programs are out 
there this year tend to be working, but that doesn't mean we 
can take our foot off the gas. We have got to continue to press 
this, so we don't lose any more soldiers.
    Mr. Levin. A couple more questions on this line and then I 
will turn to some of my colleagues. Have you seen an increase 
in these numbers as training days has increased; in other 
words, have you seen any correlation?
    General Deskins. For the National Guard, we can't say that 
we have seen any direct correlation that would require further 
study.
    Mr. Levin. Okay. Thank you.
    General O'Guinn. Sir, we have not seen an increase with the 
increased training demands. In fact, our accident rate over the 
last 3 years has decreased, both, you know, in Class A, B, and 
C training accidents.
    General Lucky has--this is about standards and discipline. 
We go to a field exercise, making sure that leaders at echelon 
are watching their troops, making sure they are following the 
proper procedures, safety is incorporated at every exercise, 
and just watching out for soldiers to ensure they are properly 
trained, equipped, and doing the job right. So we have seen 
that reduce accidents overall and reduce injuries.
    Mr. Levin. I appreciate that very much. I think there is a 
concern that, well, you have increased operational tempo and 
training days, that could also lead to increased injuries or 
even fatalities. And obviously we want to make sure that, to 
the extent that is happening, we understand it and address it. 
So I very much appreciate that.
    And I want to turn to a couple of my colleagues, and I 
think we will have time for a few more questions, a second 
round of questions.
    With that, I would like to turn to Mr. Banks for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Committee recently heard from a Texas Guardsman who was 
told that his time serving in Operation Guardian Support on our 
Southern border would not count toward his Post-9/11 GI Bill 
eligibility. Mr. Elkins, have you heard of this issue or from 
other Guardsmen who have situations like that?
    Mr. Elkins. Congressman, thank you for the question. Yes, I 
have, and I will share a personal experience with being on a 
different set of orders and not accruing eligibility for 
benefits. As a member of the Special Forces community, I went 
through the Special Forces qualification course, during which 
the 2-year pipeline that I was a part of, because of the subset 
of orders that I was on, did not qualify in accruing Post-9/11 
GI Bill eligibility. However, I was in the same class, wearing 
the same uniform, doing the same type of training with members 
on the active duty side, and in some cases with our PSYOPs and 
civil affairs counterparts, and they were accruing those 
benefits.
    This issue of benefit parity is one that is prolific, and I 
personally think, as well as our association, that this needs 
to change in order to continue recruitment and retention, and 
also prevent a national security issue.
    Mr. Banks. So you would agree that the assessment by the 
DoD needs to make active duty orders more uniform as a means to 
better distribute the hard-earned benefits of our 
servicemembers that they are entitled to?
    Mr. Elkins. Yes. Our association is very supportive of duty 
status reform as it is currently underway. We do think that 
there are things that need to go above and beyond the efforts 
underway for duty status reform. For example, my colleagues to 
my left have spoken both about the DD-214 for all. 
Additionally, qualifying for benefits, it is necessary to have 
a DD-214, and in some cases the VA only accepts the DD-214. So 
that is something the duty status reform will not address.
    Mr. Banks. Ms. Lukas, there have been a lot of discussions 
on changing the calculation of the 90-10 rule to limit the use 
of GI Bill funds at for-profit schools. Do you believe such a 
shift in policy would give policymakers a true representation 
of the quality of the school, and would such a change impact a 
veteran's ability to choose a school that best their needs?
    Ms. Lukas. So, in looking at the 90-10 rule, what we 
understand is it is very similar to the 85-15 from VA and that 
what--or the Department is trying to--the different departments 
are trying to do is monitor the amount of Federal funds going 
to the schools and to make sure that their funds are being put 
to good use. We think that the 90-10 rule in that regard to a 
certain degree is counting the money. So, if you are going to 
count the money about how it is being used on the for-profit 
side, would you want to count it on the public side--or the--
yeah, the other universities.
    What we are saying is, if you are going to monitor funds, 
that is right, we should monitor Federal funds and where they 
are going, do it across the board, but do it in conjunction 
with standards. And the Committee, the Full Committee here just 
passed a bill, which we really like, and that is where the 
colleges and universities now are going to be required to 
provide information to veterans on what their standards are.
    For us, we see it as both things need to occur, not just 
one will get you where you want. You need to have, you know, 
that report card maintained and provided also.
    Mr. Banks. General Deskins, do you know why members of the 
Guard who are serving at the Southern border are not getting 
eligibility of the Post-9/11 GI Bill?
    General Deskins. Yeah, thank you for that question. Having 
spoken to the Department, they are looking into this at this 
time. This was just recently brought to their attention and 
they are doing a quick review to look at the benefits parity 
and determine a resolution to that.
    Mr. Banks. Do you think this is a mistake?
    General Deskins. Well, the National Guard certain believes 
in benefits parity between Guard members and the active duty 
and that is similar where--
    Mr. Banks. But has a mistake occurred or is there a change 
of policy that needs to correct it?
    General Deskins. I have not reviewed what the criteria is 
that the Department uses for determining whether or not a 
benefit reaches parity. I can only say that I feel that members 
that do similar work should get the same benefits.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Banks.
    I would now like to recognize Ms. Lee, if you're ready.
    Ms. Lee. Sure.
    Mr. Levin. You got it, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. It is funny, I was just walking through the 
hallway and a reporter said, ``What are you working on?'' I 
said, ``Pay parity for our servicemen and women.'' And they 
didn't want to talk to me, I don't know why.
    Anyway, first of all, I just want to thank you all for 
being here and this is an important hearing in an ongoing 
important discussion about pay parity for our Reserve and Guard 
members. The topics of pay parity employment protections for 
Guard and Reserves is very important to me, as one of my own 
staff members and former residents of my district has seen what 
happens when an employer does not hold up their end of the 
bargain of giving our returning troops the opportunity for 
promotions that they may have missed out on during a combat 
deployment.
    Imagine, you are 20 years old and you go off to Iraq to 
serve your country, you come back, as is often the case in Las 
Vegas, to a tip position at a casino. After a year of absence 
and although your employer has brought you back to your old 
job, you realize that five or six of the people you helped 
train in lower-skilled positions are now in a higher position 
and earning, get this, between 600 and $900 a week more than 
you will be.
    You received USERRA protection during training and during 
your activation briefings in post-deployment, so you bring the 
issue up to your employer of your promotion. And they tell you 
they are glad to have you back, but make no effort to promote 
you. You don't have the time as a 20-year-old to file a 
complaint, because you are now once again a full-time employee 
and a part-time student at the local university. So you go back 
to work, keep your head down, and continuing to work your old 
job at a lower rate than your coworkers.
    This is just one story, but it is something that happens to 
members of the Guard and the Reserve in Las Vegas and across 
this country.
    I also recently attended a sending-off ceremony of the 
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Company in my district, and I want 
to make sure that we are looking out for their best interests 
upon their return as well.
    We have a responsibility to do better for our returning 
servicemembers and I hope this discussion will help us identify 
ways that we can do that.
    In the story I just highlighted, my staff member did not go 
through the formal USERRA complaint process. I suspect this is 
not an uncommon occurrence.
    For Mr. Robinson and Ms. Lukas, I wanted to ask you, with 
regard to USERRA employment protections, how often do you hear 
from servicemembers about filing complaints regarding 
promotions?
    Mr. Robinson. So what we hear most of the time is that they 
don't openly discuss--the employer doesn't openly discuss the 
reason for it and it is very difficult for some of the younger 
employees to go in and state their case, so to speak. But it is 
prevalent, it is prevalent throughout the force and throughout 
the employers that we try very hard to maintain those 
relationships with. Specific cases come up routinely. And the 
ESGR representative for each of the states would be more in a 
position to give you actual numbers and talk to you about the 
way that they are trying to address some of those issues, but 
it is prevalent through the force.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lukas. ROA, on our website we have what is called the 
Law Center, and it has law reviews on USERRA and SCRA. So we 
are very much involved with that and most of those come from 
members who have come to us. So we know--I mean, right now we 
have six active cases on promotions. What we have found is that 
people are having problems in that area.
    The biggest thing that I could see that they have problems 
with going forward is, one, they actually don't know how to go 
forward with it, and the amount of money it would cost to hire 
a lawyer to go forward with it. But the other thing is just 
proving that they have been discriminated in that regard when 
it is so obvious, but the proof of it is very difficult.
    Ms. Lee. Okay. So, basically, in terms of empowering our 
servicemembers to file these complaints, it is really knowledge 
and trying to identify ways that we can provide them proof?
    Ms. Lukas. So when they come to us, what we do is--they 
have access to the law library, which is normally how they find 
us, and then what we try to do is help them, you know, kind of 
work through all the details to see if they have what would be 
a valid case. And then often we try to set them up with pro 
bono lawyers. If we can't find one in their area, we will go to 
one that they would have to pay for, but get some support.
    Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you very much.
    My time is up, and I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you.
    I would now like to recognize Mr. Pappas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 
our panel for your service, for your advocacy for members of 
our Guard and Reserve, and for helping us understand this 
conversation around some of the disparities that they 
experience and that I am hopeful that we can address as a 
Committee and as a Congress.
    One of the issues I wanted to focus on was the issue of 
student debt. I think about this a lot, because my state of New 
Hampshire has the fourth-highest average student debt load in 
the country, we consistently rank in the top five. As we know, 
the national student debt load is about $1.5 trillion and that 
is shouldered in part by members of the Guard and Reserve.
    Mr. Elkins, in your submitted testimony you noted that 
members of the Guard are not eligible for forbearance for their 
loans when deployed on active duty as other members of the 
military are. I am wondering if you can elaborate a little bit 
on this and talk about any potential remedies.
    Mr. Elkins. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
    Typically or often, members of the Guard are put on various 
sets of orders as opposed to one continuing set of orders. So 
when you are one continuous set of orders without a lapse, you 
are able to apply for the student loan forbearance and/or 
provisions under SCRA. However, when there is a day or two gaps 
between orders, or orders are strung together and they are not 
continuous, you are ineligible to do so.
    Our recommendation would be changing the limit of the 30 
days continuous orders to something that is more in the range 
of 7 to 10 days, and then that way we would guarantee the 
members that are looking for that student loan protection would 
be eligible.
    Mr. Pappas. Do you know how many members of the Guard would 
be impacted by a change like that?
    Mr. Elkins. Well, all members of the National Guard have to 
go to annual training, which is 14 days every year, so it would 
be my belief that all of them would be affected.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you very much for that.
    In the same vein, as I understand it, the Servicemembers 
Civil Relief Act limits interest on student loans while a 
servicemember is on active duty. So to anyone on the panel, if 
you would like to answer it, I am just wondering if you could 
address that and explain how that works for members of the 
Reserve Component.
    General O'Guinn. I will take that on, at least try to, and 
ask for reinforcing fires.
    When a soldier goes on orders, they contact the agency that 
provides the money, whether it is a mortgage company or a 
credit card company, and it brings the interest rate down to 6 
percent. So that is not only for the loans for that individual 
soldier, but also any joint account that the soldier has signed 
for. It does not, however, cover family members or spouse if it 
is a separate account.
    Mr. Elkins. To elaborate on what the General just spoke 
about, it has been our members' position, and they have 
experienced this issue over and over again, oftentimes getting 
orders prior to the time of mobilization can be difficult and 
financial institutions often use a database that the DoD 
provides to show if you are on active duty or not. And given 
the various number of duty statuses that might place you on, 
you know, active duty, but not active duty in the way under 
Title X, you are ineligible for these benefits.
    Mr. Pappas. Thank you.
    Ms. Lukas, I don't know if you had any thoughts in terms of 
the Reservists.
    Ms. Lukas. No. The only thing that I would say about that 
is, the other problem that we have on the orders is that we 
will have members go in and out of orders. And so, as you stop 
an order and then go into another order, trying to get those 
orders and put them together to show that it was a consecutive 
amount of time can cause problems with that too.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you. I am interested in exploring 
this issue a little bit more. I appreciate the responses here 
today.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Pappas.
    I do have some additional questions and, if Ms. Lee or Mr. 
Pappas have additional questions, they will have the 
opportunity to ask them. And then we had a couple members that 
stepped out, if they come back, I would like to give them a 
chance also. But I will turn to some more questions that I 
have.
    Committee staff recently visited one of the Army's to 
mobilization and demobilization sites for Reserve Component 
units, and they heard a significant portion of the demobilizing 
servicemembers were completing the Joint Knowledge online 
version of the Transition Assistance Program and would be rated 
in the lowest-risk category.
    General Deskins and General O'Guinn, what percentages of 
your servicemembers complete the online version of TAP versus 
the in-person classes, and are they asked to complete these 
online classes while they are deployed?
