Survivor Benefits  |  H.R. 3763 and S. 1916 are the bills to watch.

SBP Budget Battle Kicks off 

The House Budget Committee is preparing to draft the FY 2005 Budget Resolution by mid-February. That means it’s time to kick MOAA’s Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) improvement campaign into high gear.
This past year, the budget committee fell two votes short of including budget authority to increase the SBP annuity for military survivors age 62 and older. This year, we’ve built a time-phased grassroots campaign aimed at convincing the committee to right that wrong.

In the first step of our campaign, tens of thousands of MOAA members mailed the tear-out letters in the January issue of Military Officer to tell the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees and Armed Services committees why it’s grossly unfair for military widows to lose one-third of their SBP annuities when they attain age 62. Our sources on those committees say they received almost 40,000 letters each. That barrage prompted the committee staffs to call MOAA’s lobbyists to Capitol Hill to sit down and tell them about the problem. (Don’t ever let anybody tell you those form letters don’t work.)

In the second step, thousands more members used the tear-out postcards provided in Military Officer’s February issue to write their representatives and senators. The cards urged all legislators to put SBP authority in the budget resolution and cosponsor MOAA-supported SBP bills, Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) S. 1916 and S. 401 and Rep. Jeff Miller’s (R-Fla.) H.R. 548 and H.R. 3763, which would phase in increases to the age-62 SBP annuity over a period of years.

Last month, MOAA sent special mailings to about 16,000 association members who are constituents of key House and Senate leaders, providing suggested letters to those legislators, along with stamped, pre-addressed envelopes.

Hopefully, those 300,000 or so new communications from MOAA members to Congress have sensitized legislators to this extremely important issue. With budget resolution action imminent, we need a last-minute crescendo of grassroots input to push legislators to fix this inequity for military widows now.

See the Grassroots Alert on page 20 to find out how you can help push this issue over the top.

Meanwhile, our legislative champions have been working hard to advance the cause of SBP reform.

On Feb. 4, MOAA President Vice Adm. Norbert R. Ryan Jr., USN-Ret., joined Miller at a press conference to introduce Miller’s new lower-cost SBP bill, H.R. 3763. This new legislation, tailored to meet budget committee requirements, would phase out the age-62 annuity reduction and help offset the cost by allowing currently unenrolled retirees an option to participate in the plan. These late enrollees would pay an extra premium amount, proportional to the amount of time elapsed since their retirement.

Because premiums are deducted from retired pay, the open enrollment option should save the government almost $800 million in retired pay outlays over a 10-year period and help offset the cost of the higher widows’ benefit.

Landrieu is championing similar legislation in the Senate.

In February, MOAA lobbyists beat down the doors of budget committee members promoting these important bills. We’re making the case that Congress must act now. Relief for military survivors cannot wait any longer.

But what’s needed in the upcoming weeks is a barrage of input from legislators’ own constituents. Now is the time to e-mail and call your legislators (both, if possible)—and ask all of your friends, relatives, coworkers, and anyone else who has the opportunity to do the same.

Federal civilian survivors get 55 percent or 50 percent of retired pay for life. We simply must stop the current practice of cutting older military widow’s benefits one-third below that level.

Health Care  |  Budget proposal would have increased beneficiary costs.

Rx Copayments Safe … For Now

On Dec. 16, 2003, in response to a request from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Pentagon comptroller issued a draft budget decision paper proposing large pharmacy copayment increases for military retirees.

The paper recommended increasing retiree copayments from $3 for generic prescription drugs and $9 for brand name prescription drugs to $10 and $20, respectively. It also urged imposing the same copayments on retirees who are using pharmacies at military hospitals and clinics (currently, military pharmacies have no copayments for any eligible patron). Copayments for non-network pharmacies would be increased from $9 or 20 percent of the prescription cost to $30 or 20 percent, whichever is greater.

To put it bluntly, this was a grossly insensitive and wrong-headed proposal. It was less than three years ago that Congress authorized the tricare Senior Pharmacy Program and DoD established the $3 and $9 copayments. The Pentagon already has changed the rules once, announcing plans to increase the copayment (for all beneficiaries, not just retirees) to $22 for non-formulary drugs at some point in 2004. We already expect a battle over that later this year, when the Pentagon likely will seek to designate many drugs as “non-formulary” to save money.

Fortunately, resistance from DoD and strong objections from MOAA and other military associations caused OMB to shelve the proposal. In return, the Pentagon agreed to study the copayment issue and then make any recommendations on this subject next year for possible inclusion in the FY 2006 budget.

