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

Guard Members Irked By GI Bill 'Title 32' Exclusions

Thank you for your excellent article regarding GI benefits for Reservists and National Guard. What a travesty [that those mobilized under Title 32 call-up authority are denied the new benefits.]

If veterans who served during the World War II, Korean War and Vietnam War eras could get full GI benefits, and never leaf the country, then the National Guard members today also should be able to get them, if they are working in support of the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. And any reservist or Guard member who served in Iraq or Afghanistan should get full GI benefits, not just 50 percent or 80 percent or whatever.

I don't know anything about Title 10 versus Title 32, and I am far less interested in the plea from the Department of Veterans Affairs for Congress to wait until next year to implement any changes because it would create a hardship on staff. Our guys didn't delay driving convoys on those deadly highways in Iraq and getting hit by roadside bombs. They answered the call to duty. We should be prepared to do whatever is necessary to help them when they come home.

The professional soldier chooses the lifestyle and more power to him or her. However, the Guard member or Reservist called to active duty left behind wife, kids, job and community. The last I heard, a high proportion of casualties in these wars have been parents, which wasn't true in WW2, Korea or Vietnam. If guys served more than a year in 'Nam, it was because they chose to do so, not because our government required it.

If the Guard member was activated to respond to natural disasters, that is one thing. If activation was to secure airports and federal buildings during this war against terrorists, then they deserve full GI benefits.

LENA SWANSON
Via e-mail

It seems ludicrous to me that we have members of the Reserve and National Guard components who will only qualify for percentage of the GI bill based on the amount of time they have spent in Title 10 status versus Title 32. If a member of the military has served a combat tour, that tour should be sufficient to qualify for 100 percent of all benefits.

The vast majority of active duty members have not, and will not, actually go to war. These members will serve honorably in various assignments but might not ever leave the continental United States. I do not hold this against anyone. However, Guardsmen in my military occupational specialty would have to have three Title 10 deployments to combat to "earn" full benefits for themselves or their families.

I submit that in most cases, a single deployment to war as a member of the combat arms is sufficient to pay the price.

Placing this qualifier on reserve component members reinforces the perception of their being second-class soldiers. It ignores the fact that so much of this and previous conflicts has been fought by the same group of personnel. This is a slap in the face and should not be tolerated.

ALLEN L. HILL
Corporal, ARNG
36th Infantry Division, Texas

You forgot about all of the Coast Guard Reserve members who served under other orders such as Title 14 in response to Hurricane Katrina and Active Duty Special Work orders for additional Homeland Security operations.

Many Coast Guard reservists did serve under Title 10 but a whole lot have served under alternate orders including me. Since 9/11, I have served under active duty orders far away from home, and away from my job as self-employed business owner, five times, for four months or more at a time.

I would like to see the people making the rules leave their jobs for over 30 days at a time, still keep everything going while in another state or country, and do a good job for the military. Then do it four more times! They would begin to realize how difficult it is to do, particularly with just a short break between orders.

This issue of new GI Bill benefits needs to be reconsidered for all Reserve or National Guard members who served on active duty under any type of orders for more than 30 days at a time.

SCOTT L. PAINE
Senior Chief Machinery Technician
USCGR Sector Jacksonville, Fla.

I am an Air National Guard member and feel education benefits need to be revised. Many Guard members have been sent into harm's way since 2003. The new education benefit should be open to all those who have served any length of time in a hostile environment.

I also believe we should have all the education benefits that active duty members have, with no exceptions. We complete our work each month in two days. We train on our state missions and for our wartime missions. We are sent to home state emergencies and help in other states with their emergencies. We go to foreign countries on humanitarian missions and, last, we go to war, for a few months and on up to years.

J. G.
Via e-mail

DAY SHORT

My husband officially is retiring July 31. He is on terminal leave right now. What does he need to be able to transfer his new GI Bill benefits to our daughter? Is it still possible?

DEBBIE SULLIVAN
Via e-mail

The new GI Bill law doesn't allow transfer of benefits if a service member isn't on active duty or in the drilling reserve as of Aug. 1. So your husband will not be able to qualify for transferability without some last-minute change to his retirement orders. – Tom Philpott

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.