    General Deskins. I do not have available their percentages, 
but we can certainly get that for the record.
    Mr. Levin. That would be great.
    General Deskins. Nor do I have the answer to the number 
that take TAP deployed. I do know that some of the changes that 
are occurring in the transition assistance have been very 
positive. Our Guardsmen back in 2018 said that they got too 
much information too soon. So the ability now to tailor when 
they get the information to a Guardsman who may be going back 
to an employer, so they don't need the standard transition 
assistance the way it was, you know, originally being 
administered, has been very beneficial to the National Guard.
    Thank you for that.
    General O'Guinn. Mr. Chairman, I can't give exact numbers 
either. Having been through demobilization myself four times, I 
can tell you that it is a required station that you must go 
through in order to come back off active duty. So my guess is, 
it is pretty close to 100 percent, as close as they can get it.
    Personally, the nice thing about it being online and having 
to complete that is, once I go home, I can re-access that and I 
know where the information is; I may not remember everything 
about it, but at least it is available online, and I remember 
that when I was trying to get out of mobile station and get 
back to my family.
    The full-time folks in the Army Reserve are active Guard 
and Reserve folks, as they get ready to retire or transition, 
then they fall under the normal TAP program. Twenty four months 
out, they can start the process tailored to their specific 
needs, so that works out very well.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Levin. I appreciate that. For the rest of the panel, do 
you have any concern that asking servicemembers to do 
transition classes while deployed is pulling their focus from 
their job, particularly when we don't ask the same of active 
component servicemembers?
    Mr. Elkins. Yes, thank you, Chairman, for that question. I 
know from personal experience during my last mobilization, in 
the timeframe when we were packing up everything, ripping out 
and training the people who were coming in, our whole unit was 
also going through the online portion prior to the 
demobilization site. It is my personal opinion that this takes 
away from mission focus and I do not think that it is the 
correct way of going about things.
    Mr. Levin. I appreciate. Anybody else have any thoughts on 
that?
    Ms. Lukas. I just want to say, so I am retired Air Force 
Reserve, I was Guard and active duty, my son is currently 
participating at Andrews. And so when they go through their 
deployments and we talk about it afterwards, he is doing like 
16-plus-hour days, and it is not just him, it is everybody on 
that deployment. So there is just no way I could see where they 
could fit that in, they are lucky to be able to eat and sleep.
    Having it available after you get home, that is true, we 
have found that--you know, you don't know what you need until 
you need it, so having that available after. But to do it while 
you are deploying and you are trying to keep your head in the 
game with that, I just don't see how they could do that.
    Mr. Levin. Do you have any concerns that Reserve Component 
servicemembers are less prepared for transition because they 
are taking the classes online as opposed to in person? Anybody?
    Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, I am not as concerned about the 
process itself as I am the results of the process. I don't 
think--me being through the mobilization system myself, what 
concerns me most is that some of these young Soldiers and 
Airmen and their families upon their return, after 6 months of 
coverage, they don't have medical insurance after the initial 6 
months after mobilization, and some of the scars that they deal 
with from their time in the combat zone, some of those scars 
don't actually show themselves until long after that 6 months 
has passed. And the VA is a great organization, they are doing 
great things, but in some of the smaller communities throughout 
the country they are totally overwhelmed. And I have personally 
been a part of trying to get psychiatric help for young 
soldiers and it is a travesty.
    There is no reason in the world that through that process 
or any other that anybody who wears the cloth of this country 
should ever have to worry about medical issues and the proper 
medical care upon their return.
    That would be my thoughts on the process. I think it is 
effective and I think we get what we ask for out of it. I don't 
think we are providing as a country what we should be providing 
to some of these returning heroes.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you.
    I am going to ask just one more question about TAP, being 
mindful of time. During their visits last week, Committee staff 
heard various pieces of feedback, including that the current 
system is failing the TAP program, and commanders and Reserve 
Component servicemembers are not getting everything from this 
that they could and should. They have also heard that there is 
not a model for an Operational Reserve transition program, and 
they heard that Guard and Reserve servicemembers don't 
transition from military service, but rather it is part of 
their continuing life cycle.
    I am trying to understand if the current system we have is 
the right fit for our Reserve Component. Guard and Reserve 
servicemembers are going through a transition where they come 
off a period of active duty orders, but they are often not 
transitioning completely out of the military, which is 
different than most Active Component servicemembers taking TAP, 
including the ones that I know well in my district at Camp 
Pendleton.
    To the entire panel, should the Guard and Reserve 
transition program be built into the Reserve Component and be 
continuous throughout a servicemember's career or not?
    That is for anybody.
    Ms. Lukas. I will go ahead and take that on first, if you 
don't mind. So what we have--you know, it is one of those 
where, if you get enough, but it is not too much. So we are 
getting feedback that having to do transition every 180 days is 
overwhelming, but we also see, like General Robinson said, that 
the one part of--there are two parts of the transition that 
tend to continue after every type of mobilization or number of 
orders, and that is the medical issue and USERRA.
    So how to find that happy medium, you are right, do they 
really need the whole transition that you would normally get on 
active duty, or can we do an Operational Reserve transition 
that addresses those areas that seem to be continuing problems.
    Mr. Levin. Anybody else.
    Mr. Elkins. Our association would echo that. There needs to 
be a bifurcated system. For example, members of the National 
Guard that have jobs, know they are coming back to jobs, might 
not necessarily need to go through the online portion of the 
resume-writing requirements. And I think that it would behoove 
the command team at the company level to discretionarily 
understand the nature of the mobilization and, if the soldier 
can show that is not necessary, then they could be waived out 
of it. However, issues like mental health care, health care in 
general, and/or some of these USERRA and Civil Service Member 
Relief Act protections, I think that should be not waived.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    I would now like to recognize Ms. Lee for some additional 
questions.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Chairman.
    General Deskins and O'Guinn, I wanted to ask, does the 
National Guard or the Army Reserve collect any information on 
servicemember under or unemployment, economic insecurity, or 
financial instability, food insecurity, homelessness, or 
abandonment of educational programs when they return?
    General Deskins. The National Guard does not collect any of 
that kind of information.
    General O'Guinn. The Army Reserve has no formal program to 
collect that as well.
    Ms. Lee. Yeah, I understand that it would probably be a 
little much to ask the services to track that information on 
servicemembers, but there is a conversation that needs to be 
had on how involved the services should be and need to be in 
servicemembers' lives when they are returning home.
    With the increasing in training days means more time away 
from work, there is concern that the Reserve Component 
servicemembers may be losing out on opportunities for 
advancement, but, more importantly, losing out on income when 
they are coming to drill. There are stories of employers shying 
away from hiring Reserve Component servicemembers because they 
expect them to be gone. At the end of the day, the Guard and 
the Reserves do not pay the bills every day and I think they 
need to know how the increase in readiness requirements and 
training days are impacting servicemembers' ability to earn a 
living.
    Does anyone on the panel care to comment on that?
    Mr. Elkins. The Enlisted Association of the National Guard 
would like to comment on that. This is something that we have 
heard from our members over and over again, and I will share an 
example.
    Someone who is in current National Guard status, because of 
the increased readiness requirements, is now doing 4-day drills 
in preparation of a mobilization, and they are a journeyman 
and, as a result of the work, they have an apprentice that 
needs to work under them. And they said, we have this issue, we 
are seeing it across our unit with people who are in this type 
of work where the employer now is out two employees, not just 
one, because the requirements to work as an apprentice, you 
need to work under someone who is a licensed journeyman.
    The parity benefit issue is something that is vitally 
important to a recruitment and retention and, if this is not 
addressed, it is our concern that people will get out of the 
Guard.
    Ms. Lee. All right.
    Ms. Lukas. I would like to also comment on all of that. So 
part of the problem that we have in the RC is that with the 
part of employment and tracking and finding employment, DoD 
can't actually do that. Right now, we can only voluntarily ask 
what their careers are and what they are doing. However, I had 
to speak before a National Science Academy briefing that was 
looking at Guard and Reserve issues a couple years ago and when 
I started going out to look at data, I realized that from 2001 
to about 2008 DoD had done a really great job of collecting 
data on how operational deployments and activations were 
affecting the Guard and Reserve and their families. I haven't 
seen so much of it, but Military OneSource did just complete 
one on families, and in there what they did ask is they asked 
employment issues, how the families are being affected, how 
children are being affected, and what they found is those 
problems aren't going away and they are still out there.
    DoD may not be able to ask some of those and they may do 
like us where we rely on the Department of Labor, but I think 
what we could do is maybe survey and keep a pulse on things a 
little bit more, because the civilian employment does affect 
DoD, you know, in two ways; one, the availability to you, but 
one of the great things about the RC is we bring our civilian 
experience. That is why what is happening with DAJ and, you 
know, all of the losses that are occurring on the medical side 
are important. Part of it is occurring because they are not 
getting the surgery, the experience they need for when they 
deploy, but we do. Our medical doctors are constantly having 
that medical care that they are providing in the surgeries.
    What we do on the civilian side does impact on the military 
side. And I just want to say, when they do those surveys, which 
I had said earlier it is a point of contention to me, is DoD 
and VA need to realize they have the same customer.
    Ms. Lee. Yeah.
    Ms. Lukas. DoD just was getting ready to do a task force on 
the pre--I can't even say it, one of the toxic exposures that 
was going on, which I thought they were doing a great job of 
putting it together and they put all the agencies that were 
part of it, VA wasn't on it. I'm like, dude, you are going to 
get them as a customer down the road. Let VA come before.
    It is still my goal that we do away with presumptions, 
because we do a better job of tracking the toxic, but that is 
just one example of how I think DoD and VA could work closer 
together as they address those issues that follow from, you 
know, the time you are in the military until the time you go to 
VA for the handoff.
    Ms. Lee. Yeah. As the chairwoman of the Technology 
Modernization Subcommittee, I couldn't agree more.
    Yes, General.
    General O'Guinn. Congresswoman, if I could just follow up 
on that briefly. So the Army Reserve, we have an office at our 
headquarters down at Fort Bragg who helps to link up either 
unemployed or underemployed soldiers with potential employers, 
you know, given the skill sets, what the employers are looking 
for, so that works out very well.
    We also have an application for the iPhones and for the 
Samsung's and all that, a Double Eagle app. So if a soldier 
wants to go online, they can look there, and there is a list of 
employers that are looking for very particular skill sets.
    We do have ways to try to link up soldiers with employers 
that are looking for the soldiers and the skills, the value-
based leadership they have, as well as the discipline that the 
soldiers bring to the civilian economy. So we do link that up; 
even if we don't know exactly the numbers, we do have pathways 
for them to get assistance.
    Thank you.
    General Deskins. If I may just briefly. Your concerns, you 
know, the National Guard has similar concerns, what is the 
impact of being an Operational Reserve on our members and on 
their families and on their employers.
    I will say that we have sponsored a 2-year IDA study that 
began in February of 2019, and the study will specifically 
focus on the issues and impacts pertaining to recruiting, 
retention, families, and employment.
    Ms. Lee. Oh, great. Thank you.
    Mr. Robinson. Very briefly, if I could. I think that we 
have to figure out a way to incentivize employers to attract 
and retain actively members serving in the National Guard and 
Reserve. We can do that through a couple of ways. I mean, we 
pay employers tax incentives for a lot of other reasons, you 
know, it would probably be a wise thing to look at paying 
employers some type of incentive for employing members of the 
Guard or Reserve. It is good for the country and it rewards the 
employer for doing the right thing.
    The second part of that is--and I continue to hammer on 
this medical care, medical benefits for all members who wear 
the cloth--in that particular instance you would have a member 
of the National Guard or Reserve that would be hired by a 
private company that would come to them with a full medical 
package, that in and of itself is a pretty decent financial 
incentive for a small company to employ those Soldiers and 
Airmen.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Good idea. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Lee. And I think that there are 
no further questions, so I think we can begin to bring this 
hearing to a close.
    I really want to thank you all for being here and for 
sharing your testimony today. It is my great honor to get to 
work with you as chair of this Subcommittee, where we hopefully 
are bringing bipartisan solutions to the table to help our 
veterans. It is one of the places that I think we are most well 
equipped to do that and all of the House Representatives. So, 
again, I really appreciate you sharing your voices this 
morning.
    I want to reiterate, if it is not completely clear, my 
strong belief that we have to provide Guard and Reserve members 
with the same benefits as active duty members when they are 
performing the similar or the same duties. So the bottom line 
is really simple: same job, same pay, same benefits. Pretty 
simple.
    All Members are going to have 5 legislative days to revise 
and extend their remarks, and include additional materials. 
Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]      
      
