Readers of Tom Philpott's Military Update column sound off.

VA Mileage Reimbursement Finally Raised After 30 Years

Has the Department of Veterans Affairs increased the mileage rate for veterans who travel to VA hospitals, which was way out of date?

MICHAEL D. PORTER
USAF-Ret.

Yes. Effective Feb. 1, the VA travel reimbursement rate for eligible veterans rose from 11 cents a mile to 28.5 cents, the first adjustment in 30 years.  The change, which will benefit approximately one million veterans, was voted by Congress as part of the fiscal 2008 appropriations act.

Veterans also pay a deductible on travel reimbursements, however, and those amounts also have risen.  The deductible of $3 for each one-way trip is now $7.77.  The $18 maximum deductible per month has been raised to $46.62. VA will waive deductibles if veterans show that they pose a financial hardship. -- Tom Philpott

Left Out Of Early Retirement

I am very upset at this idea of reserve retirement falling below age 60 only for those who are deployed for 90 days or more after the 2008 Defense Authorization bill was signed this month. I would also be upset Congress extends it to anyone deployment after 9/11.

What about those of us who retired from the reserve having served on active duty during the Vietnam War? Please tell me where the fairness is for these war veterans?

I retired from the Air Force Reserve after 28 years. That included three years and nine months on active duty. I would hope our elected officials don't forget about us. We absolutely did not get the recognition we deserved for our service in that war.

ANTHONY E. BUGARIN
Master Sergeant, USAFR-Ret.
Via e-mail

Whatever happens to this provision regarding reserve early retirement, no one will be happy because the '91 Gulf War vets will feel left out.

Congress should just change reserve retirement age to 55 to make everybody happy. This is long overdue and the remedy should be for all who serve, whether fighting forest fires, floods or serving on active duty. It's time to recognize what the reserve and National Guard do for this country.

JOHN P. DONOVAN
Sergeant First Class
Iraq

I currently am fighting in Baghdad. I completed my first tour in May 2006 in Afghanistan. With 20+ years of service in the Michigan National Guard, I have seen discrimination toward older soldiers again and again.

It started with the new $15,000 enlistment bonus, which the government will pay to a young soldier for a six-year enlistment. But no additional compensation is aimed at the soldier of more than 20 years' service who likely has more civilian and more military education.

Now, soldiers with multiple tours are being discriminated against. This targeting of an earlier retirement formula only to future deployments is like frosting on a cake; it looks good but it masks a bad tasting cake. Politicians know this change will buy votes at the lowest cost possible.

Why not a bill directing that for every two years a reservist serves beyond 20 years, their age at retirement falls is reduced by one year?

ROBERT N.
Via e-mail

How shameful can our legislators be?

The reserve retirement system was designed in 1947 when the Reserve and National Guard were considered a "strategic" reserve. Now, as part of a "Total Force" called to active duty and serving proudly along side their active counterparts, their sacrifice takes a slap.

MIKE GREIGER
Florida
Via e-mail

Thanks for keeping us informed about military issues, and keeping those issues in the public view.

As a retired active duty Army officer (total of 27 years as an enlisted member, warrant officer, captain, government civilian and contractor), I have seen a lot of changes and promises made.  The costs of war and defense are always very high, and many costs are hidden such as extended medical care for those injured.

It is too bad about the limitations on reservists' retirement deal. If they had been offered early retirement, or if it was implied when they did extend active duty time, then, by all means, we must pay for it. This war is only possible with the vast manpower contribution of the reserves. Never again can we call them just weekend warriors. They have more than done their share, and their readiness has been tested severely.

As for those who decry the costs of the pay raises, I would ask them to get in on the action for three to four years then make an appraisal. Life in the service can be difficult, but you can't explain that to all those folks who never had to deal with it.

STEVE HALE
Tacoma, Wash.

Since 2003 I have served a tour in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. By volunteering for Afghanistan, my command said we would be exempt from the next deployment to Iraq later this year. But the Army changed their policy and now I'm being forced to go on the next rotation back to the box.

I am currently in the police academy trying my hand at securing the home front, but the military is keeping me from this new career.

Whatever happened to the "core values" we non-commissioned officers are expected to enforce if the Army keeps doing this to its soldiers?

RUBAN C.
Sergeant First Class
Via e-mail

The reserve components are required to serve for the same deployment durations and fulfill the same missions as active duty components. Why then can't their retirement age be equivalent?

It is not like the reservist and the active duty member will draw the same amount in retirement pay. There still would be a huge difference in points earned toward retirement between the two components.

MARK HEDGERMAN
Via e-mail

I've never understood why active duty service members draw their retirement at 20 years service, and reservists have to wait until age 60 but still must serve at least 20 years. Seems odd?

ANTHONY J. KARNAVAS
Lieutenant Colonel, USAFR-Ret.

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com.

How do you feel about this issue?
Let your public officials know how you feel.