You want a mission, but need a job

I began my military career in 1997 when I enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves as a Civil Affairs Specialist. At the time, I was a freshman at a local community college and looking for a challenge. I remained enlisted for 4 years, attaining the rank of Sergeant, and earning an Associates Degree in Behavioral Science. During my tenure as a Civil Affairs Specialist, I was trained in populace resource control, disaster and emergency management, civil defense, and humanitarian aid. Upon completion of a deployment to Bosnia in 2000, I was awarded an RTOC Scholarship to the University of California Santa Barbara. In 2001, I left Civil Affairs and became a cadet. In 2002, I graduated from UCSB with a degree Global Studies and International Relations and was commissioned a 2LT in the Armor Branch. For the next four year I served as a combat arms officer; holding several jobs. Beginning as an assistant maintenance officer, I restructured the service schedule of over 130 combat vehicles. As a cavalry and mortar platoon leader, I lead soldiers through combat and monthly training exercises as the OPFOR at the National Training Center. As an Executive officer, I was responsible for the logistics and administration of a headquarters company of which I spent 6 out of the 12 months in command of. As a public relations officer, I was the public face of a regiment that not only trained the force, but preparing to deploy themselves. I had a long and honorable service. I gained skills and accomplished tasks that many of my civilian peers would not face until much later in their careers. Conventional wisdom backed up by rhetoric from the transitional assistance programs dictated that I should have no problems finding equivalent employment in the civilian world.

This however, turned out not to be the case. After putting my belongings in to storage and returning home after 10 years, I began what would be a 10 month journey of shock, disappointment and education as to the disposition of the civilian work force toward members of the military. I began my search as many do by reaching out to recruitment agencies that specialize in military to civilian transition. I found that working with these agencies gave me access to the corporate world that was closed to me when searching on my own. Through them I interviewed with over 20 companies, reaching the offer stage 5 times over the course of 10 months. With the single exception of my current position; on my own I never once received a reply or initial interview from similar companies in positions that I was either perfectly or over qualified for. I learned that in the civilian world, military achievements and equivalent skills are neither understood, nor valued. Too often I hit roadblocks relating to knowledge of proprietary systems, types of degrees and a general lack of understanding as to the nature of military jobs. In many positions I had practical experiences that matched or far exceeded the prospective job, yet employers did not understand or were not interested in learning how experience as an officer translated in to their industry. It was only through the access provided to me by various military to civilian head hunting agencies, that I was able to get interviews.

The transition assistance programs that one is required to go through makes several assumptions about the soldier leaving the Army. It assumes that the soldier is young and of college age. Most of the advice and placement help provided by the Army Civilian Alumni Program (ACAP) is geared toward entry level positions for people with little to no transferable leadership skills. It also does not provide a comprehensive MOS translation system for officers. Enlisted soldiers have several resources that translate their MOS skills and education to equivalent civilian certificates and job descriptions. There is no such system for officers. While the four day course is informative and provides us with valuable information about the VA and our rights as veterans, the advice given to us as perspective job seekers is lacking in both context and accuracy. This training that is done by military to civilian recruiters is far more accurate and efficient. Over all, I found that the transition assistance program was geared toward young enlisted soldiers. As an officer, it was clear that I was on my own.

I found that corporate Americans valued my service as citizens, but were weary of it as employers. While much of my experience was lost in translation, I found that it was not the only issue that I had to overcome. As a combat arms officer, I did not possess any one particular specialized technical skill, but rather a familiarity with a wide range of skill sets that could be useful in many fields. The phrase often used is “jack of all trades, yet master of none”. I found that while qualified in a general sense, my lack of experience with systems such as six sigma, MS project, or various internal systems put me at a disadvantage when competing with others. Additionally, I found that there was a fear attached hiring former combat soldiers as the stigma of combat stress, put me in a position of being a potential liability to the company. Not wanting to start over as an intern after a successful 10 year career, I pressed on with my job search. As I went on countless 3^rd and 4^th interviews, I found that when it came to an offer, companies usually went with internal candidates or someone with less practical experience but more degrees or certificates.

Military to civilian transition is tough no matter how you look at it. Your culture changes, your perspective is different, and your priorities are vastly different from your peers. You are going from having a mission, to having a job, and that is a perspective shift that makes adapting to the civilian environment difficult and trying.

Going through the motions: VA Claims Processing

Originally posted December 5, 2008

It is all too familiar to hear that VA disability claims are endlessly backlogged. With the national average of claims pending over 6 months hovering consistently at around 20%, it is clear that the problem is system wide with no easy solutions. In 2007 and 2008 Congress increased the VA budget to allow for the hiring of over 4000 new claims processors. This was a major step forward, but it did not address the underlying problem that nobody talks about. It's easy to throw money at the system and simply hire more hands to process the claims, but what happens when the backlog remains, or the numbers simply shift from claims processing to claims appeals?

