>Reality Check: Time to Consider Combat-Related Death Benefits?
>Reality Check: Compare pay and benefits to the private sector.

Printable version

Email article

Congress has improved military compensation in recent years, but answering "How much is enough?" can be difficult. The first reaction is to compare pay and benefits to the private sector.

That's useful to establish a minimum standard. But military people endure conditions of service - for decades at a time - that few civilians are willing to accept: hazardous duty, extended family separations, the disruption of a spouse's career or a child's education, overseas service, and the loss of many personal freedoms civilians take for granted.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently completed a study that brings this comparison home in a particularly emotional way: military death benefits versus those provided federal, state, and city employees who die in the line of duty.

Overall, the GAO found that military survivor benefits compare favorably with those for federal, state, and local government workers. However, the study shows military death benefits fall significantly short when compared to those for civilians in "high-risk" jobs (e.g., law enforcement, firefighters) who are killed on duty.

For example, the wife and two children of a Marine captain killed in Iraq would receive a $268,900 lump-sum payment - and $250,000 of that payment is Servicemen's Government Life Insurance (SGLI), which the member paid for. The family also would receive a total monthly annuity of $3,900 from DoD and the VA. The family of an FBI agent who is killed in the line of duty, on the other hand, would receive a lump-sum payment of $499,494 and a survivor monthly annuity of $4,456. See "Time to Consider Combat-Related Death Benefits?

So why is there such a big difference in the lump sum? Because of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, which entitles survivors of federal, state, and local government employees, such as FBI agents, who die as a result of their high-risk occupations to an additional lump-sum benefit of $267,000.

Aren't our sailors, soldiers, pilots, and Marines in high-risk jobs, too? Certainly not all active duty deaths are in combat or combat-related training - but since Sept. 11, 2001, more than 1,000 have been. Perhaps it's time to consider including them in the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act.

One could argue that increasing military survivor benefits wouldn't be practical because of the potential for catastrophically high casualties during wartime. But modern standoff weaponry and other politico-military considerations have greatly reduced the likelihood of high-casualty conflicts. An exemption might be made in the case of a formal declaration of war.

Award of federal payments in excess of $1 million to the families of each Sept. 11 victim has lent emotional impact to the "How much is enough?" question. Now, Congress is asking that question, too. The Senate-passed version of the FY2005 Defense Authorization Bill would require the Pentagon to submit legislation to raise the maximum SGLI amount to $350,000, with the first $100,000 paid for by the government, along with any additional recommendations for improvements in military death benefits.

No one can put a fair monetary value on the lives of men and women lost in the course of defending our country. However, Congress' recognition that we can and must do better should be applauded.