MOAA: Your Views

I cannot begin to express how sad and disappointed I am in Major Oszczakiewicz's letter and his opinions ["Your Views," January 2003]. My wife, Deana, is a retired chief warrant officer from the U.S. Coast Guard with 26 years' service. She is 100 percent disabled, [the] result of cancer that has spread to her bones [and] liver and will assuredly end her life.

My wife, along with many other veterans with 100 percent permanent ratings, is not "drooling over the thought of concurrent receipt." They take one day at a time and make the best of it. My wife and many others are suffering from more than a trick knee or bad hearing, but from life-threatening illnesses. She will never be employed again, her life will be dramatically shortened, but she is drawing 75 percent of her base pay, which she earned from 26 years of active duty. The only advantage she has gained is her pay is nontaxable.

I am greatly distressed that the major implies that retired servicemembers with a disability are looking to cash in with concurrent receipt. What about our men and women who were exposed to Agent Orange, [or suffer from] Gulf War syndrome, Lou Gehrig's disease, or even cancer? These members' lives will never be the same.

Most veterans who are 100 percent, permanently disabled cannot pursue another career and cannot recoup the monies they earned in retirement because of their shortened lifespan. Severely disabled veterans with more than 20 years' service deserve compensation for the service-related disabilities in addition to their well-earned retirement.

Congressional members can earn both a retirement and a separate disability, why not our military?

I am appalled at the high level of information published in your magazine. Your article "Securing ‘The Mountain' " by Mike Lorden regarding NORAD ["Blueprint for Security," December 2002] gives us way more information than we need to know. I cannot imagine any other country in the world printing this information for the public.

I remember years ago listening to a speech by an FBI official telling a room full of officers and their wives that information published in Aviation magazine provided too much useful information to our "unfriendlies." A month or so ago, I viewed a major news report on a new nuclear sub. It told the amount of fuel it carried, the length, number of men, length of time underwater - on and on. Do you feel it is important the public really needs to know all this information? Is this really good for our country in a time of war?

Fran Henry
via e-mail

Editor's note: We are careful to make sure that our stories don't divulge classified or inappropriate information. "Blueprint for Security" provides important information about how our nation is restructuring to improve homeland defense. The accompanying story, "Securing ‘The Mountain,'" repeats information that is in the public domain and has been published many times before. Nevertheless, readers always find this information interesting. You can be sure that if there were any concern about divulging information helpful to terrorists or other enemies, the Department of Defense would not release it - nor would we publish it.

Try, Try Again - and Again

Guess the editors are still "off their oats" - there needs to be a correction to the correction ["Your Views," December 2002]. The toll-free area code listed in the magazine is 800, where, in fact, it should be listed as 888. Check it out. ...

Love the magazine (and the work that [the association] does!) - just trying to help.

Editor's note: You're right; we goofed (again). The correct number to locate base lodging operations through the Air Force Service Agency is, once and for all, (888) 235-6343.

No Joy From TriWest

I've just read a Los Angeles Times report about the Dec. 14 theft of data from Phoenix-based TriWest Healthcare Alliance. I'm one of several concerned; my wife and I both had claims processed via TriWest in 2002.

Aside from our natural (and apparently well-founded) concern about potential "identity theft," I am puzzled (and furious) about TriWest's apparent response to this situation: "The company advised clients to contact the nation's three credit reporting bureaus to place fraud alerts in their files. In such cases, the companies are required to notify the client if and when a credit card application is made in their name."

That's it? That's the sum total of their "fix"? Let's see: Here's an outfit that failed to protect the data of half a million people, and they expect each of these 500,000 folks to individually contact the three credit bureaus? Won't that be fun!

According to the Times article, "The company has backup files to replace the stolen data." Well, if they have the backup files then they know who we are, so why don't they contact the three credit agencies? I guess they don't want to incur that cost. Well, tough cookies. That's show biz. So what else is new?

Is anyone else out there as upset with this as I? Are they really going to get away with this limp response? Is the Department of Defense concerned about this outfit's response? How about MOAA; [would it be] possible to [lean] on this outfit to do the right thing?

Editor's note: MOAA is very concerned about this serious breach of personal information security and is working with appropriate agencies to closely monitor the TRICARE Management Authority's follow-up on this extremely unfortunate situation. See this month's "Washington Scene," page 26, for more.

His Day in Court

The January 2003 issue of Military Officer is excellent in form and content! Congrats are in order to you and your staff.

Regarding the Class Act Group health care lawsuit against the government, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision is not only disappointing but is also contrary to every tenet of contract law I learned and practiced for more than 10 years as a contracting officer (with "unlimited" contractual authority) in the Coast Guard. The legal premise of "apparent authority" certainly existed for the military services to make legitimate promises of lifetime health care, and reliance upon this apparent authority by the servicemembers was not unfounded.

I certainly hope that this and other arguments to be made before the U.S. Supreme Court by Col. George "Bud" Day, USAF-Ret., will prevail.

SBP: 35 Years and Counting

I have written to my congressman, both state senators, and to the New Jersey state representative who is supposedly sponsoring legislation to limit monthly payments into [the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)] to 30 years. None have responded to me.

I am 82 years old and have been paying the monthly premium on SBP for 35 years. I have heard there is a proposal [now a law - Ed.] to limit payments to 30 years, effective in 2008, which I believe in my case and my contemporaries' is a moot point. Perhaps there are too few of us remaining; no one gives a hoot.

I just can't believe that, when the program was implemented, the actuarial tables used to present this program to Congress for implementation considered more than 30 years to convince Congress it would pay for itself.

I presume this is a lost cause, and if my wife survives me, she will not live long enough to get back what I have paid into this program.

Concurrent Receipt

Try, Try Again - and Again

No Joy From TriWest

His Day in Court

SBP: 35 Years and Counting