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

Early Retirement Limits Steam Deployed Guardsmen

It has always been a crock not to allow National Guardsmen to collect retirement at the time they retire. Now Congress comes up with some lame-brain plan to chip time off the age 60 rule based on deployments, but won't make it retroactive to earlier deployments in the war on terrorism.

That is unacceptable!

I never realized how difficult it is to be a National Guardsmen until I joined the National Guard after five years of active service with the 82nd Airborne Division. Full-time soldiers have 365 days a year to train and prepare. It's their only job and their lives are geared around it.

National Guard soldiers have a multitude of outside responsibilities and face additional sacrifices to serve if they have civilian careers, are fulltime students or own small businesses.

I encountered another problem. I have deployed twice as a National Guardsmen since 9/11. I also am rated 20-percent service disabled by the VA. During my first 12-month deployment I fell into debt with the VA because I was not supposed to draw my monthly disability check on active duty. I did not know that. On my return, VA stopped my checks until the debt was repaid.

Before leaving on my second deployment, I sent VA a letter with copies of my orders telling them to stop disability pay because I had been recalled for 18 months. It took six months to stop the payments. As a result, my wife started getting letters saying we owed the VA $5,000. The letter didn't explain the debt or include an itemized statement.

She tried to get help from the VA but no one would tell her what the debt was about. I was on another continent fighting for our freedom and there was nothing I could do to help resolve this. VA reported me to the attorney general's office. They hired a third-party collection service to harass my wife about the debt, while I was half-way around the world where my government had sent me. Wasn't this ridiculous?

Military service is not for everyone. It is demanding, time consuming. It also is rewarding. It takes selflessness, discipline, and an ability to adapt to any circumstance. In these volatile times, our country needs people to answer our nation's call and to protect the innocent around the world.

But I am paying for the opportunity to serve in the war against terrorism. Citizen soldiers deserve more respect.

JASON JOBSON
Sergeant, Oklahoma ARNG
Via e-mail

As a deployed member of the Texas National Guard, I support back-dating any improvement to the reserve component retirement plan.

This is my second deployment and hopefully my last. To adopt an earlier-age retirement plan, but not count past deployments towards it, would be a slap in the face to hundreds of thousands who have served here.

My civilian job is in federal law enforcement. I can begin drawing my retirement from that career at 55. Statistics have shown that a large percentage of personnel who retire from the military or law enforcement don't live past age 65 due to the stress and physical activity. I would like to be able to enjoy my reserve retirement for more than five years.

MARK SWEET
Sergeant, Texas ARNG
Camp Adder, Iraq

Most proposals to lower age of retirement for reserve component personnel are a sad joke that will harm morale and careerists. I say just make the annuity payable at age 55 or lower.

The [Bush] administration and Congress are over using and abusing the Reserve and Guard. Once highly experienced people start leaving in large numbers, you'll have only a bunch of kids in charge. I heard a senior enlisted advisor claim recently that 51 percent of today's active duty airmen joined since 9-11. It sounds nice and patriotic. But the flip side of the coin is that our military has a lot of young people with less experience.

Purge the reserve components further by enacting an unjust retirement plan and our military will really be hurting!

LES WIMMER
Master Sergeant, USAFR-Ret.
Via e-mail

Employer TRICARE Supplements

As a military retiree, I am outraged with Congress and with my Virginia representatives for, in effect, handing me a $5000 health care bill.

In previous years, my company offered a TRICARE supplement option. This year, because the 2007 defense authorization act prohibited it, my company stopped offering military retirees that option.

So my "free health care for life," which I was paying extra for but using pre-tax dollars, has been taken away. Now I'm paying TRICARE costs with no company help and using after-tax dollars.

Are these "representatives" working to fix this insult, or are they going to ignore it?

THOMAS C.
Via e-mail

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

Congress isn't inclined to repeal the provision it only recently passed to bar employers from offering TRICARE supplements or other incentives to TRICARE-eligible employees. The idea is to stop soliciting employees to drop company-paid health coverage and use TRICARE instead. The law, which took effect Jan. 1, extends to TRICARE a rule adopted years ago to hold down Medicare costs.

Employers who violate the ban face a $5000 fine per employee. Companies with fewer than 20 employees are exempt.

Though repeal isn’t likely, there are efforts to try to limit its adverse effects, said Steve Strobridge, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America. Employers, for example, should not be interpreting the law as barring plans that offer any employee a payment to buy or use alternative insurance.

For companies to feel comfortable doing that, Defense officials need to publish clarifying policy guidance. So far, they haven’t, Strobridge said.

"We've been urging people working for such employers to push Human Resources department to implement an equal-opportunity payment plan. And we've been pushing Congress to get DoD to put out the policy as soon as possible so we have an official document that people can give to employers saying the cash payment option is okay," Strobridge said.

If the DoD policy guidance isn’t clear, he said, MOAA will press Congress to modify the law so that it explicitly allows companies to offer payments to any employee using alternative health coverage.

"If a company was willing to pay for a TRICARE supplement, they ought to be willing to make a cash payment," he said. "It just has to be the same cash payment for any employee who doesn't take the company plan." – Tom P.

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 the retirement limits?
Let your public officials know how you feel.