We expect such a study will face budget pressures to increase copayments, so the issue isn’t likely to go away for the longer term. As a practical matter, the decision defers any budget action until after the November presidential election, which means any recommended change wouldn’t come before October 2005, at the earliest.

Somebody just isn’t paying attention. The war on terrorism is reminding the nation of servicemembers’ sacrifices every night on the evening news, and Congress has been doing its best to ease decades of ill treatment toward active duty, Guard, Reserve, and retired military members on a variety of issues. And yet the administration seems to continue to go out of its way to penalize the military community.

MOAA will continue to oppose increasing retiree cost shares that only recently were established. If the administration doesn’t back off, we’ll be turning to Congress to keep it from happening. And we think Congress will do that.

Active Duty  |  MOAA’s concerns about long-term effects still linger.

Army Will Get More Troops

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this week, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker revealed that the secretary of defense has agreed to allow the Army to grow 30,000 above its authorized strength for the next four or five years.

MOAA is encouraged at this seeming recognition that the Army urgently needs to add manpower to ease the excessive strains placed on active duty and Guard and Reserve forces and their families by continuing massive deployments to Southwest Asia.

But the careful rhetoric of Schoomaker’s testimony and subsequent Pentagon press releases raises additional questions, which we hope will be answered as the new plan unfolds in the upcoming weeks.

One question is, how much relief will this really bring? The Army already has about 17,000 more people than the statutorily specified end strength, so the real increase is only about 13,000. And it’s still uncertain exactly when these extra people will be brought on board.

Another question is, how much change will this represent from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s adamant refusal to consider an end-strength increase for active duty or Guard and Reserve forces? This has been a tremendous source of frustration in Congress, where there is a broad and ever-growing consensus that we don’t have nearly enough forces to meet the mission and that continuing to overstress the troops and their families at this rate is putting us on a road to massive retention and readiness problems in the not-too-distant future. MOAA certainly shares that very real concern.

The Pentagon still says it doesn’t want a permanent change in end strength but needs more troops only temporarily because larger force levels might not be needed a few years from now. Such hair-splitting is worrisome because it still seems based on “rosy scenario” planning, aimed mainly at heading off a rising congressional stampede to force a substantial end-strength increase on the Pentagon this year.

We note that the new plan calls for continuation of stop-loss policies (involuntary retention of servicemembers who have completed their obligated service) through 2005, and assumes continued high—or even increased—retention rates. If the troops are overstressed and those who want to leave aren’t being allowed to go, we don’t see how this kind of planning is going to fend off any coming retention and readiness crisis.

MOAA and The Military Coalition have pushed Congress for end-strength increases for the past several years, while two different administrations have opposed it vehemently. Now the active duty and Guard and Reserve troops are paying a heavy price for that lack of planning, and the current leaders find themselves in a very deep hole.

But refusing to acknowledge the depth of that hole doesn’t do anybody any good. Buying a 10-foot ladder for a 30-foot-deep hole might get you closer to where you want to be, but it won’t convince many of the people doing the digging that it meets their need.

Let’s try to keep a little perspective: Long before Sept. 11, the service chiefs told Congress that the troops were overstressed by a decade of high deployments—a problem even back then. Subsequently, we’ve asked the troops to fight two major wars, mobilized hundreds of thousands of Guard and Reserve members, and barred people from leaving service at the end of their enlistments. We’re going to be in Iraq a long time, and we’re not going back to the already-overstressed, pre-Sept. 11 troop levels any time in the foreseeable future.

We’ve shot just about every bullet in the manpower gun. We can talk about the secretary of defense’s transformation plan, but that’s something we’ve been talking about for two years without seeing much action so far. Any large-scale transformation plan is going to take most of a decade to implement, because you can’t just convert a 15-year supply sergeant to a 15-year infantry leader overnight. And when the troops who want to leave service finally are allowed to do so, who will we call for the next deployments?

Are an additional 13,000 troops above current levels, added over 5 years, going to solve that problem? It’s hard for us to see how.

Retired Pay  |  The majority of eligible retirees should receive prompt payment.

Concurrent Receipt Checks in the Mail

The MOAA headquarters staff has been monitoring closely the progress on the concurrent receipt provisions from the FY 2004 Defense Authorization Act. Although quite a few details remained to be worked out at press time, here’s the status as of Feb. 1: 

Concurrent Receipt (for qualifying retirees with disabilities rated 50 percent and higher): The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) began payments Feb. 1 for approximately 150,000 retirees. Technicians have been able to implement computer programming faster than previously expected, meaning the majority of eligible recipients should see no delay in payment. 