=======================================================================


                         A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

=======================================================================


                    Prepared Statement of Witnesses

                              ----------                              


           Prepared Statement of Major General Dawne Deskins

INTRODUCTION:

    Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and distinguished Members 
of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on 
National Guard and Veterans Affairs matters. On behalf of the Chief, 
National Guard Bureau (NGB), General Joseph Lengyel, thank you for your 
support of and commitment to our National Guard Soldiers, Airmen, their 
families, and supporting employers.
    The National Guard consists of the nearly 450,000 citizen Soldiers 
and Airmen of the Army and Air National Guard. They represent the 
finest National Guard force in our nation's history, and I am honored 
to be here today to advocate for them along with their families, their 
communities, and their employers who support them.
    The National Guard of today is not the National Guard of yesterday. 
Today's National Guard, in fact today's Reserve Component Soldiers, 
Airmen, Sailors, and Marines, are an integral part of this Nation's 
military capability. The Department of Defense cannot meet the 
objectives outlined in the National Defense Strategy without a robust 
National Guard and Reserve. Unique to the National Guard, however, is 
our dual capability to be used in a Federal or State status. In 
addition to providing forces to Combatant Commanders for the overseas 
warfight, the National Guard stands ready to assist local and State 
authorities in responding to natural and other disasters at home. Tens 
of thousands of National Guard Soldiers and Airmen are on duty at home 
and overseas on any given day in support of national security.
    The foundation of our National Guard's strength, and a key to our 
readiness, is our people: the team of Soldiers and Airmen we build 
through recruiting and retention programs. Men and women join our ranks 
and continue to serve out of patriotism, a sense of duty, and love of 
country and community. The benefits and entitlements provided to them 
as a result of their service are critical to retaining this all-
volunteer fighting force.
    The men and women who serve in the National Guard are always ready 
to meet America's needs. Knowing that their employers and families will 
have the necessary support they need will allow them to focus on their 
training to build a more ready and lethal force. Legislation such as 
the USERRA and the Department of Defense's Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 
Program not only incentivize Guard members continued service, but 
provide peace of mind to Soldiers. Airmen and their families.
    To the members of this Subcommittee, thank you for your time today 
to discuss these important topics and I look forward to your questions.

                                 

          Prepared Statement of Major General Michael O'Guinn

    THE CHANGING NATURE OF WARFARE AND RAPID ADVANCE OF TECHNOLOGY 
DEMANDS increased readiness and capability to deter and, if necessary, 
defeat aggression. As the sole, dedicated Federal reserve of the Army, 
Army Reserve Soldiers, comprising ready units-of-action from across the 
Nation and beyond, must be able to quickly mobilize, deploy, fight and 
win as part of the Total Force anywhere in the world.
    The Army Reserve comprises nearly twenty percent of the Army's 
organized units, half its total maneuver support and sustainment 
capabilities, and a quarter of its mobilization base-expansion 
capacity. With more than 200,000 Soldiers and civilian employees, and 
2,000 units spread across 20 Time Zones, America's Army Reserve is 
poised, positioned and ready to support the warfighter anywhere on 
earth.
    In response to the changing global security environment, the Army 
Reserve has pushed into a new state of operational readiness, improving 
the posture and capabilities of its forces to respond quickly to 
evolving threats from multiple sources. Under this construct, key 
early-deploying force capabilities are postured to aggregate and deploy 
rapidly with the requisite mobility, survivability, lethality and 
netted mission command architecture to fight and win on the 
battlefield.
    Meeting the challenge of fielding a sufficiently robust, capable, 
ready and lethal array of forces from the ranks of a part-time force is 
no small task, particularly in today's evolving and increasingly 
dynamic global security environment. But that part-time force is also 
our strength, for it encompasses a new generation of Army Reserve 
Soldiers and leaders, highly-skilled and educated in 148 career fields 
that correspond to the capabilities our forces require to conduct, 
sustain and prevail in combat operations.
    As we continue to build and sustain the readiness that is our first 
and most important priority, we are grateful for the steadfast support 
of the families who sustain our Soldiers and the employers who enable 
them to serve the Army and the Nation.
    Our challenge remains straightforward and dynamic, but also tough: 
this team needs to be ready enough to be relevant, but not so ready 
that our Soldiers cannot maintain good, meaningful civilian jobs and 
healthy, sustaining family lives.
    This challenge is exacerbated by the simple fact that we must 
recruit and retain our ranks where Soldiers live and work, and 
anticipate emerging demographics by moving force structure to not only 
where talent resides today, but where it will be tomorrow. This process 
demands agility, synchronization and integrated planning.
    Troops with the same level of experience, serving side-by-side, and 
conducting the same mission, should receive the same pay and benefits-
regardless of the uniform they wear or component they serve. We request 
your support for the Administration's Reserve Duty Status authorization 
proposal that would streamline duty statuses and align most benefits 
reserve component members receive when they are conducting the same 
mission. Parity efforts are an important part of overall readiness and 
morale.
    We appreciate Congress's continued support, engagement and counsel. 
As a result, your Army Reserve is postured to meet modern day 
challenges and future requirements. In these dynamic and challenging 
times, we will stay steady in the saddle as we continue to build the 
most capable, combat-ready, and lethal Federal reserve in the history 
of the Nation.

                                 

                  Prepared Statement of Daniel Elkins

    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States 
(EANGUS) was created in 1970 by a group of senior Non-Commissioned 
Officers. It was formally organized and incorporated in 1972 in 
Jackson, Mississippi, with the goal of increasing the voice of Enlisted 
persons in the National Guard on Capitol Hill for Enlisted National 
Guard issues. Beginning with twenty-three states, EANGUS now represents 
all 54 states and territories, with a constituency base of over 
414,000, hundreds of thousands of family members, as well as thousands 
of retired members.
    Headquartered and with offices in Washington, D.C., EANGUS is a 
long-time member of The Military Coalition (TMC) and is actively 
engaged with the Guard/Reserve Committee, the Health Care Committee, 
and the Veterans Committee. EANGUS often partners with other National 
Guard related associations such as the National Guard Association of 
the United States (NGAUS), the Adjutants General Association of the 
United States (AGAUS) and the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) to 
pursue common legislative goals and outcomes.
    EANGUS is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to promoting 
the status, welfare and professionalism of Enlisted members of the 
National Guard by supporting legislation that create adequate staffing, 
pay, benefits, entitlements, equipment and installations for the 
National Guard.
    The legislative goals of EANGUS are published annually. The goals 
and objectives are established through the resolution process, with 
resolutions passed by association delegates at the annual conference. 
From these resolutions come the issues that EANGUS will pursue in 
Congress, the Department of Defense, and in the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.
    President - Command Sergeant Major (Ret) Karen Craig
    Executive Director - Sergeant Major (Ret) Frank Yoakum
    Legislative Director - Daniel Elkins
                 Legislative Director Mr. Daniel Elkins
    Daniel Elkins is the Legislative Director for the Enlisted 
Association of the National Guard (EANGUS) and the Veterans Education 
Project. Mr. Elkins is also a Green Beret currently serving in the Army 
National Guard. Mr. Elkins has over fifteen years of experience 
advocating for Veterans.
    Working on behalf of Veterans, Mr. Elkins engages Congress, the 
White House, and key stakeholders daily. He is a regular member of the 
Veterans Roundtable Policy board at the Veterans Administration.
    Mr. Elkins' primary duties at EANGUS include directing 
Congressional outreach, engaging in policy reform, ensuring the 
protection of military benefits, and leading nationwide grassroots 
advocacy for Veterans. Before working for EANGUS, Mr. Elkins was the 
Congressional Liaison and Legislative Associate for the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW). At the VFW, Mr. Elkins' 
portfolio included legislative issues and Economic Opportunity with a 
focus on accessibility of benefits for Servicemembers, the Post-9/11 
G.I. Bill, the National Guard, and Military Engagements.
    Mr. Elkins' close ties with Congress, the Departments of Defense, 
Education, Labor, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Veterans 
Affairs often place him at the forefront of policy decisions that 
affect National Guard Servicemembers and Veterans.
    Mr. Elkins is a proud combat Veteran, still serving in 19th Special 
Forces Group Army National Guard. Before working as an advocate for 
Veterans and serving in the military, Mr. Elkins spent five years 
working overseas to solve complex issues related to human trafficking. 
During his time abroad, he worked across multilingual and cultural 
barriers with local and national governments in South America, sub-
Saharan Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.
    Mr. Elkins is originally from Western Maryland and currently 
resides in Washington, D.C. with his wife, Lauren.
                      Every Day in Uniform Counts
Guard 4.0: Title 32 Reform

    The 2005 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 108-375) 
added Chapter 9 to Title 32 for Homeland Defense activities. Since 
then, however, Congress has failed to recognize the operational nature 
of the National Guard in Title 32.
    Section 904 of Title 32 authorizes active service of National Guard 
members for homeland defense but specifies that authority as section 
502(f), which is a training status and not an operational status. 
Currently, there are over 2,400 National Guard Servicemembers operating 
under a 502(f) training status for months at a time in response to the 
national emergency on the Southern border. Operational missions are not 
training-they are the application and testing of that training-out of 
the classroom and onto the field of execution. National Guard personnel 
performing homeland defense duties on the border deserve the same 
benefits for their sacrifice and service as Active Duty.
    As the National Guard moves into Guard 4.0, transitioning from an 
operational reserve into a ready reserve force, members of the National 
Guard will see significant increase in training and operational tempo. 
It is imperative, then, that members of the National Guard are 
adequately accounted and compensated for their Service. EANGUS urges 
the Committee to amend section 904 to remove all references to section 
502(f) and institute a new authority for active service for the 
purposes of homeland defense, an operational mission status. In 
addition to proper accounting and benefits early stated, it will allow 
for accurate budgeting, manning, and tracking operational service. The 
revised authority fits well with the proposed duty status reform 
efforts of the Department of Defense and the increased utilization of 
the National Guard under Guard 4.0.
    In addition, EANGUS urges the Committee to develop a triggering 
mechanism for using Title 32 in the event of natural disasters. We 
suggest that once the Presidential declaration of a disaster occurs, or 
possibly seven days after said declaration, Title 32 section 904 would 
automatically trigger into authority (much the same as 10 USC 12310 
does for WMD-CST and Air Sovereignty missions), changing the duty 
status of responding National Guard members from State Active Duty to 
32 USC 904.

