Tom Kovach
For the good of the service ...?!
Let's look at the bigger picture
By Tom Kovach
This is a column that military recruiters will not want you to read.
Those of us that have worn an American military uniform have, at various points throughout our careers, encountered the phrase "for the good of the service." The first place that many of us encounter it is in the assignment of job specialties after basic training. People that are assigned an unpleasant job are told that it is "for the good of the service," and are (sometimes) given a time limit after which they may request a different job assignment. (When I was in the Air Force, it was three years.) Another common use of the phrase is when assigning people to remote overseas locations. Given the nature of military duties, both of those applications make sense.
But, sometimes, the phrase is used in ways that make little, if any, sense. We've all seen things that don't make sense — at least, at first glance. If we stay in past the first enlistment, some of those things begin to make sense as we advance in responsibilities and see the bigger picture. Some of those things never make any sense at all. I'd like to hear from some of you about two classes of things in the military that don't make sense.
One is why good people are discharged, and some sorry people are kept on active duty. The destruction of my own career, after more than 16 years in uniform, is a classic example. My discharge was illegal, it was done for nefarious purposes, and I was never given a discharge physical. I had residual injuries (from a high-speed parachute malfunction) that led to a 40 percent VA disability rating. But, I was never given a board hearing for a medical retirement. Why? And, what happened to the unscrupulous officer that forced my discharge through the system? He got promoted — twice — after that. How? We'll get to those points later. For now, let's look at a larger, more pressing, and far more important example of things that don't make sense.
Combat-wounded veterans are, in some cases, being forced to repay the "unused" portion of their Selective Reenlistment Bonus. The remainder of the bonus became "unused" through no fault of the servicemember. The SRB is rated depending upon the hazards and the necessity of the person's assigned job. People with very hazardous jobs, and/or very needed skills, are given bigger bonuses. But, the very nature of those jobs also often makes them more likely to be wounded in combat. Hey, that's why the military came up with the bonus structure in the first place, right?
But, now, the military Services are taking back the money that they paid to people for reenlisting. There has been a long-standing policy that a servicemember that becomes unfit for duty by neglect (drug use, alcoholism, criminal activity, malingering, etc.) must repay the bonus. But, in the modern cases, servicemembers have been compelled to repay the bonus because they have become unfit for duty by severe combat injuries. This raises legal and ethical questions. Is the bonus paid in advance for becoming available to perform the duties (by signing the reenlistment contract), or for actually performing the duties? If the former, then why would the Services even try to recoup the money? If the latter, then why do the Services pay the money in advance?
Last year, Congress introduced HR 3793 in an attempt to fix the problem. But, the solution carries its own problems. And, that is the main thrust of this column. The organization that I started, Project "Warrior Bonus", has discovered a flaw in HR 3793. That flaw is fixed by a different bill, HR 4750. As a result, Project "Warrior Bonus" has withdrawn its support from HR 3793, and now instead supports HR 4750. (Another organization, founded by another disabled veteran, still supports HR 3793. Last year, before the introduction of HR 4750, I attempted to work with that other organization. No one ever replied. I did some research, and discovered a possible reason. That other organization is headquartered in an expensive Manhattan office building. I run my organization from a room in my house. Hmmmmmm.) The root of the change to HR 4750 has to do with the use of the phrase "for the good of the service."
The flawed bill, HR 3793, contains language that allows the Services to bypass the main intent of the law when recouping the bonus money is determined to be "for the good of the service." Hello?! The bean counters at the Pentagon will say that saving money is, by its nature, for the good of the service. That legislative loophole could put every SRB payment into jeopardy. So much for fixing the problem. If you don't believe me, then read the entire language of both bills for yourself. If you don't want to take the time, then simply send a contribution to Project "Warrior Bonus," and I'll fight on your behalf.
Now, to answer those questions that were left dangling above. How was my discharge illegal? My DD Form 214 contains a "justification" phrase that contradicts itself, and is not found in any personnel manual. How did it get through the system? Because the base commander, a full colonel at that time, pushed it through the system during the big "downsizing" craze after Operation Desert Storm. Why would he do such a thing? Because I was on patrol one night (four days after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait), and saw him supervising members of the base fire department as they pumped chemically contaminated wastewater over the fence onto civilian airfield property. (The water flowed downhill into a small creek, and then downstream to a reservoir. That reservoir was part of the drinking supply for the city of Newburgh, New York.) I reported what I saw to the NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, which had previously fined the base $200,000 for a "leak" that had been discovered in the sewage system of the Town of New Windsor (which borders Newburgh).