Those whose concurrent receipt payments will be delayed for a month or two include those who divide their retired pay with a former spouse, medical disability retirees who will have their offset only partially eliminated by the new law change, and a few other special situations. DFAS officials think they will be able to provide payment for all these retirees no later than the April 1 paycheck. In those cases, the first check will include retroactive payment to the Jan. 1 start date.

Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC): DoD had not released guidance for processing applications under the expanded CRSC rules at press time, but we expect further clarification soon. In the meantime, we encourage those who are newly eligible to begin compiling specific documentation about how their disabilities are related to combat, military training operations, or “instrumentalities of war” (Agent Orange, etcetera). This documentation should include, if possible: VA  Rating Decisions, VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities Code sheets, specific pages of military medical records, a copy of the DD 214, and supporting documentation such as Purple Heart award citations. A personal visit to the nearest VA records office might help members gather copies of some of these records.

Certain retirees who previously were denied CRSC  will not have to reapply. The armed services have kept track of previous applicants who were awarded CRSC ratings of less than 60 percent, and these people automatically should be issued the special pay. Army and Air Force reservists who previously applied and were denied because they lacked 7,200 points will not have to reapply. However, the Navy did not retain those from earlier reserve applicants with less than 7,200 points. Consequently, Navy and Marine Corps reservists will need to reapply when DoD releases the new guidance and application rules. 

Current applicants who have not received their determinations yet are urged to be patient, as the armed services are working as quickly as they can to process incoming requests. In the meantime, we have met with armed services and DoD officials to urge dedication of manpower and funding resources as needed to process these requests in a timely manner. We know these efforts are ongoing, and we’ll continue pressing this important initiative until our requests are met.

If your application has lingered for longer than six months, the armed services have set up procedures to check the status:

Navy/Marine Corps: Send a written request to:
Department of the NavyNaval Council of Personnel Boards
Combat Related Special Compensation Branch
720 Kennon St., S.E., Suite 309
Washington, DC 20374-5023

Army: Call (866) 281-3254 for status. 

Air Force: Visit the CRSC Web page to check the dates.

NOTE: Although status requests will be answered, please bear in mind that time spent answering inquiries decreases the man-hours available for processing applications. 

Legislation |  MOAA has news for widows, homeowners, and reservists.

Implementation Updates

Last year’s string of legislative successes has left the Pentagon and some other agencies scrambling to implement these new benefit changes. Here’s what we know so far regarding Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) widows’ benefits reinstatement, military tax relief upgrades, long-term care for “gray area” reservists, and health insurance coverage for mobilized reservists.

DIC for Remarried Widows: H.R. 2297 (Public Law 108-183) allowed survivors of members who died of service-connected causes to retain DIC if they remarry after attaining age 57. DIC survivors who already have remarried (and were 57 or older when they did so) can apply for reinstatement of their DIC benefits until Dec. 16, 2004. Use VA Form 21-686c to apply (available online at www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/21-686c.pdf).

Military Tax Relief: Information on the new tax benefits in the recently enacted Military Family Tax Fairness Act is posted on the IRS Web site at www.irs.gov. Click on the “Armed Forces Tax Benefits” link in the lower right-hand corner, then scroll down to the first two items under “Other Items” for an overview of the tax breaks in the bill and a more-detailed explanation—including what forms are needed for filing amended tax returns and special marking requested by the IRS to speed processing. This especially is important for survivors of military members who died on active duty after Sept. 10, 2001; for military homeowners who sold a home after May 6, 1997; and for drilling members of the National Guard or Reserve who incurred personal expenses while attending drills more than 100 miles from their homes after 2002.

Long Term Care for “Gray Area” Reservists: With the passage of the FY 2004 National Defense Authorization Act on Nov. 24, 2003, gray area Guard and Reserve retirees now are eligible to participate, if medically qualified, in the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program. LTC Partners is developing a marketing plan to reach out to every gray area reservist in the next few months. Importantly, gray area reservists do not have to wait for a letter of notification to apply for enrollment. For more information, members may contact LTC Partners by calling (800) 582-3337 or visiting its Web site, www.ltcfeds.com.