Post 9/11 GI Bill Parity for Education Benefits

    The National Guard deserves Post 9/11 GI Bill (PGIB) eligibility 
parity with Active Duty Servicemembers. Before October 1, 2016, the 
U.S. Army Human Resources Command interpreted Title 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3301(1)(B) to include only mobilization, contingency, Active Duty 
Operation Support for Active Component, and Contingency Operations for 
Active Duty Operation Support for Active Component as qualifying 
service for their Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits.
    That interpretation resulted in the Army Human Resources Command 
not reporting qualifying service to the Department of Veterans Affairs 
through the Veteran Information System, erroneously disapproving 
National Guard and Reserve Component members' participation in Transfer 
of Education Benefits (TEB), and not recording orders eligible for 
their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Beginning October 1, 2016, the Army 
Human Resources Command expanded their interpretation of title 10 USC 
Sec.  12301(d) to include Reservists who conduct Active Duty for 
Training (ADT), Active Duty Special Work (ADSW), and Active Duty 
Operational Support-Reserve Component (ADOS-RC) performed after 
September 10, 2001 as qualifying service for the PGIB and TEB 
eligibility.
    However, Army Human Resources Command did not include members of 
the National Guard who conduct other forms of active service within the 
scope of their interpretation. This leaves members of National Guard 
disadvantaged and overlooked in the accumulation of their Post-9/11 GI 
Bill benefits and their Transfer of Education Benefits while performing 
the same service and following the same orders as their peers. For 
example, a member of the National Guard will be on orders to attend 
Active Duty for Training to receive their hazmat certification, or to 
attend sniper school. Also present could be a Reserve Component member 
and an Active Duty Servicemember. All are in uniform attending the same 
classes and serving the same period of time. The National Guard 
Servicemember will not accrue any eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill 
benefits while performing active service, but the Reservist and Active 
Duty Servicemember will.
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard believes that Every 
Day in Uniform Counts, and that members of the National Guard should be 
at parity with their counterparts in Active Duty to be eligible to earn 
and accrue benefits from their service. Therefore, EANGUS recommends 
the 116th Congress to:

      Amend section 3311(b) of Title 38, United States Code, to 
allow for additional duty statuses to qualify for the Post-9/11 GI 
Bill;

      Amend section 3301 of Title 38, United States Code, to 
include duty under section 502 of Title 32, and for which a member is 
eligible to receive pay under sections 204, 206, or 372 of Title 37; 
and,

      Amend section 3301 of Title 38, United States Code, to 
include Active Duty for Training, Active Duty as defined in 101(12) of 
Title 32, and Full-time National Guard Duty as defined in section 
101(19) of Title 32.

Proving Eligibility and the DD Form 214

    There is no capstone document that summarizes both Reserve 
Component (RC) and Active Component (AC) service. The current process 
disregards transitions across the continuum of service between AC and 
RC through a Servicemember's career. The lack of a DD Form 214 inhibits 
RC Servicemembers from claiming earned benefits and proving the full 
scope of their military service. Additionally, when a RC member does 
receive a DD Form 214 upon completion of active service, it often does 
not include cumulative service. This makes it difficult for RC members 
to maximize their earned benefits.
    RC Servicemembers do not receive a DD Form 214 unless they are on 
active duty orders for more than 90 consecutive days.\1\ In addition to 
having a period of active service without official documentation, 
without a DD Form 214 being provided when an RC member serves less than 
90 days they cannot prove eligibility for Federal Veteran benefits such 
as the G.I Bill, Veteran's preference for Federal employment, and 
military funeral benefits. According to DoDI 1336.01, Reserve Component 
Servicemembers only receive a DD Form 214 when:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ DoDI 1336.01, Enclosure 3, Paragraph 2(d)

      Separated from a period of active duty for training, 
full-time training duty, or active duty for special work when they have 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
served 90 days or more.

      When required by the Secretary of the Military Department 
concerned for shorter periods.

      Upon separation for cause or for physical disability 
regardless of the length of time served on active duty.

      When ordered to active duty for a contingency operation 
regardless of the number of days served on active duty.

    The VA website\2\ instructs servicemembers that the DD Form 214 or 
``any other documents you think are necessary'' must be presented to 
prove eligibility for various benefits. For example, Post-9/11 G.I. 
Bill benefits in Title 38 requires 30 days of active duty service to 
qualify for this benefit. However, RC Servicemembers do not receive a 
DD Form 214 unless they are on active duty orders for more than 90 
consecutive days or for a contingency operation. RC Servicemembers are 
often placed on assignments lasting less than 90 consecutive days. 
Complicating the process further, members of the National Guard can 
transfer states, known as Interstate Transfer (IST), over the course of 
their career, but the records don't always follow. Critical service-
related documentation often remains in the issuing state. Human error 
and a convoluted personnel system can cause orders to be incorrectly 
documented or not documented at all. Making matters worse, 
Servicemembers are often unaware that the onus is on them to maintain 
personal records of all orders. The result of the current, 
disaggregated personnel system results in many Servicemembers receiving 
only a portion of their earned benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.gibill.va.gov/apply-for-benefits/road-map/2-
collect-your-information.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As we work with Committees on Armed Services to ensure members of 
the National Guard consistently receive an updated DD Form 214, the 
Enlisted Association of the National Guard recommends the House and 
Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs to:

      Direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to explicitly 
and publicly list all qualifying documents to prove service, including 
the NGB Form 22; and,

      Direct the VA to conduct an education campaign at all 
regional offices to inform employees of all qualifying documents that 
prove service, including the NGB Form 22.

      Direct the DoD to provide a DD Form 214 for all periods 
of active service, not just those periods of consecutive 90 days.

Medical Discharge Parity

    Members of the National Guard that are medically discharged 
documented by NGB Form 22 are not eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill 
education benefits; this is a stark contrast to Active Duty 
Servicemembers who are eligible to receive full Post-9/11 GI Bill 
education benefits when medically discharged and documented by DD Form 
214.
    The medical discharge provision in 38 USC 3311(b)(2) only applies 
to individuals discharged or released from Active Duty for a service-
connected disability. It does not cover individuals released from the 
National Guard or Reserve Components. Consequently, an Active Duty 
Servicemember who receives a medical discharge noted on a DD Form 214 
may have eligibility for full Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits without having 
served 36 months Active Duty. A Servicemember in the National Guard, 
however, who receives a medical discharge noted on the NGB Form 22 is 
not eligible to qualify for any Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
    Additionally, Legislative Liaisons from the National Guard Bureau 
and VA have stated that there is an appeals process in VA using the 
Department of Defense's Identity Repository Veterans Information 
Solution (VIS). For those who believe they ought to qualify for full 
Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, the Department of Veterans Affairs will 
review the unique nature of the appealing Servicemember's medical 
discharge. However, VA is very firm that eligibility must be noted on 
the DD Form 214, disqualifying members of the National Guard from this 
appeals process.
    Members of the National Guard who are medically discharged due to 
service must have the same opportunity for benefits as Active Duty 
Servicemembers. The Enlisted Association of the National Guard believes 
this inequity reinforces the need for a DD Form 214 for all members of 
the National Guard, and we recommend the Committee direct DoD to 
provide a DD Form 214 for all periods of active service to members of 
the National Guard.

Fighting Against Suicide in the National Guard

    On average, 20 Veterans commit suicide every day. Members of the 
National Guard and the Reserve components make up roughly 25 percent of 
these suicides, and more than half of these victims within the National 
Guard and Reserve components could not access mental health care (about 
three in every five). This means that over half of the suicides among 
Reserve component members might have been prevented, but these men and 
women are ineligible to gain access to mental health care through the 
Department of Veterans Affairs because they have never been activated 
on Federal orders.
    Current data available through VA\3\ indicates that Veterans are 
most at-risk within the first three years of separation, with the risk 
factor rising steadily during the first year. Additionally, this risk 
factor is higher among non-deployed Veterans. On the other hand, if 
more Reserve Component members are able to access VA mental health care 
within the critical time-window of the first year of separation, rates 
of suicide might fall dramatically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.publichealth.va.gov/epidemiology/studies/suicide-
risk-death-risk-recent-veterans.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard believes that every 
day in uniform counts, and Servicemembers who do not deploy still feel 
the burden of service of their peers. To maintain the overall lethality 
of the Reserve components, all members of the National Guard and 
Reserves need access to mental health care.
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States 
recommends that preventative mental health care be extended to never 
federally activated Reserve component members such that:

      One year of mental health care through VA be available to 
Reserve component members upon Expiration Term of Service (ETS); and

      An additional year of coverage be allotted if and when a 
never federally activated Reserve component member contacts VA for 
mental health care.

Calculating the Return on Investment of the Post 9/11 GI Bill By 
    Creating a GI Bill Calculator

    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard believes calculating 
the Return on Investment (ROI) of the Post 9/11 GI Bill will provide 
greater oversight of GI Bill eligible institutions, while providing 
transparency to Veterans deciding where to invest their GI Bill 
education benefits. We recommend that the Committee direct the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to form a partnership with the 
Department of Education in order to share its data with the Institute 
of Education Sciences (IES). We suggest the VA share the following data 
sets:

    1. The name of the institution receiving benefits

    2. The program attended

    3. How much benefit used

    4. Age and rank, if a Veteran

    5. Whether it is a Veteran or their family using Post-9/11 GI Bill 
Dollars

    Individual student-level data systems exist in many Federal 
agencies, but Federal data remains siloed, inhibiting the study of 
student outcomes. Even when agencies recognize the value of linking 
their data, there is no current infrastructure to facilitate such data 
sharing. This problem manifests itself in the inability of the VA to 
accurately report basic outcomes and return on investment of the 
billions of dollars spent on the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
    While VA has made significant progress in the administration and 
oversight of Veteran education benefits, as the Department of Education 
moves towards programmatic level data, updating the GI Bill Comparison 
Tool is essential to ensure that Veteran students are given Veteran-
specific outcomes to be at parity with the information given to 
nonveteran students. Without this necessary improvement to create a GI 
Bill Calculator, Veterans and their family members who take advantage 
of GI Bill benefits might enroll in programs that have low Veteran 
student success rates and low ROI for a specific degree pathway, 
despite having high institutional outcomes in general. In turn, many 
Veterans will continue to invest precious time and scarce taxpayer 
dollars on pursuing a degree or credential that will not produce 
desired results.
    Better data could be used immediately to improve the GI Bill 
Comparison Tool and calculate the ROI of the Post- 9/11 GI Bill, 
without VA having to obtain all the necessary data-sharing agreements 
themselves.\4\ At present, the Department of Education's College 
Scorecard displays a range of student outcomes, like the average salary 
of an institution's graduates, since it is linked with IRS data, or 
debt data derived from the office of Federal Student Aid. The Scorecard 
will soon be presenting student outcome data at the even more 
meaningful programmatic level. If the Department of Veterans Affairs 
agrees to share its data with The Department of Education, all 
necessary data will be linked in order to disaggregate Veteran students 
down to the programmatic level, calculate the ROI of the Post-9/11 GI 
Bill, and create an improved GI Bill Calculator for all Veteran 
students. This will provide the transparency Students Veterans deserve 
when deciding where and how to invest their GI Bill benefits, further 
enhancing the ROI of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and provide additional 
oversight over GI Bill eligible institutions of higher education.