This is where we get to the heart of the problem. The biggest issue is not with the number of claims processed, but with the quality of the processed claims. Quality is the key to timeliness. Timeliness follows from quality because poor record development, failure to accurately process claims and erroneous decisions require the claims to continually cycle through the process, which adds to the load of an already overburdened system.

An article in newsday.com this week outlines many of the issues surrounding VA disability claims development in the New York office:

The VA became so concerned that employees had misplaced key documents such as marriage certificates and medical records that they offered amnesty to encourage their return. Some 700 documents were recovered anonymously, Walcoff said.

The massive agency has already been pummeled by accusations that employees have lost, misplaced or shredded documents across the country.

While systematic boneheaded mistakes are certainly alarming and gaining national attention, there is a deeper issue involved that speaks to a culture at the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) that places premiums on easily quantifiable statistics, a work credit system that focuses on quantity, and poor methods of training VBA employees and managers.

VBA's current work credit system does not take into account the correct or incorrect outcome of the claim, but rather focuses on the number of tasks completed by the individuals rating the claim. This ultimately leads to very little individual accountability within the VBA. Employees receive credit for the work they do, regardless of whether they did the work correctly. Under this system, there is little incentive for any employee to do the work correctly the first time.

According to a recent GAO report the VBAs methods of training are also sorely lacking in both accountability and proper methodology.

Currently, claims processors at the VA regional offices must conduct 80 hours of annual standardized training as part of the VA's performance management system. Yet VBA officials could not identify the criteria or analysis that was used in determining the 80 hour requirement.

Additionally, the agency does not hold claims processors or managers accountable for meeting the annual training requirement. Furthermore, the training programs are not based on feedback from processors, nor do they take in to account the most common errors found in processing over the last fiscal year.

What this all adds up to is a passive and apathetic VBA that did not prepare for the influx of veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor is jumping to reform its current broken practices. I hope that the new administration and the new VA Secretary will replace the current crop of managers in the VBA with leaders who are not afraid ask tough questions and implement reforms. Until then, it's up to all of us to keep watching and ensure that the VA is ultimately accountable to those that it is supposed to serve.

Military Voting

Originally posted October 3, 2008

Our most basic charge as service member is to defend the country and its way of life. No action exemplifies the core principles of freedom more than the simple act of voting. It is our most basic right and one that we have had to fight for throughout our history. One would think that for those charged with its defense, casting a vote would be simple. Sadly, this is not the case. Many service members vote not in the district in which they are stationed, but in their home of record. The transitory lifestyle of the military makes this a common and necessary practice, and local municipalities generally have effective procedures in place to accommodate its constituents serving around the country. However, for those serving overseas the process is difficult, and for those deployed overseas, the process is practically impossible to navigate without the help and support of the DOD.

In 2000, I was deployed to Bosnia during the Presidential Primary Elections. Knowing beforehand that I would be deployed, I applied for an absentee ballot. As I did not know where I would be stationed, I had it sent to my parents thinking that they would be able to send it to me, and I could return it in time. As you can imagine, this was not the case. The ballot took two weeks to get to me at Camp Tuzla, another two weeks for it to return to California, and it missed the deadline. For all of us who have been deployed, we all know and accept the realities of the Military postal system. By and large, the system works pretty well, but it is near impossible to deal with anything time sensitive. In Bosnia, the system was unpredictable. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the system is functional, but chaotic. Clearly, there needs to be a special emphasis and assistance from the DOD in order to ensure that those who are fighting for our freedoms are able to cast their vote and be counted.

Currently the DOD uses the Federal Voter Assistance Program (FVAP), which provides a 460 page instruction manual detailing the step by step procedures for completing and sending the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA). The FPCA is a combined voter registration and absentee ballot application that was created from the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voter Act of 1986. As states have a variety of different requirements, the "catch all" FPCA is difficult to fill out and a significant portion end up getting rejected by the states. According to a Pew Research study, 40,000 military FPCAs were rejected in 2006 due to some error in filling out state requirements. Furthermore, units Voter Assistance Officers are not given proper training on the difference between local registration and the FPCA.