As "repayment" for being a good citizen and trying to protect the environment, the base commander had me discharged. I fought it for months, but he won. And, he was later promoted twice. He retired as a two-star general. He then went on to become a DC lobbyist. In fact, he got his first lobbying contract about three months after he retired. Given that a Federal law requires a one-year "cooling off" period before becoming a lobbyist (some interpretations of the statute say two years), his lobbying business was illegal from the start. But, the first year, he made a quarter-million dollars in lobbying fees, in addition to his military retirement pay. I've reported his activities to authorities (and to some of his clients), but nothing was ever done to stop him.
The above is how I know, first-hand, that there are some unscrupulous people within an otherwise honorable military bureaucracy. Those unscrupulous people can, and do, take advantage of the system. Therefore, any laws or regulations governing that system must be written in such a way as to deny unscrupulous people the opportunity to use loopholes in order to hurt good people. As distasteful as my own example is (when the money ran out, so did my first wife), it pales in comparison to the examples of people that have lost eyes, arms, and legs in combat, only to have their government take back money that was already paid to them for faithfully enlisting and putting themselves into harm's way in the first place. Those wounded warriors deserve our respect, our help, and our support.
What do you think? If you agree, then there are two things that you can do. First, contribute to Project "Warrior Bonus." Help me to fight on behalf of those combat-wounded veterans. The other thing that you can do is call my talk-radio program and tell your story. Help me to keep a watchful eye on unscrupulous people in the military and in government. When I was discharged, there was no one in talk-radio with a career military background. (And, when Oliver North later got a talk show, it was not on the air in my market. There was no such thing as Internet streaming then. So, call screeners did not allow calls from areas where the show was not broadcast commercially.) I can use my talk show, and my columns, to help our military members and families have a voice "outside the system."
The name of my program is "The US Phone Force", from my service in the US Air Force. The concept is that, by banding together, we can become an influential force via the telephone. From time to time, as issues come up, the show will carry "Ops Orders" to the listening audience. We will then "attack" the phone lines of government and business officials to demand changes. It's a very American concept, and you can be a part of it simply by listening and calling. We can start by posing this question to our elected representatives: Which is more important, "the good of the service," or "the good of the servicemember"? In an all-volunteer military, that question needs to be considered when legislating things such as recoupment of Selective Reenlistment Bonuses. Otherwise, there won't be any more volunteers.
And, now you know why this column won't be on the table in the waiting room at the local recruiter's office.
© Tom Kovach
This is a column that military recruiters will not want you to read.
Those of us that have worn an American military uniform have, at various points throughout our careers, encountered the phrase "for the good of the service." The first place that many of us encounter it is in the assignment of job specialties after basic training. People that are assigned an unpleasant job are told that it is "for the good of the service," and are (sometimes) given a time limit after which they may request a different job assignment. (When I was in the Air Force, it was three years.) Another common use of the phrase is when assigning people to remote overseas locations. Given the nature of military duties, both of those applications make sense.
But, sometimes, the phrase is used in ways that make little, if any, sense. We've all seen things that don't make sense — at least, at first glance. If we stay in past the first enlistment, some of those things begin to make sense as we advance in responsibilities and see the bigger picture. Some of those things never make any sense at all. I'd like to hear from some of you about two classes of things in the military that don't make sense.
One is why good people are discharged, and some sorry people are kept on active duty. The destruction of my own career, after more than 16 years in uniform, is a classic example. My discharge was illegal, it was done for nefarious purposes, and I was never given a discharge physical. I had residual injuries (from a high-speed parachute malfunction) that led to a 40 percent VA disability rating. But, I was never given a board hearing for a medical retirement. Why? And, what happened to the unscrupulous officer that forced my discharge through the system? He got promoted — twice — after that. How? We'll get to those points later. For now, let's look at a larger, more pressing, and far more important example of things that don't make sense.
Combat-wounded veterans are, in some cases, being forced to repay the "unused" portion of their Selective Reenlistment Bonus. The remainder of the bonus became "unused" through no fault of the servicemember. The SRB is rated depending upon the hazards and the necessity of the person's assigned job. People with very hazardous jobs, and/or very needed skills, are given bigger bonuses. But, the very nature of those jobs also often makes them more likely to be wounded in combat. Hey, that's why the military came up with the bonus structure in the first place, right?
But, now, the military Services are taking back the money that they paid to people for reenlisting. There has been a long-standing policy that a servicemember that becomes unfit for duty by neglect (drug use, alcoholism, criminal activity, malingering, etc.) must repay the bonus. But, in the modern cases, servicemembers have been compelled to repay the bonus because they have become unfit for duty by severe combat injuries. This raises legal and ethical questions. Is the bonus paid in advance for becoming available to perform the duties (by signing the reenlistment contract), or for actually performing the duties? If the former, then why would the Services even try to recoup the money? If the latter, then why do the Services pay the money in advance?