    \4\ This data sharing is already established in 20 U.S. Code Sec.  
1015, which directs the Commissioner of Education Statistics to: 
develop a uniform methodology of reporting postsecondary spending, 
design systems capable of receiving and analyzing data from other 
Federal agencies, disseminate data to stakeholders, and work with the 
Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to collect, study, and 
disseminate information on financial aid and education benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holistic Military Assessments for Postsecondary Credit Analysis of 
    Programs of Instruction

    Currently the American Council on Education (ACE) holds the DoD 
contract to recommend to institutions of higher education the credit 
equivalencies of DoD training for postsecondary degree and 
credentialing programs. However, ACE does not fully evaluate all 
military training curriculums; ACE only evaluates Basic Training and 
some Military Occupational Skill schools with few exceptions-ignoring 
Servicemembers' duties, additional training, assignments and 
responsibilities, yearly performance reviews, and deployment time.
    Furthermore, ACE's recommendations fall short of what 
Servicemembers deserve because they do not fully capture competencies, 
as ACE does not fully review Programs of Instruction (POI), or cross-
reference these POI's to college syllabi in order to recommend academic 
credits. The lack of an accepted peer reviewed evaluation of military 
POIs often places institutions of higher education in a difficult 
position, since, without an accepted standard of evaluation, 
institutions that are willing to innovate to award more college credit 
to Servicemembers and Veterans must invest substantial resources to 
attempt their own evaluations of POIs, while potentially jeopardizing 
their accreditation.
    Consequently, Servicemembers and Veterans are denied postsecondary 
credit they deserve for their military training and experience. This 
forces Servicemembers and Veterans to take redundant courses in order 
to earn a degree and enter the workforce. These additional barriers are 
redundant expenditures of taxpayer dollars in the form of military 
training, Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and even Title IV loans. 
Institutions are often unaware of how to successfully evaluate prior 
military training for credit without being able to review training 
curriculum (POIs).
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard recommends that:

      The Department of Veterans Affairs require institutions 
to develop official policy on the analysis of available Programs of 
Instruction; and,

      To develop policy that aims to award the maximum amount 
of postsecondary credit to Servicemembers and Veterans for their 
military training; and,

      Whenever possible, that these awarded credits be directly 
applicable to a Servicemember's or Veteran's degree pathway.

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

    The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 
(USERRA) was enacted to eliminate or minimize disadvantages created by 
military duty to civilian careers. Its intention is to minimize the 
disruption to the lives of persons performing military service, their 
employers, their fellow employees, and their communities, by providing 
for the prompt reemployment of Servicemembers upon completion of duty, 
and to prohibit discrimination against persons because of their service 
in the uniformed services.
    However, under the Guard 4.0 initiative, members of the National 
Guard are being called upon more frequently than ever before to conduct 
more Active Duty for Training, longer and more frequent drill periods, 
and must reach readiness for combat deployment every three years, 
resulting in many more Servicemembers in the National Guard deploying 
for combat rotation. Due to these more frequent training rotations, 
employers of members of the National Guard are becoming increasingly 
disincentivized to hire these Servicemembers, and members of the 
National Guard are exhausting their five-year time cap of USERRA 
protections faster than anticipated. Ultimately, without further 
protections, enlistment and retention in the National Guard will 
decrease, and employers will begin to discriminate against members of 
the National Guard and Reserve components.
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard (EANGUS) recommends 
amending 38 U.S. Code to:

      Extend the five-years of employment and reemployment 
protections in Sec.  4312; and,

      Extend the five years of pension benefit protections in 
Sec.  4318(b)(2); and,

      Grant employers increased tax credits for hiring National 
Guard Servicemembers.

Student Loan Forbearance

    Members in Active Duty are eligible for student loan forbearance 
while on Active Duty orders, but members of the National Guard are not 
eligible for student loan forbearance while on State Active Duty or 
when activated on Federal orders for national emergency for less than 
30 days.
    Unfortunately, as with Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) 
protections, members of the National Guard are sometimes placed on 
multiple 30-day orders consecutively, effectively denying 
Servicemembers in the National Guard protections and benefits because 
these orders are not viewed consecutively. While consecutive short 
deployments are not uncommon, each deployment has its own set of orders 
that are viewed as discreet times of service. When these consecutive 
orders happen repeatedly, however, such as when National Guard 
Servicemembers have been deployed for six months, and each month had 
its own set of 30-day orders, it is clear that National Guard 
Servicemembers are being intentionally denied benefits due to a 
loophole in U.S. Code.
    This must be stopped. The Enlisted Association of the National 
Guard urges the Committee to address this abuse and ensure that member 
of the National Guard receive the protections and benefits they deserve 
by closing the 30-day loophole, and counting back-to-back sets of 
orders as continuous.

Servicemember Civil Relief Act

    The Servicemember Civil Relief Act (SCRA) was enacted in order to 
provide for, strengthen, and expedite the defense of the nation. SCRA 
enables Servicemembers to devote their entire energy into the defense 
needs of the nation by protecting Servicemembers during active duty 
service-granting them temporary suspension of judicial and 
administrative proceedings, capping accruing interest rates, and 
pausing transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of 
Servicemembers during their military service.
    However, when the first iteration of SCRA, 50 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  
501- 579, was amended, it excluded Reserve Component and National Guard 
Servicemembers. In place of Federal protections, the onus was put on 
individual States to pass SCRA protections for their members of the 
National Guard and Reserve Components. During this process, SCRA 
protections were annulled for members of the National Guard while on 
Title 32 orders for less than 30 consecutive days.
    Unfortunately, this has made members of the National Guard 
vulnerable to civil actions during periods of unavailability due to 
military obligation. The amendment to this act has allowed civil 
attorneys to exploit National Guard personnel; with civil attorneys 
being trained to bring emergency motions and schedule appearances 
during times of unavailability, rendering a default judgment against 
Servicemembers on Title 32 orders, which they have very little, if any, 
ability to reconcile.
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard (EANGUS) recommends 
amending 50 U.S. Code Sec. Sec.  3901-4043 to include:

      National Guard personnel performing Inactive Duty for 
Training;

      National Guard personnel performing Annual Training;

      National Guard personnel attending training; and,

      National Guard personnel performing service due to an 
emergency not ordered by the President.

85/15 Reform

    Members of the National Guard have faced undue difficulty 
persisting in postsecondary education due to diverse interpretations of 
the 85/15 Rule. 38 CFR Sec.  21.4201 and 38 USC Sec.  3680A state that 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) shall not approve the use of 
education benefits in any course for an eligible Veteran if the percent 
of Veterans using education benefits in that course exceeds 85 percent. 
While these Veterans may still enroll, the 85/15 Rule prohibits paying 
VA education benefits to students enrolling in a program when more than 
85 percent of the students enrolled in that program are having any 
portion of their tuition, fees, or other charges paid for them by the 
school or VA. This means that VA cannot give eligible Veterans their 
benefits to attend a program or curriculum with a high 85-15 student 
ratio.
    While this accountability metric has been helpful in overseeing the 
use and abuse of VA education benefits, it has had an unforeseen 
adverse effect on members of the National Guard, who often must 
disenroll from their current postsecondary programs for military 
service. While deployed, members of the National Guard are often 
notified they will be unable to reenroll in their postsecondary 
programs due to changes in their program's 85/15 ratio.
    Believing this to be an incorrect application of this oversight 
metric, EANGUS appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs for an official statement regarding the application of the 85/
15 Rule. The Secretary's response has changed policy governing 85/15 
application in order to secure VA education benefits for disenrolled 
Veteran Students if they wish to reenroll, but does not specify the 
conditions of disenrollment to military service.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Official Letter from Secretary Wilkie of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs included in Appendix
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard believes this 
interpretation of policy is too wide in scope, and weakens the 
oversight provided by the 85/15 Rule. Therefore, EANGUS recommends the 
116th Congress to amend 38 USC Sec.  3680A to limit the scope of 
reenrolling Veteran students eligible for VA benefits, regardless of 
the current 85/15 ratio of their program, only to Veteran students that 
had to disenroll due to military service.

GI Bill Transferability

    Beginning January 2020, new policy will go into effect that 
restricts eligibility for Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) only to 
Servicemembers with ``at least six years, but not more than 16 years, 
of total creditable service. Eligibility does not guarantee 
approval.\6\'' This policy change would require Servicemembers to 
commit to an additional four years of service at the time of their 
application for TEB, rather than after six years of service, canceling 
previous exceptions. Additionally, this revised policy precludes 
Servicemembers with more than 16 years of services from transferring 
their earned education benefits to their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ DoDI 1341.13, Page 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department of Defense states that the purpose of these policy 
changes is to improve retention in the uniformed services, based on the 
``authority to transfer unused education benefits to family members'' 
stipulated in Title 38 U.S.C. Section 3319(a)(2): ``The purpose of this 
authority is to promote recruitment and retention in the uniformed 
services.'' However, this policy change effectively breaks our promise 
to military families: it moves the goalpost for eligibility, sows 
confusion among Servicemembers, exacerbates current inequities for 
eligibility, and most importantly it penalizes the men and women who 
have served in uniform the longest.
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States 
respectfully urges Congress to make the Post-9/11 GI Bill truly an 
earned benefit, ensuring that all Servicemembers who have completed 10 
years of service in the uniformed services are eligible to transfer 
their benefits to their families at any time-both while serving on 
Active Duty and as a Veteran.

Air National Guard Tuition Assistance Parity

    The U.S. Air Force (USAF) does not allocate funds for members of 
the Air National Guard (ANG) to receive Federal Tuition Assistance 
(TA). Historically, Title 32 Airmen could access the TA funds when they 
were deployed in a Title 10 status, or on Active Guard and Reserve 
Title 32 status. In October 2015, an Associate's degree became a 
mandatory prerequisite for promotion to the ranks of E-8 (Senior Master 
Sergeant) and E-9 (Chief Master Sergeant) in the Air National Guard. A 
recent USAF policy change, impacting Airmen's need to receive higher 
education, created a scenario where EANGUS members believe the Air 
Force should consider changing its policy to allow members to receive 
TA. Specifically, this policy change mandates that in order to achieve 
senior enlisted ranks, ANG members must possess a degree.
    State Tuition Assistance programs substitute a force-wide funding 
for the Air National Guard. Unfortunately, State programs are disparate 
and disadvantage Airmen in States where resources are marginal or 
nonexistent. Federal TA provides a common foundation of funding to 
achieve policy requirements.
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States 
urges the Air National Guard to fund Federal Tuition Assistance for all 
ANG members.

Montgomery Selected Reserve and Federal Tuition Assistance Parity

    On March 15, 2011, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1322.25 
changed existing policy governing the Montgomery GI Selected Reserve 
(MGIB-SR). Previously, Reserve component Servicemembers eligible for 
MGIB- SR could use Federal Tuition Assistance (TA) concurrently with 
their GI Bill benefit. This policy was at parity with Active Duty 
benefits, i.e. the Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (MGIB-AD) and the 
Post-9/11 GI Bill (PGIB), which are both able to be used concurrently 
with Federal tuition assistance. However, Department of Defense 
Instruction 1322.25 changed this policy, barring Servicemembers of the 
Selected Reserve from being able to use TA concurrently with their 
education benefit.
    The Department of Defense states a reversal of this DoDI will not 
bring parity to the Selected Reserve but must require a legislative 
solution. For, Servicemembers eligible for MGIB-AD and PGIB are, by 
statute, able to concurrently use TA with their education benefit. 38 
U.S.C. Sec.  3014(b) governs MGIB-AD, and states that Servicemembers 
may use MGIB-AD funds to supplement tuition, fees and expenses directly 
attributable to the school that are not covered by TA; housing, 
transportation, and subsistence expenses cannot be paid by MGIB- AD 
while in concurrent receipt of TA.
    The Post-9/11 GI Bill is more generous and flexible in concurrent 
use with TA. While 33 U.S.C. Sec.  3313(e)(f) restricts PGIB funds to 
tuition and fees of an educational institution not covered by TA or 
other assistance, it also provides a lump sum for ``books, supplies, 
equipment, and other educational costs.''
    Presently, no similar statutory provision exists in law governing 
the MGIB-SR program.
    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S. 
recommends amending 10 U.S.C. Sec.  16131 to provide a program 
authorizing the concurrent use of TA benefits and MGIB-SR benefits to 
the same extent that such benefits may be used under the Post-9/11 GI 
Bill (33 U.S.C Sec.  3313(e)(f)).
    Amending DoDI 1322.25 and 32 CFR Sec. 68 to reflect changes in 
statute will also be required.

                                 

                 Prepared Statement of J. Roy Robinson

    Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis and other distinguished 
members of the Subcommittee:

Introduction:

    On behalf of the almost 45,000 members of the National Guard 
Association of the United States and the nearly 450,000 soldiers and 
airmen of the National Guard, we greatly appreciate this opportunity to 
share with you our thoughts on today's hearing topics for the record. 
We also thank you for the tireless oversight you have provided to 
ensure accountability and improve our nation's services to veterans and 
their families.
    In my testimony, I would like to focus on three specific issues 
impacting Guardsmen that fall under the jurisdiction of this Committee. 
These issues are: expanding TRICARE to cover all servicemembers in all 
statuses, streamlining record keeping of service across the Total 
Force, and highlighting legislative initiatives that support our 
employers as readiness requirements and operational tempo continue to 
increase.

