[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]