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

Appreciation for GI Bill Transferability Is All Relative

It surely must be an oversight that we service members who have retired from active duty but otherwise are eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits have been denied the opportunity to transfer our remaining benefits to our dependents.

In your recent column you cite Bob Clark, assistant director of accession policy in the Office of the Secretary as saying the four-year additional service requirement will be relaxed, and for some waived entirely, for individuals near to retirement.

What about those of us who are eligible for the Post-911 GI Bill benefits but have retired within the past couple of years? Why should we not be able to transfer our remaining benefits to our dependents?

The column further describes how Defense officials will allow five waivers to the four-year requirement of additional service for categories of members nearing retirement eligibility or with retirement orders in hand.

"These exceptions are to recognize,” said Clark, "that we have a senior force out there who, had they had this opportunity many years ago, they probably would have selected transferability for their family members."

Exactly, Mr. Clark! Using that same logic, as an Air Force major who retired in July 2007 with 26 years of military service, I can assure you I also would have selected transferability for my family members if given the opportunity years ago.

In effect, what is the difference between waiving the additional service commitment for those who qualify and are still active duty and waiving the additional service commitment for those who qualify and have retired? In both cases, retention is taken out of the equation.

Military retirees who otherwise qualify for the benefits should also be permitted to transfer remaining benefits to their dependents. We, too, have earned it.

BRYAN R. PERSOHN
Major, USAF-Ret.
Via e-mail

Defense officials maintain that the requirement that servicemembers be on active duty or in reserve drill status as of Aug. 1, 2009, in order to qualify for transferability of new GI Bill benefits is set in statute and cannot be relaxed through regulation. It would require Congress to amend the new GI Bill law. -- Tom Philpott

I feel compelled to say that while I am thrilled that I will be able to use my husband's GI Bill, why would I not be entitled to some living expense money or even money for books? Will the books pay for themselves?

Most of us wives have had to move year after year not being able to get a job or maintain our resumes. We are the ones out of work in this bad economy, but we cannot get living expenses money our husbands would get if they were no longer on active duty and attended college.

Employers do not want to hire us when they find out we are military because we will move or because of some stance on the war.

It still puts a strain on a family [to use these benefits] through lost income and the cost of books, so I am not sure this is that much of a gift if you suggest.  I guess it just does not seem so wonderful now.

M. S.

Via e-mail

You must be going nuts with all of the fuss over the transferability of GI Bill benefits to spouses or children for higher education.

My father served in World War II and attended Ohio State on the GI Bill, as did thousands of boys returning from their military service overseas.

What these present-day military folks must remember, or take a study in history to understand, is that the GI Bill originated during wartime, and also when most men were drafted into service just at the time of their lives when they normally would be gainfully employed or attending school. The GI Bill enabled them to further their education, not only for themselves and their future families, but also for the future of the country.  Being able to transfer those benefits at all is icing on the cake.

I truly support and am grateful to our men and women in uniform.   But I am tired of their belly-aching about “long deployments” and “non-transferability of GI Bill benefits.”  Let them go serve overseas for three to four years, as in 1942 to 1945, and see if it would change their attitudes a bit.  During WWII, you were in it for the duration - no R&R trips back home.  No cell phones, no e-mail.  Go to the National World War II Museum in New Orleans and get an education.

If their children want to go to college, they should join the military and get their own benefits.

MARY MARCHMAN

Fort Valley, Ga.

OPENING VA HEALTH CARE

Our new President recently stated that he would make all veterans eligible for VA health care regardless of income.

Has there been any progress with the VA in that area?

H. ZERINGUE

Via e-mail

President Obama’s plan is to allow up to 550,000 new Priority Group 8 veterans to enroll in VA health care by 2013.  These veterans, now excluded from enrollment, have no service-connected ailments and have incomes deemed adequate for their family size and geographic location.

The figure used by Obama includes 266,000 Group 8 veterans already slated to enter the VA health system starting this summer under a funding initiative that Congress passed last fall.

So a veteran’s opportunity to be one of these new enrollees will depend on income.  VA intends to raise income thresholds in July enough to qualify 266,000 more Group 8 veterans to enroll.  Presumably, the administration will continue to raise the income threshold gradually in subsequent years to reach 550,000.  That could continue, of course, beyond 2013, if Obama intends to fulfill his campaign promise to allow all veterans access to VA health care.

More details on enrollment eligibility expansion are available online at www.va.gov/healtheligibility or by calling 1-877-222 VETS (8387).

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.