Strengthening Service Member Civilian Employment

    As the National Guard remains an integral part of our nation's 
defense, both at home and abroad, increased training and readiness 
requirements combined with more frequent deployments has strained the 
traditional citizen-soldier construct, placing stressors on both the 
Guardsmen and their employers.
    While I cannot anticipate future operational demands, what is 
clearly true is that the era of ``one weekend a month and two weeks a 
year'' is over. Our members are serving in uniform more days throughout 
the year and often completing military tasks on civilian time, all 
while undertaking additional military administrative and training 
duties due to insufficient levels of full-time support personnel. As we 
continue to increase operational demands on our soldiers and airmen, 
their employers are feeling the effects of their extended absence. In 
the wake of this new reality, we ask that the Committee supports 
continued efforts to assist Reserve Component service members and their 
employers.
    One major effort I would like to discuss with the committee today 
to alieve some of these pressures is the idea of providing zero-cost 
TRICARE health coverage to the National Guard and Reserve. While this 
is not an effort that will be concluded this year, I believe very 
strongly that the time is now to discuss if an Operational Reserve is 
better served through ensuring guaranteed medical coverage in lieu of 
the current disjointed system of third party health contractors and 
Periodic Health Assessments.
    The benefits of zero-cost TRICARE coverage extend beyond medical 
readiness and well-being for reserve component military families. 
TRICARE, one of our top retention policies, will help us keep a manned 
and ready force. In addition to building medical readiness today, 
providing preventive care throughout our service members' careers will 
likely reduce medical expenditures when they transition from drilling 
Guardsman to Veteran. Further, this will become a significant employer 
benefit when a CEO or hiring manager knows that this service member 
won't require health insurance coverage. As we ask more and more of our 
National Guard and Reserve units in peacetime training, I worry that 
companies will start to choose equally qualified non-military 
candidates over our service members simply because they are concerned 
that the Soldier or Airman will be away too often. We must find a way 
to better incentivize these companies.
    Unemployment and underemployment also continues to be a concern for 
our members. We ask for your continued support in passing critical 
legislation creating pathways to steady employment for Guardsmen. We 
support Congressman Ryan and Palazzo's legislation, H.R. 801, the 
Reserve Component Employer Incentive, Compensation, and Relief Act of 
2019, which grants tax credits to employers who employ members of the 
National Guard and Reserve. Legislation like this is critical to 
incentivize National Guard employment as we continue to demand more 
training time of our citizen soldiers.

Improving Data Management

    A significant concern across the Total Force is easing burdensome 
bureaucracy which limits the ability for our service members to 
transfer among the different components. Creating hurdles to the 
Continuum of Service is a detriment to those currently serving and 
creates a significant hurdle in retaining service members as individual 
frustration builds.
    One major concern is with the Certificate of Active Service, the 
DD-214. Currently, only Active Duty service over 90 days is captured on 
this critical document of final service. If a Guardsman serves but 
never goes on Active Duty, they currently don't receive a DD-214 which 
is generally seen as the gold standard of record of military service. 
Additionally, any active service less than 90 days, which is quite 
common, will never be captured in the cumulative data on the record. 
This current practice places the record keeping burden on the Veteran 
as they have to maintain years of documents rather than having a 
cumulative document similar to their Active Duty counterparts. 
Streamlining this process will benefit the service member as well as 
the VA as it will reduce confusion over what is a valid document. NGAUS 
firmly believes that there needs to be one Total Force record of 
military service, which includes Reserve Component duty.

Conclusion:

    I thank you all again for allowing NGAUS to testify before the 
Committees today. The work done here is critical to the well-being of 
our service members and the success of our National Guard. I look 
forward to continuing our work together and sincerely appreciate the 
steadfast leadership from the members and their staffers in advocating 
for the men and women of the National Guard.

                                 

                   Prepared Statement of Susan Lukas

    The Reserve Officers Association of the United States, now doing 
business as the Reserve Organization of America is a professional 
association of all ranks of servicemembers, veterans, and family 
members of our nation's seven uniformed services.
    ROA was founded in 1922 by General of the Armies John ``Black 
Jack'' Pershing, during the drastic reductions of the army after World 
War I. It was formed to support a strong national defense and focused 
on the establishment of a corps of reserve officers who would be the 
heart of a military expansion in the event of war. Under ROA's 1950 
congressional charter, our purpose is unchanged: to promote the 
development and execution of policies that will provide adequate 
national defense. We do so by developing and offering expertise on the 
use and resourcing of America's Reserve Components.
    The association's members include Reserve and Guard Soldiers, 
Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen who frequently serve on 
active duty to meet critical needs of the uniformed services. ROA's 
membership also includes commissioned officers from the United States 
Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration who often are first responders during national disasters 
and help prepare for homeland security.

    President: Col. Judith A. Davenport, U.S. Army Reserve (ret.) 202-
646-7706

    Executive Director: Maj. Gen. Jeffrey E. Phillips, U.S. Army 
Reserve (ret.) 202-646-7726

    Director, Legislation and Military Policy: Lt. Col. Susan Lukas, 
U.S. Air Force Reserve (ret.) 202-646-7713

    Legislative Director: Kevin C Hollinger (serving Army National 
Guard Sgt. First Class) 202-646-7734

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL GRANTS OR CONTRACTS

    The ROA is a member-supported organization that has not received 
grants, contracts, or subcontracts from the Federal government in the 
past three years. All other activities and services of the associations 
are accomplished free of any direct Federal funding.

STATEMENT

    ROA appreciates the opportunity to discuss issues that affect 
National Guard and Reserve servicemembers. ROA's focus today aligns 
with our congressional charter, ``.to support and promote the 
development in execution of a military policy for the United States 
that will provide adequate national security.''

Operational Force V. Strategic Force

    The Reserve Components (RC) of America's military have long been 
called the nation's ``strategic reserve.'' More than two centuries 
before the well-known ``surge'' of 2007 in Iraq, our founding fathers 
established a strategic force to augment America's new navy and army. 
The surge force came from each state's militia; when needed by the 
growing nation, they were ordered into a Federal status, not unlike 
what occurs today when the National Guard is ``federalized.''
    Over time the militia became part of the Reserve Component, 
comprising the National Guard and the Federal reserves of the military 
services.
    Limited wartime uses of the strategic reserve occurred through the 
Vietnam War. At the end of the Cold War the active component was 
reduced, and the RC began to be used to augment peacekeeping missions 
and other active-duty operational requirements.
    The RC responded to the Gulf War in 1991, operations associated 
with support to NATO, and missions responding to terrorism. Today, 100 
percent of some missions have been assigned to the reserve components.
    The shift from a mainly strategic role to a role including both 
strategic and operational responsibilities has not occurred without 
problems. After 9/11, the U.S. Congress took steps to accommodate the 
transition; new duty statuses that codified types of mobilizations and 
the establishment of an updated G.I. Bill are two examples. ROA's 
testimony is focused on a selection of the subjects under the purview 
of the Subcommittee.

    EMPLOYMENT: Reserve Component employment and unemployment issues 
have continued despite the drawdown from Iraq and Afghanistan. ROA 
believes the focus of employment and transition from VA for 
servicemembers is skewed toward those in the Active Component (AC), not 
the RC.

    EDUCATION: Many servicemembers cannot qualify for the Post-9/11 
G.I. Bill education benefit because of record keeping that fails to 
accurately reflect their qualifying active duty time. The GI Bill is an 
integral part of enabling a successful civilian career. Education is a 
key factor for veterans to qualify for a job that enables them to 
support their family and a career that will move them toward financial 
freedom.

    SCRA and USERRA: Another important employment issue is to help our 
RC servicemembers stay focused on their military service when called on 
by having Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 
1994 (USERRA) laws in place. We need to protect their employment while 
on military orders. They should be able to return without fear of civil 
actions that may take place as a result of their military service.

    OTHER: While not under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, 
servicemembers have issues in other areas in order to qualify for 
veteran benefits. These will be addressed at the end of the testimony.

EMPLOYMENT

    A true story: An enlisted member of the New York Air National Guard 
(ANG) is a paid firefighter in New York. His supervisors at the fire 
department objected strenuously to his ANG participation and gave him a 
hard time about the days of fire department work that he missed to 
perform military duty and training.
    In June 2013 the firefighter took the examination for promotion to 
lieutenant. His was the high score among all the firefighters who took 
the examination. All the candidates were interviewed for the promotion 
by a committee consisting of three fire department supervisors.
    The firefighter stated under oath that the three committee members 
had raised the issue of his ANG service and had suggested that his 
military service disqualified him from the promotion. The city promoted 
two candidates to lieutenant from the June 2013 process. Of the two 
candidates selected, one scored third on the test and the other fourth.
    Don't let anyone tell you that government at any level is free of 
discrimination against members of the Reserve and National Guard.
    ROA has several legislative proposals on Reserve Component members 
employment.

Veteran Status: Change Federal Hiring Preference for Reserve Component 
    Members

    ROA urges Congress to confer veteran status for purposes of Federal 
hiring veterans' preference on Reserve Component members after 180 
``cumulative'' days on active duty versus the current ``consecutive'' 
days on active duty.
    Members of the Reserve and Guard meet operational requirements by 
performing duty on a frequent basis but often for short periods of 
time. Because DoD limits many mobilizations to 179 or fewer days, 
reservists can complete an entire career without serving the 180 
consecutive days needed for veteran status per Title 5 U.S.C. 2108 - 
even though they may have aggregated several years of active service.
    A case in point is Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Bonnie 
Carroll, founder of Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors. Bonnie 
retired from the military as a major, with 32 years of service in the 
Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. During those three-plus 
decades, she did not accrue 180 or more consecutive days on active duty 
. . .
    The ROA proposal establishes parity between the Reserve and Active 
Components in fulfilling a 180-day requirement for veteran status. 
However, this proposal does it in a manner that reflects how the 
services use the Guard and Reserve, for shorter periods of time to meet 
peacetime operations, AC augmentation, and other ``surge'' 
requirements.
    In the 115th Session, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
proposed legislation that would have supported this change but did not 
make it out of committee for consideration. This bipartisan proposal 
requires minimal administrative support and does not require offset 
funding.
    This reform offers meaningful benefits, at no charge to the 
taxpayer, for both members of the Reserve and National Guard, and the 
nation that needs quality civil servants in the Federal government.

Transition Assistance Program (TAP)

    The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs 
have built their transition program on the premise that veterans need 
employment and transition assistance as they leave their military 
service upon separation or retirement.
    However, employment and transition assistance are needed by members 
of the RC at different times and for different reasons than those in 
the AC.
    Reserve Component members need employment assistance throughout 
their military career because they also maintain a civilian career. 
Because National Guard and Reserve members are placed on and off 
military orders they are constantly ``transitioning'' off active duty 
orders every time they deploy (in turn, their employer is adjusting 
their work schedule and trying to accommodate their absence and the 
requirement for their re-employment upon return).
    The Department of Defense Transition Assistance Program (DoD-TAP) 
provides information on a variety of subjects, access to important 
documents, and training to ensure servicemembers separating from active 
duty are prepared for their next step in life - whether pursuing 
additional education, finding a job in the public or private sector, or 
starting their own business. This redesigned TAP is the result of an 
interagency collaboration to offer separating servicemembers and their 
spouses better, more easily accessible resources and information to 
make their transitions more successful.
    All too often RC and NG servicemembers terminate their Reserve 
Component service without transition assistance and/or knowledge of 
programs available to aid in their final transition.
    We believe that due to the nature of their duty assignments, 
education on VA benefits must start early in their career. This will 
ensure they have the necessary knowledge during their final transition 
and will help inform during their service them about useful programs. 
These contacts could occur during drill weekends using a mobile van or 
coordinating with the Exchange to set up a manned kiosk/table.