Health Care for Mobilized Reservists: The FY 2004 Defense Authorization Act authorized the Temporary Reserve Health Care Program, providing TRICARE health care coverage for reservists and their family members starting on the date a “delayed-effective-date order for activation” is issued (rather than waiting until the date they actually go on active duty). Because some beneficiaries might receive health care services before the program can be implemented, the Pentagon advises eligible families to save their health care receipts, claims, and “explanation of benefits” forms for care received on or after Nov. 6, 2003.

Once each of the services begins to identify those individuals qualified for the program, eligibility records will be sent to the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS)—the official list of all individuals eligible for military health benefits. Once eligibility has been verified in DEERS, regional TRICARE contractors will provide education and enrollment support for servicemembers and their families.

More information can be found at www.tricare.osd.mil/trhcp.cfm. You also can contact a local TRICARE Service Center or call a regional toll-free number. You can find regional numbers at http://tricare.osd.mil/mhshome.aspx.

Health Care  |  Capitol Hill examines treatment of non-deployed reservists.

Hearing Addresses Medical “Holds”

In its first hearing of the second session of the 108th Congress, the House Armed Services Committee’s Total Force Subcommittee sent a strong signal to DoD that its members remain concerned about delayed care and processing of mobilized Guard and Reserve troops deemed unfit for deployment. Panel Chairman Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.), Ranking Member Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.), and other committee members sought to learn if care delays and facility inadequacies experienced at Fort Stewart, Ga., last fall had been solved and what actions the armed services have taken to preclude further problems. 

For the most part, service witnesses said these problems have been resolved, mobilized troops declared medically unfit for deployment are getting excellent care, and access has improved considerably. Still, commanders seem reluctant to refer patients to private-sector doctors to avoid care delays, preferring instead to augment overstretched military medical staffs. In rural Fort Stewart, they said outside referral often is not a practical alternative.

TRICARE access standards require routine appointments to be scheduled within seven days and specialty care within 30 days, a standard that has not been met. In addition, difficulties persist with reservists deemed medically unfit for duty. Several witnesses said the Pentagon must do more to ensure timely action so reservists aren’t put in “medical limbo” for months on end. The problem especially is acute for reservists who are hundreds of miles from their families.

Witnesses on the second panel included the surgeons general of the Army and Navy, who discussed the medical challenges expected with the upcoming rotation of 250,000 troops to and from Iraq this spring—the largest troop rotation since World War II. With lessons learned from Fort Stewart, the witnesses expressed confidence about handling the planned rotation.

MOAA is encouraged that there has been some progress, but the association remains concerned about continued delays in providing care to demobilizing reservists and others. America’s men and women in uniform must receive timely care and medical evaluation processing.

Guard/Reserve  |  New philosophy violates spirit of reciprocal commitment.

Mobilized Troops Aren’t Temps

In recent years, the government has clamped down on companies that kept employees as “permanent temps”—people who were, for the most part, treated as full-time employees, but were given no benefits. By law, companies can’t do that anymore.

But that’s pretty much exactly what the Pentagon is doing in its new philosophy of using Guard and Reserve troops to pull regular active duty missions.

The new message Guard and Reserve members are hearing is that they should expect to be called up on contingency operations (and have their families and civilian careers disrupted) every three or four years.

That sure sounds like “active duty temps” to us. Guard and Reserve members now are expected to incur the biggest downside of being on active duty, while DoD adamantly resists providing them any offsetting upside benefits. 

Provide health care for drilling reservists? Change their retirement age? “No way,” says the secretary of defense, who consistently has fought all congressional effort in those areas as though it were a terrorist plot.

Now wait just a minute: The Guard and Reserve low-end benefit system is built on the assumption that members have a full-time civilian career. The new rules, however, put a serious crimp in their ability to have such careers. Extended or multiple recalls can cost Guard and Reserve members promotions, civilian retirement credit, 401(k) contributions, household income, and their private businesses or civilian jobs in some cases (laws against reserve discrimination notwithstanding).

The government can’t have it both ways. There has to be a reciprocal commitment between servicemembers and DoD. That’s what the temp law is all about. We can’t arbitrarily double, triple, or quadruple the commitment expected from our Guard and Reserve forces without accepting a reciprocal obligation to help compensate them for the significant additional sacrifices they’re making.

At the very least, we need to add to the Guard and Reserve compensation and benefits package to ensure it reflects the additional sacrifices we’re demanding of this group.

More fundamentally, defense and congressional leaders need to get real in assessing how often we can continue to call these people to active duty and still expect to retain any reasonable Guard and Reserve force in the long haul.