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

Re-Armed To Steer Careerists Away From Redux

That was an excellent article on the downside of choosing the Career Status Bonus and Redux retirement plan.

I am an E-8 with 15.5 years in. I turned down REDUX. If you are not downrange [in a war zone] and able to take advantage of tax-free savings, it just isn't worth it.

I use all my persuasiveness with my soldiers to have them resist the temptation of $30,000. I will add this article to my arsenal.

Keep up the good work.

JIM STILLMAN
First Sergeant, USA
Via e-mail

Online Students

Have you heard of any headway being made to modify the Post-9/11 GI Bill to fit the needs of veterans who are online students?

GEOFFREY B. MILLER
Via e-mail

Online degree programs will be covered by the new GI Bill.  However, they aren’t eligible, under current law, for the monthly living allowance tied to Basic Allowance for Housing or for the $1000 a year stipend to cover books and supplies. This was a compromise worked out after VA officials worried that students would enroll in online schools located in areas of the country with the highest BAH rates, artificially driving up program costs.

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, has introduced a bill (HR 950) that would allow full GI Bill benefits to online students, making their benefits identical to students in classroom courses.  It would do so by removing a requirement that to receive full benefits, students must have at least one class a semester on campus.  Otherwise, details aren’t available.

The living allowance still would be paid only to students who are more than “half-time” students which usually means three or more courses per semester.  The monthly living allowance still would not be paid to active duty users of the new GI Bill.

The new benefit will become available Aug. 1, in time for benefits to start with the fall semester this year.  Prospects for passage of Filner’s bill are unclear. – Tom Philpott

How do you feel about this bill? Contact you public officials and tell them if you support increasing education benefits for distance learners.

Sure, He Can Pay

I take issue with some of Adm. Mike Mullen's comments regarding raising TRICARE costs for retirees.  It's easy for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to support higher co-payments as he and his dependents can walk into Bethesda Naval Medical Center or Walter Reed anytime for nothing.

 I live next door to the Pensacola Navy Station Hospital and they will only see me in an emergency because I am retired.

You referred to the admiral as a "warrior."  To me, he is a politician.

JAKE JACOBSON
Via e-mail

 

I'm a retired E-6, age 69.   If I made the money Adm. Michael Mullen makes, paying for TRICARE wouldn't bother me. But I don't.

BUFORD C. ANDERSON

Technical Sergeant, Ret.
Via e-mail

Living Longer

Reading comments from those Marines and soldiers [on why mortality rates for active duty retirees are higher than for reservists] was like remembering my entire military career.

I was an Air Force Security Force member. Seeing the difference now as a civilian, our health care while in service was despicable. Unless you had your broken leg over your shoulder while entering the ER you were glanced at by a physician assistant, given a Motrin and told to get back to work.

Serving from 1981 to 2005 there was never a shortage of deployments -- Desert Storm, Kosovo, Iraq and special deployments to operations not in the public eye like bigger wars.  For a member to work more than 13 hours a day, five-to-seven days a week, was the norm. Stress kept everyone going and no one had time to be sick or injured.  Couple that with the fact that there never seemed to be enough of us to go around.

Yes, there were malingerers who got out of every deployment. But for most of us it was normal to have two or three deployments in an 18 month period  The phrase "Mission First" is a core value in the Air Force. We put "service before self" and family members.

And of course officers will have longer life spans.  For every officer deployed there were no fewer than 50 to 100 enlisted. The officers never had to build defensive fighting positions. In fact, they did very little physical labor. I have no idea how the medical treatment was for officers but if they received the same treatment as enlisted, I am sure there would have been more inspector general complaints than the base could handle.

This is why the military allows members to retire after 20 years. By then the government has taken everything it could and health becomes an issue as member fall apart at 40 or so.

TERRY K. HINDALL
Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

In the '70s I used to check out the column each week in Air Force Times showing names of those who had passed away, active duty retirees only.  The average amount of time from date of retirement until death was so low as to be scary.  As I recall the average was a little over eight years. Gen. Daniel "Chappie" James passed away of a heart ailment a few weeks after he retired at age 58.

I would routinely check on this average until I retired in 1980. It had not changed by one year in either direction. But my step-father, an officer, retired in 1967 and lived until 2003 at the age of 89. His father died at 67.

Being single I realize that my longevity is shorter than a married person. I doubt that I will survive until my late eighties like other men in my family have, but I have a good chance of living into my early eighties. A lot of this is in our individual genes.

I wasn't surprised that retired officers live longer than enlisted personnel.  It is a matter of financial stress. My total pay when I retired as a master sergeant was a third of my step-father's who retired as a Lt. Colonel.

LYNN POWERS
Master Sergeant, USAF-Ret.
Via e-mail

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.