EDUCATION

    When it comes to education programs ROA believes that those who 
wore and those who wear the uniform have the perspicacity, given 
requisite information, to make sound choices with their money. We 
consider education benefits, once earned with service, to be ``theirs'' 
to use within law and policy.
    ROA also believes that education assistance from the military 
should be flexible and meet the needs of servicemembers with their 
various goals. Not every GI Bill beneficiary wants or needs a four-year 
degree; many have shown us that they want a technical certification, 
for example, often available to them only from a for-profit 
``proprietary'' school, of which there are many fine examples. As we 
will explore, other beneficiaries want to start a business or buy a 
franchise, both of which can - in the spirit of the GI Bill's inception 
- help them and the nation.
    It is now commonly recognized that the portal to success is no 
longer necessarily a university admissions office door . . .

Post 9-11 Veteran Business Acceleration Act (proposed legislation)

    This bill will establish a pilot program to allow a servicemember 
to elect to receive financial assistance to establish and operate a 
business.
    Under current law, GI Bill benefits may be used for any unit course 
or subject, or combination of courses or subjects, pursued by an 
eligible veteran at an educational institution, required by the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration as a condition to 
obtaining financial assistance under the provisions of section 7(i)(1) 
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636 (i)(1)).
    Proposals to expand the eligibility of individuals to use GI Bill 
benefits for entrepreneurship or starting a business have been offered 
over several Congressional sessions. To my knowledge, the following 
bills were introduced:

      H.R. 3167, The VET Act of 2011, would establish a 
veteran's small business entrepreneurship program allowing eligible 
individuals to receive up to $1,421 monthly under the Montgomery GI 
Bill-Active Duty or up to $17,500 annually under the Post-9/11 GI Bill 
to acquire or start business.

      S. 3442, The SUCCESS Act of 2012, would change the 
definition of qualified providers of entrepreneurship education to be 
only any small business development center de-scribed in section 21 of 
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648), insofar as such center offers, 
sponsors, or cosponsors an entrepreneurship course, as that term is 
defined in section 3675(c)(2).

      H.R. 179, The Franchise Education for Veterans Act, was 
introduced. It would permit GI Bill payments under Chapters 30, 32, 33, 
and 34 for franchise training at a training establishment for up to 12 
months and up to $15,000 total.

      S. 938, The Franchise Education for Veterans Act of 2013, 
would amend Chapters 30 and 33 to allow franchise training programs as 
programs of education using Chapter 33 payment schedules for up to 12 
months and $15,000.

      S. 1870, The Veterans Entrepreneurial Transition Act of 
2015 it would amend the Small Business Act to require the Administrator 
of the Small Business Administration to carry out a pilot program on 
issuing grants to eligible veterans to start or acquire qualifying 
businesses.

      H.R.5193, The Veterans Business and Transition Act of 
2017, this bill provides statutory authority for the Boots to Business 
program, which provides entrepreneurship training to individuals 
including veterans and active members of the Armed Forces, to be 
administered by the Small Business Administration.

      S. 121, Veterans Small Business Ownership Improvements 
Act, to establish the veterans' business outreach center program, to 
improve the programs for veterans of the Small Business Administration.

    Some of the concerns raised regarding the use of G.I. Bill benefits 
to start a business (or, we would suggest, acquire an existing 
business) are establishing duplicative Federal programs, the lack of 
expertise within the VA and state approving agencies to review and 
approve business plans, the difficulty in separating training costs 
from the total costs of franchising, and the high failure rate of new 
businesses. (Of course, a GI Bill beneficiary may spend his or her 
benefit on a four-year degree and never use that education, so the 
``value'' of the use of the benefit cannot in any event be 
``guaranteed.'')
    We think, given the recognition of the value of business creation 
to the American economy and health of its workforce, with the cascading 
effects on families and communities, that these concerns can be 
addressed. Many servicemembers leave with advanced degrees, and with 
years of experience and training. Using the G.I. Bill to start or 
acquire a business may be the best way for them to transition from the 
military and use their skills, knowledge, maturity, and leadership to 
succeed.

Projected Education Policy 90/10

    For some colleges, universities, or vocational schools, government 
dollars can make a huge - even a make-or-break - difference to their 
financial vitality. There is evidence that this situation has prompted 
some educational institutions - both public and ``proprietary'' for-
profit schools - to aggressively pursue students who have Federal aid, 
necessitating the protection of these beneficiaries. So far, the 
protection suggested seems to be that levied only against the 
proprietary sector.
    The recommended protective fix is to add VA and DoD education 
funding assistance to the 90 side of the 90/10 ratio because they are 
not part of title IV. This means that, for example, a given school's 
hurdle to achieve the 10 percent minimum tuition revenue target would 
not be eased by the inflow of GI Bill money into that 10 percent 
bucket.

    The 90/10 rule was established by, P.L. 105-244, Amendments to the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, Section 102(b)(1)(F), states, `(b) 
PROPRIETARY INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.- ``(1) PRINCIPAL 
CRITERIA.-For the purpose of this section, the term `proprietary 
institution of higher education' means a school that-``(F) has at least 
10 percent of the school's revenues from sources that are not derived 
from funds provided under title IV, as determined in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

    ROA considers this biased against one educational sector; it 
therefore reduces veterans' choice. Any requirement associated with if 
and how much Federal funding a school can receive should be applied to 
all educational institutions and linked to achievement of certain 
standards. For example, a metric that could be used it performance in 
producing students equipped to succeed (graduate with a certain GPA, 
get a decent job, etc. - accountably) . . .
    Simply put, if an institution can show by objective metrics applied 
equally to both conventional and propriety institutions, it could 
conceivably get all its funding from Federal sources. What matters 
isn't that a student is ``putting in'' ten cents of every dollar; 
rather, what matters is the quality of the experience vis- . . . -vis 
its likelihood to facilitate success.
    If a school does not perform, then maybe corrective measures are in 
order - ratios or some other measure. If some ratio is necessary (we 
don't think it is), it should apply to everyone. The military operates 
on standards applied to all. If Congress determines that to safeguard 
quality education for GI Bill beneficiaries, it must refine standards 
beyond those applied by state approving agencies, those standards 
should be applied to the entire education sector (with exceptions as 
provided for by the Minority Serving Institutions Program), not just 
the proprietary education sector.
    The reason for ROA's position also goes to the concern that many 
proprietary schools offer vocational training and certificates. Because 
military members leave service with experience, they may not want their 
only choice being a 4-year degree.
    The effect of ``moving'' GI Bill benefit revenues to the 90 percent 
of the ratio will have effects beyond those intended by some in 
Congress and some advocates; we will not merely affect the few schools 
that have been alleged to engage in abuse.
    The Department of Veterans Affairs itself estimates that ``closing 
the loophole'' will divest 66,000 GI Bill beneficiaries of their 
education program - essentially, schools will shut down programs or 
even cease to exist. How does that help these veterans? This is about 
ten percent of the entire GI Bill user population; we ask Congress what 
other policy would it support that eliminates benefits to a tenth of 
the using population?
    If Congress must require a ratio, we ask that at least consistency 
exists between Federal agencies: let's have one ratio for both VA, 
which is bound by 85/15, and the Department of Education, which uses 
90/10. We also urge that:

      Any ratio (as well as standards) should apply across the 
board to private and proprietary schools.

      Legislation should include a period of time for an 
orderly transition to the ratio. VA believes an immediate transition 
(more of an ``abrupt change'') would dramatically affect 100 schools - 
and that means the GI Bill users of those 100 schools. ROA believes one 
year would allow schools to come into compliance and allow all affected 
students to complete the semester in which they are enrolled.

      VBA is neutral on the 90/10 ratio but believes any 
legislated changes should reduce the number of veterans that may be 
negatively impacted, and we of course agree.

Allocate funds to be used to provide Federal Tuition Assistance to all 
    Reserve and National Guard Servicemembers.

    Members of the Air National Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps 
Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve are currently eligible for Federal 
Tuition Assistance under certain circumstances or duty statuses, but 
they do not always have access to this benefit due to lack of funding. 
Tuition assistance is typically available to Reserve Component members 
when they go on an active duty tour, but ROA found that the Marine 
Corps Reserve is the only branch not to receive tuition assistance when 
ordered to active duty.
    The Department of Defense has long placed a premium on the 
education of the force. This emphasis is reflected in the recruitment 
of those with high school diplomas. Getting and growing a military 
force up to the national security environment's growing complexities is 
quite a challenge. It is also an absolute necessity.
    Britain's Sir William Francis Butler, a 19th century lieutenant 
general, said, ``The nation that makes a great distinction between its 
scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and 
its fighting done by fools.''
    We need smart warriors.
    In accordance with the 2017 Department of Defense study on Military 
Demographics, more than 683,063 enlisted reservists currently serve the 
U.S. military. Of them, 96.7 percent have a high school diploma or 
higher, 7.1 percent higher than the civilian the U.S. population aged 
over 25 years. Only 20 percent of enlisted reservists have an associate 
degree or higher.
    According to the Military Times report from July 2018, over 23 
percent of U.S. reservists currently use educational benefits. Tuition 
assistance could be used as a recruiting and retention incentive for 
all branches of the Reserve and National Guard.
    America cannot attract and retain a strong Reserve force if it 
cannot accommodate the success of its members who must find, hold, and 
grow in their civilian jobs; raise families; and still serve their 
nation in uniform.
    It is not unusual for a job to require postsecondary education. It 
is vital that reservists have the ability to get the education they 
need to ensure they remain atop the employment peak.
    Further, according to Air Force Handbook 36-2618, par, 3.1.3.1, to 
reach the senior enlisted ranks of senior master sergeant and chief 
master sergeant in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve and the Air 
National Guard, servicemembers must hold an associate degree or higher 
to be eligible for promotion. Due to this requirement, all airmen 
should be provided tuition assistance.
    We urge Congress to allocate funds to all of the Reserve Components 
for Federal Tuition Assistance to recruit and retain servicemembers.

SERVICE MEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT

Military Service

    Under 50 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  3911 (SCRA) members of the Reserve and 
National Guard are not protected under this act while performing 
training and other types of duty not included in the section below. Why 
not? Much of the training of Reservists and Guardsmen is in the 
performance of their jobs; they should be covered under SCRA. Not doing 
so puts the obligation of protection on the states.

The term ``military service'' means-

    (A) in the case of a servicemember who is a member of the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard-

    (i) active duty, as defined in section 101(d)(1) of title 10, and

    (ii) in the case of a member of the National Guard, includes 
service under a call to active service authorized by the President or 
the Secretary of Defense for a period of more than 30 consecutive days 
under section 502(f) of title 32 for purposes of responding to a 
national emergency declared by the President and supported by Federal 
funds;

    (B) in the case of a servicemember who is a commissioned officer of 
the Public Health Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, active service; and

    (C) any period during which a servicemember is absent from duty on 
account of sickness, wounds, leave, or other lawful cause.

    All states have passed state level protection acts but they did not 
include jurisdiction within the law at the state level nor is there any 
relief at the Federal level. In most cases, it is difficult for 
servicemembers to find the help they need to ensure they are not 
unfairly treated within the court system while unavailable, such as 
when deployed. Members of the RC have the same training requirements as 
their AC counterparts and often their courses are scheduled months out. 
Rescheduling is difficult. They are also not protected when called to 
active duty for state emergencies. State emergencies mean that Reserve 
and National Guard personnel are often called to duty with little or no 
notice.
    Once a judgment has been rendered, a servicemember has 30 days to 
revisit the judgment. This will take a well written motion. Very few 
servicemembers have the ability to properly address this issue without 
the aid of an attorney. If the judgment is not vacated, there are two 
options:

    1.If no final decision has been reached, the servicemember will 
have to request an inter-locutory appeal (this also takes a well 
written motion and the servicemember must prove prejudice of the 
court).

    2.If there is a final decision, the servicemember will have to file 
an appeal (this is a lengthy written process that must be formatted 
correctly and argued appropriately).

