Members React to Inequity

That Congress couldn't agree on either the House or Senate version of concurrent receipt and came up with a highly watered-down version that leaves thousands of disabled veterans unaffected is better than nothing and could be understandable, considering all that is going on in the world and fiscal authorities citing lack of funds. But to then turn around and vote themselves another pay raise...is a slap in the face to those veterans. I wonder how many of those politicians struggle with the end of the money preceding the end of each month - not to mention the additional hardship of a disability?

Maj. G.W. Pickett, USMC-Ret.
Sun City, Calif.

Those who came up with this provision think they are saving face by designating those wounded in combat as the recipients. After all, who can say anything against a representative who wants to recognize the sacrifices of our veterans who were actually in the life-and-death realities of combat? My response: How dare you diminish the contributions made by all veterans not as "fortunate" as those who saw combat!

...Regardless of how we served, the fact remains that we all served in the defense of our country. We were all an important thread in the fabric of military service that could easily have unraveled without the contributions made by each person. Additionally, the fact that women were barred from combat-related jobs is essentially a discriminatory factor that denies my chance to ever qualify for this negotiated provision.

...I served my country as both enlisted and an officer for 21 years, with service during Vietnam and Desert Storm. I retired with three Meritorious Service Medals, two Commendation Medals, and an Achievement Medal, and yet I am denied my earned retirement pay because I must fund my own 100 percent disability rating.

This decision blatantly states that my service is seen as less important and specifically diminishes my contributions because I am a woman.

Maj. Cathy Paramore, USAF-Ret.
Anchorage, Alaska

After 83 percent of senators and 90 percent of representatives signed their names as supporters of [concurrent receipt] legislation...they have shown their true colors and once again have bailed out of their so-called support of disabled military retirees. They have done this at the same time they are making plans to send more military personnel in harm's way. ...

Nov. 11, 2002, was Veterans Day. How many spineless politicians did you see in the news spouting false words of praise and support of our disabled and nondisabled military veterans?

Lt. Cmdr. George Jones, USN-Ret.
Heber Springs, Ark.

...Civilian civil servants [who are disabled veterans] working for [the Department of Defense], fbi, [Department of Transportation], etcetera all receive [Department of Veterans Affairs] disability compensation in addition to retired pay. It is hard to understand why our military are not treated the same as other federal employees.

Fair is fair! It is not morally right to deny our fighting personnel who dedicated their lives to protecting our nation the same disability benefits as stay-at-home civilian federal workers.

We applaud TROA for fighting this injustice toward our military!

Capt. (Dr.) D.K. Chigos, USN-Ret.
San Diego

Another Point of View

What happened to duty, honor, and country? Concurrent receipt is nothing more than a humongous cash grab. When I made the decision to pursue a military career, I understood the nature of the risks and the potential rewards.

...Now I listen to retirees boast of their disability level as they drool over thoughts of concurrent receipt. Bad knees, degraded hearing, high blood pressure, arthritis, some war wound that they minimized for years in order to remain on active duty and reach retirement - suddenly the country owes them more than a generous retirement and lifetime health care. And please don't tell me about all those people who retired and couldn't pursue another career because of military disabilities; if that were the case, they couldn't have completed a military career.

Maj. W. Oszczakiewicz, USA-Ret.
Clarksville, Tenn.

Cold Off the Presses?

For some time now I have been upset reading your magazine with regard to timeliness in reporting legislative issues. It seems you are unable to print anything that has happened in at least the past four or five weeks. ... Wouldn't it be nice to read about concurrent receipt as of Oct. 31, 2002, in the issue just received, instead of the stale news it contained?

Capt. H.P. Freburger, USMC-Ret.
Ormond By The Sea, Fla.

Editor's note: We hold "Washington Scene" until the last minute, which is usually about the first day of the month. The magazine reaches readers about the 24th of the month, so information cannot be more current than about three weeks. Unfortunately, that's the best we can do with available resources. Commercial news magazines typically have staffs numbering in the hundreds; we operate with four editors and three people who do both design and production. However, you can get news the same week - or even day - that it happens by visiting MOAA's Web Base and subscribing to the weekly e-mail Legislative Update.

Win Some, Lose Some

I wish to commend you for your explanatory article, "New Name, Same Mission," in the November 2002 issue of The Retired Officer Magazine. I have always been very proud of my longtime membership in TROA. I assure you that I will remain equally proud of our new title, MOAA. I did not vote for the change and, after reading your article, I regret the mistake.

Cmdr. John P. Finnerty, USCGR-Ret.
Islip, N.Y.

You say the pending change of name of "The Retired Officers Association" to "Military Officers Association of America" is only a change of name and no more in your November magazine editorial. Well, in that very editorial you twice refer to the organization's concern as being for the "military community" and once as being for "military people," a clear indication that your emphasis and focus on the retired officer is already a thing of the past!

Col. Francis D. O'Brien, USA-Ret.
Marietta, Ga.

Editor's note: "Military community" and "military people" apply to retired as well as active duty members. A great deal of research indicates MOAA members consider themselves military people and part of the military community - whether they're retired or not. Even members from the Public Health Service and noaa felt "Military Officers Association of America" was the most appropriate name.

Paws Were There First

"The Sands of Wakayama," Encore, October 2002, illustrated the handing down of war stories from one generation to the next. ...According to my father-in-law, Henry Gosciniak, his minesweeper, the yms 286, cleared the Wakayama harbor in preparation for the subsequent landing described in the Encore article. ...However, a severe storm interrupted their minesweeping and they sought shelter in an inlet at the fishing village of Shimotsu, where a dog they had on board was swept overboard. The next morning, they miraculously found their dog had survived and was technically the first to make it on to Japanese soil from the Navy. ...

In April 2000, Henry accompanied me (then an officer in the U.S. Public Health Service) on a trip...to Tokyo. This was his first trip to Japan since World War II, and we visited Wakayama and Shimotsu, which had changed remarkably since those days. However, while in Shimotsu, and with the help of a Japanese-speaking guide, we found a man who recalled when Henry's minesweeper had been there because the storm that had brought the yms to Shimotsu also had taken the life of this man's friend. The hearty handshake between the two men was very touching to see and created a new story to tell for the next generation - my daughters and also his grandsons.

Mark S. Dworkin, M.D., USPHSR
Wheaton, Ill.