Last year, Congress introduced HR 3793 in an attempt to fix the problem. But, the solution carries its own problems. And, that is the main thrust of this column. The organization that I started, Project "Warrior Bonus", has discovered a flaw in HR 3793. That flaw is fixed by a different bill, HR 4750. As a result, Project "Warrior Bonus" has withdrawn its support from HR 3793, and now instead supports HR 4750. (Another organization, founded by another disabled veteran, still supports HR 3793. Last year, before the introduction of HR 4750, I attempted to work with that other organization. No one ever replied. I did some research, and discovered a possible reason. That other organization is headquartered in an expensive Manhattan office building. I run my organization from a room in my house. Hmmmmmm.) The root of the change to HR 4750 has to do with the use of the phrase "for the good of the service."
The flawed bill, HR 3793, contains language that allows the Services to bypass the main intent of the law when recouping the bonus money is determined to be "for the good of the service." Hello?! The bean counters at the Pentagon will say that saving money is, by its nature, for the good of the service. That legislative loophole could put every SRB payment into jeopardy. So much for fixing the problem. If you don't believe me, then read the entire language of both bills for yourself. If you don't want to take the time, then simply send a contribution to Project "Warrior Bonus," and I'll fight on your behalf.
Now, to answer those questions that were left dangling above. How was my discharge illegal? My DD Form 214 contains a "justification" phrase that contradicts itself, and is not found in any personnel manual. How did it get through the system? Because the base commander, a full colonel at that time, pushed it through the system during the big "downsizing" craze after Operation Desert Storm. Why would he do such a thing? Because I was on patrol one night (four days after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait), and saw him supervising members of the base fire department as they pumped chemically contaminated wastewater over the fence onto civilian airfield property. (The water flowed downhill into a small creek, and then downstream to a reservoir. That reservoir was part of the drinking supply for the city of Newburgh, New York.) I reported what I saw to the NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, which had previously fined the base $200,000 for a "leak" that had been discovered in the sewage system of the Town of New Windsor (which borders Newburgh).
As "repayment" for being a good citizen and trying to protect the environment, the base commander had me discharged. I fought it for months, but he won. And, he was later promoted twice. He retired as a two-star general. He then went on to become a DC lobbyist. In fact, he got his first lobbying contract about three months after he retired. Given that a Federal law requires a one-year "cooling off" period before becoming a lobbyist (some interpretations of the statute say two years), his lobbying business was illegal from the start. But, the first year, he made a quarter-million dollars in lobbying fees, in addition to his military retirement pay. I've reported his activities to authorities (and to some of his clients), but nothing was ever done to stop him.
The above is how I know, first-hand, that there are some unscrupulous people within an otherwise honorable military bureaucracy. Those unscrupulous people can, and do, take advantage of the system. Therefore, any laws or regulations governing that system must be written in such a way as to deny unscrupulous people the opportunity to use loopholes in order to hurt good people. As distasteful as my own example is (when the money ran out, so did my first wife), it pales in comparison to the examples of people that have lost eyes, arms, and legs in combat, only to have their government take back money that was already paid to them for faithfully enlisting and putting themselves into harm's way in the first place. Those wounded warriors deserve our respect, our help, and our support.
What do you think? If you agree, then there are two things that you can do. First, contribute to Project "Warrior Bonus." Help me to fight on behalf of those combat-wounded veterans. The other thing that you can do is call my talk-radio program and tell your story. Help me to keep a watchful eye on unscrupulous people in the military and in government. When I was discharged, there was no one in talk-radio with a career military background. (And, when Oliver North later got a talk show, it was not on the air in my market. There was no such thing as Internet streaming then. So, call screeners did not allow calls from areas where the show was not broadcast commercially.) I can use my talk show, and my columns, to help our military members and families have a voice "outside the system."
The name of my program is "The US Phone Force", from my service in the US Air Force. The concept is that, by banding together, we can become an influential force via the telephone. From time to time, as issues come up, the show will carry "Ops Orders" to the listening audience. We will then "attack" the phone lines of government and business officials to demand changes. It's a very American concept, and you can be a part of it simply by listening and calling. We can start by posing this question to our elected representatives: Which is more important, "the good of the service," or "the good of the servicemember"? In an all-volunteer military, that question needs to be considered when legislating things such as recoupment of Selective Reenlistment Bonuses. Otherwise, there won't be any more volunteers.
And, now you know why this column won't be on the table in the waiting room at the local recruiter's office.
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