    Neither of these options are easily accomplished and usually take 
years of practice. Most of the time servicemembers are forced to hire 
an attorney. The average coast of an attorney is $350.00 per hour. An 
appeal of this size will take on average about 10-15 hours to complete, 
and that is if the attorney is familiar with the case.
    The amendment to this act has allowed civil attorneys to exploit 
Reserve and National Guard personnel. They can bring emergency motions 
and schedule appearances during times of unavailability rendering a 
default judgment that the servicemember has little if any time (or 
money) to reconcile.
    This amendment could have devastating consequences on RC personnel 
careers. Reserve Component Servicemembers put their lives on hold to 
meet the requirement of today's military and this amendment adds undue 
stress to their already stressful occupation. These patriots need to 
know they are taken care of at home when they leave for training.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

    Amend 50 U.S.C. to include the following types of duty:

      Reserve and National Guard personnel performing Inactive 
Duty for training

      Reserve and National Guard personnel performing Annual 
Training

      Reserve and National Guard personnel attending training 
under 29 days

      Reserve and National Guard personnel performing service 
due to emergency not ordered by the President

    A new amendment would also need to include a jurisdiction, i.e. a 
Department of Justice district attorney will write a motion to the 
court and explain protection.

UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT OF 1994

Forced Arbitration

    Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve is very engaged with 
employers and has found that mediation is not always a promising route 
to servicemember protections.
    The Department of Labor, Veterans' Employment and Training Service 
report stated, ``During FY 2018, ESGR received 17,568 contacts by 
telephone and email, of which 1,655 contacts resulted in actual USERRA 
mediation cases. ESGR's mediation efforts covered an array of USERRA-
related issues that included 1,033 complaints involving some type of 
military discrimination; 602 complaints involving job reinstatement; 
and 20 complaints involving possible retaliation or reprisal. There 
were 429 USERRA mediation cases in which ESGR was unable to facilitate 
an agreement between the employee and employer.'' Suffice to say 
employment/unemployment requires ROA's continued attention.
    Under the Uniformed Services Employment Rights Act of 1994, 
veterans and servicemembers have some protections from discrimination 
based on their military service; they have the right to return to their 
civilian jobs once their active service ends. But, as in many other 
areas of employment law, Federal courts have dismissed USERRA legal 
claims where the plaintiff has been forced to sign an agreement 
requiring that employment-related legal claims to go to arbitration. 
Arbitration is an alternate dispute resolution method that, depending 
on how it is used, can be very pro-employer and anti-employee.
    Arbitration is a type of private proceeding that results in a 
decision concerning a matter in dispute between the employee and 
employer. Normally, the employer chooses an arbitrator or a panel of 
arbitrators who sit as judge and jury. This creates an incentive for 
arbitrators to decide in the employer's favor so they can make more 
money handling future cases for the employer.
    Depending on the wording of the agreement, the arbitration process 
can present significant drawbacks for employees. In some cases, the 
employer pays for the arbitration, but in others, the parties could 
split the costs, or the party losing the case could pay for the 
arbitration and possibly the fees and costs incurred by the winning 
party. In some cases, the parties are required to keep their dispute 
private, so the proceedings cannot be disclosed. The ability of the 
parties to obtain evidence can be restricted. It can also be very 
difficult to have such an agreement ruled invalid by a judge or have an 
arbitration ruling overturned in the court system.

OTHER

Toxic Exposure: Recognition of Illnesses Caused by Hazardous Warfare 
    Agents

    ROA urges Congress to enact legislation recognizing exposure to 
toxins as a service-connected disability for servicemembers including, 
but not limited to, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, 
Camp Lejeune, and Canada.
    Military members who leave the service through separation or 
retirement under conditions that are other than dishonorable are 
eligible for a service-connected disability. While the application for 
disability may be long it is simply done by the service member proving 
they were ``.disabled by an injury or illness that was incurred or 
aggravated during active military service.''
    Presumption of service connection is important because a 
servicemember's symptoms may not manifest until after well after their 
service is completed. According to the Congressional Research Service, 
``. . . where the manifestation of the disabling disease or condition 
is remote from the veteran's service and any relation between the 
disability and service is not readily apparent, the burden of proving 
service connection can be a challenge.'' Historically presumption has 
been linked to exposure to toxins.
    Proving presumption of service connection is difficult because it 
is hard to determine the connection between exposure and the disability 
as there is often no documentation in the military health record. This 
can occur when symptoms don't appear until after the servicemember 
leaves the service. There can also be a situation where the symptoms 
are so mild at the beginning that the servicemember does not go to sick 
call for treatment.
    ROA believes that there should be an additional approach to 
determining presumption which is a costly process. Rather efforts 
should be made to avoid presumption by beginning the collection of 
health issues immediately upon identification of possible toxins. While 
not always possible, this approach could certainly reduce the need for 
some presumptions.
    For example, if the Department of Defense had annotated the medical 
records of servicemembers exposed to burn pits in OIF/OEF, then VA 
would have had years of data collection related to their health. 
Presumption is a judgment backed up with as much scientific research as 
possible; data capture helps enhance the integrity of that judgement.
    By beginning the ``presumption'' process upon exposure or 
recognition of a health matter, DoD could then look for ways to reduce 
exposure, such as with OSHA standard equipment or changed processes.
    Under the best of circumstances it is hard for a Reserve Component 
member to be recognized for service-connection but a presumption makes 
it near impossible.

Continuity of Care: Establish Continuous Health Care Coverage

    ROA along with many other associations has supported extending 
TRICARE Reserve Select to military technicians as a recruiting tool for 
the services as well as to ensure their access to affordable health 
care. When we started working this with the Senate, that body decided 
it would only be fair to extend it to all National Guard and Reserve 
Federal employees and not just a limited category of employees. Of 
course, the biggest hurdle is the appropriations offset.
    TRS came about to increase the readiness of Reserve Component 
servicemembers during the early years of the 9/11 activations. ROA 
believes that health care legislation and policy should be approached 
in terms of readiness for the servicemember and a benefit for the 
family that indirectly enhances readiness. We also have other concerns 
about health care for the Reserve Components:

      Military health care records are scattered over several 
locations (duty station, TDY locations, civilian providers) making it 
hard, if not impossible, to monitor deployable standards.

      Difficulty getting annual physicals during drill weekends 
due to insufficient manning or personnel.

      Losing health care coverage when an individual's duty 
status and/or orders change, triggering a different TRICARE program.

      Length of time to complete medical evaluation boards.

      Difficulty processing lines of duty determinations, due 
to the complexity of the process and levels of review required and 
proving when the injury occurred.

      Inability to provide rapid care to injures due to 
processing time. This cause longer periods of nondeployability.

      Servicemembers inability to receive service-connected 
recognition from the VA. The lack of a centralized health record for 
the RC results in incomplete health records. This can occur from 
scattered records, as mentioned above, but it also results in medical 
events not being recorded.

    With the well-established use of the RC as an operational force, 
its readiness is an imperative and the lens through which ROA appraises 
its health care. A proper fix to these issues, and thus an enhancement 
of readiness, would be to cover every participating Reserve Component 
member under TRICARE Prime. This would consolidate health care records 
into one program and increase the ability to monitor deployable 
standards. Any annual physicals, shots, etc. would not have to be 
crammed into a drill weekend, and unit administrators would not have to 
spend hours or days of chasing servicemembers around to ensure they are 
properly cared for. This would free up valuable training time. It would 
also ensure a medical record in its entirety is transferred to VA.
    When servicemembers are injured when performing duty, it is called 
a ``line of duty'' injury. While the servicemember will be covered 
under TRICARE, it takes time to ensure the processes are completed 
correctly. An RC member's injuries must be determined to be service-
connected by a line of duty determination. Until the LOD approves, the 
service members injuries cannot be treated by the military. As the 
servicemember waits for the administrative process to approve their 
treatment they remain undeployable and unable to train.
    Depending on the injury the servicemember may not be able work in 
their prospective civilian employment. This can cause a huge financial 
burden at home. The LOD evaluation can take in excess of 1,500 days 
according to a senior Department of Defense advisor.
    ROA agrees that maintaining deployable status requires a commitment 
to health care coverage and promoting wellness. We also know the 
eligible recruiting pool is getting smaller, so it only makes sense to 
keep ready those already in uniform. Time and again we hear our 
military's senior uniformed and civilian leaders assert that ours is a 
``total force.'' Those words have meaning. A single health care option 
of TRICARE Prime for the RC servicemember is the only way to ensure 
readiness and eliminate the readiness-sapping complications of a multi-
tiered health care program.
    A continuous health care program with an integrated record would 
help Reserve Component members be recognized for service connection.

DD Form 214: Issue upon Retirement/Separation from the Reserve 
    Component

    There is no document that includes all RC service - active and 
inactive. We have found that, according to VA Pamphlet 26-7, ``there is 
no one form used by the Reserves or National Guard that is similar to a 
DD Form 214'' that meets ``Proof of Service Requirements'' (Chapter 2). 
This complicates the ability of RC servicemembers to access VA 
benefits.
    The current process for issuing the DD Form 214 for the National 
Guard and Reserve disregards transitions across the continuum of 
service between active and reserve duty. Gaps of months and years 
appear. The lack of a DD Form 214 being issued on a predictable basis 
inhibits RC servicemembers from claiming earned benefits and proving 
the full scope of their military service. Additionally, when an RC 
member does receive a DD Form 214 upon completion of active service 
after 90 cumulative days of service, or any deployment order, the form 
often does not include the entire spectrum of their service. This makes 
it difficult for RC members to show they have earned various Federal 
and state benefits.
    Due to the nature of AC and RC orders, servicemembers often do not 
meet the minimum requirement of 90 consecutive days of active duty 
necessary to receive a DD Form 214. Complicating the process further, 
National Guard servicemembers can transfer between states, known as 
Interstate Transfer, but the records don't always follow. Critical 
service-related documentation often remains in the issuing state. Human 
error and convoluted personnel system can cause orders to be 
incorrectly documented or not documented at all. The result of the 
current disaggregated personnel system results in many servicemembers 
receiving only a portion of their benefits.
    ROA has learned that DoD is considering a halfway measure called a 
DD-216 to address what it recognizes as a problem. Characteristically, 
the Pentagon, with its AC focus, has devised a separate record for the 
RC, that will certainly ensure inequitable treatment of the RC within 
the so-called ``total force.''
    The real solution is to make the minimal amendments to the current 
DD-214 to include the types of inactive duty engaged in by members of 
the RC. It's that simple, and the result is a unified ``total force'' 
document that makes sense, is universally useful, and requires little 
bureaucratic development.
    Specifically, the amendments would include service performed for 
inactive duty and inactive duty for training. They would need to be 
added to the service section.

CONCLUSION

    ROA appreciates the opportunity to offer thoughts regarding these 
important issues. Because of the unique nature of service in the 
Reserve Components, its members may simultaneously receive care and 
benefits from VA, the Department of Labor, HHS, and DoD.
    All too often military and veterans' law and policy are developed 
without an understanding of, or appreciation for, the important 
distinctions between reserve and active duty service. The members of 
the Reserve and Guard invariably lose out . . . and so too do their 
families. And thus the nation.
    America is experiencing unprecedented challenges to our security 
and greater reliance on the Reserve and National Guard. Enhancing the 
readiness of these wonderful human assets as they move in and out of 
their military and civilian roles, from peace to war and back again, 
helping them gain access to care, and helping their families thrive - 
all these pieces of legislation directly or indirectly enhance 
readiness and represent an insightful and praiseworthy focus on those 
patriots we call our citizen-warriors.
    Members of the RC are veterans, like their AC counterparts. Unlike 
the AC, they do not go to the VA only upon separation or retirement. 
They use the VA throughout their military career. We recommend VA begin 
their relationship with the RC long before separation or retirement. 
The VA should reach out to RC servicemembers during drill weekend and 
annual training. On education benefits, home loans, heath care/service 
connection, and employment, they need and have earned information, 
uniform standards, and broad choices.
    ROA is proud to advocate for their interests, which are truly the 
interests of our nation.

                                 [all]