In 2004 I was appointed as the Voter Assistance Officer (VAO) for my Troop. The only information or guidance I received was the memo assigning me the extra duty. Being responsible, I set out on my own to find resources and pathways to get my soldiers registered either locally or in their home state. I did locate the FVAP, and made attempts to get every soldier that was interested properly registered. In 2004 this was not as easy of a task as it is today. In garrison, this program works, as it relies on the predictability of the US. Mail. However, the Pew study shows that in 2004 VAOs reached only 50%of military voters. Furthermore, states require a myriad of different requirements that lead to confusion and error when filling out the FPCA. The Federal Voter Assistance Program is assigned the responsibility to register overseas voters, yet does not have the authority to affect and change the systems needed to make registration happen.

On October 1, the Senate passed S 3073, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. This act requires the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for collecting absentee ballots of military overseas voters in elections for federal office; and delivering such ballots to the appropriate state election officials. Additionally, it mandates that the delivery must take place prior to the polls closing and authorized the DOD to use express mail and contract delivery services to ensure local receipt of ballots.

This Act takes care of the biggest and most obvious flaw with Federal Voter Assistance Program. As anyone who has been deployed will tell you, it is impossible to plan for anything time sensitive through the mail from a combat zone. In 2006 86% of the FPCAs were sent via the mail, and with the military postal system average round trip being 24-36 days to and from Iraq and Afghanistan there is little to no room for error. Given that most service members transfer units every two to three years, and are deployed every 18- 24 months; most addresses are obsolete by the next election cycle. In 2006 this resulted in 35,000 military and overseas citizen absentee ballots being returned to local election officials as undeliverable. By requiring the DOD to ensure the safe and timely passage of military ballots to their home districts each election cycle, service members are one step closer toward ensuring that the vote that they fight to defend gets counted. Additionally, by not distinguishing between FPCAs and locally obtained election materials, the DOD allows for a much smoother process in requesting and returning the service member's absentee ballot.

S 3073 is not a complete solution. While it does provide a greater level of assistance to the service members in ensuring timely delivery of election materials, it does not directly address the variance in state registration requirements, nor does it provide the FVAP broader authorities in reducing barriers for military voters. S3073 is a good first step, and one that I feel is long since overdue.

Testimony for the House Veterans Affairs Committee

Originally posted September 29, 2008

House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health
"Oversight Hearing on the Department of Veterans Affairs Suicide Prevention Hotline"
Testimony of Tom Tarantino, Policy Associate

Mr. Chairman, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and our more than 100,000 members nationwide, I thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony regarding veteran suicide, and the Department of Veterans Affairs' outreach efforts.

Since the beginning of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have witnessed a dramatic upswing in suicide rates among troops on active-duty and veterans. In 2006, the suicide rate for active-duty soldiers reached its highest level in decades, with 97 Army suicides. In 2007, this disturbing trend escalated beyond all expectations to 115. And just last week, it was revealed that the suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2008 are likely to be even higher, as there have been 62 confirmed and 31 suspected suicides already this year. Tragically, for the first time since the Vietnam War, the Army suicide rate is on track to exceed that of the civilian population.

While the rate of military suicides is closely monitored, the VA only just recently began tracking the suicide rate for veterans. From 2002 – 2005, 141 veterans who left the service after September 11, 2001 took their own lives. In 2006 alone, there were 113 suicides among Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans. The suicide rate for male veterans ages 18-29 in 2006 was about 46 suicides per 100,000, compared with about 20 suicides per 100,000 for their nonveteran peers. And these are just the cases that are being tracked by the VA. For veterans of all generations, data on suicide is equally troubling. While veterans make up only 13% of the U.S. population, they account for 20% of the suicides. As evidenced by these statistics, suicide is likely to be a long term problem for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Multiple tours, inadequate dwell time between tours, strained relationships, and financial difficulties have all contributed to the rising rate of suicide among active-duty troops and veterans. Mental health injuries are also a major risk factor. According to a RAND study, 300,000 of the 1.7 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan will develop combat-related mental health issues. Many of these cases will go untreated, and if allowed, develop into severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Suicide is the end result of multiple failures in our military and veterans' mental health care systems. Inadequate mental health screening upon redeployment, professional and personal stigma attached to mental health care, and inadequate VA outreach have brought us to this crisis, with little to no end in sight.

The establishment of the VA suicide hotline last year was a critical first step in reversing this trend, and with over 55,000 calls received, it is clear that the VA moving in the right direction in getting the message out about this service. The success of the VA hotline is admirable and we applaud them for making this toll-free hotline available to veterans in need. But with the hotline averaging 250 calls per day from troubled veterans and concerned family members, it is clear that more needs to be done to reach out to vulnerable veterans and get them the help they desperately need.

The VA is currently testing outreach advertisements in the Washington, DC region. While these efforts are necessary, the execution leaves much to be desired. Appearing on buses and trains, these print ads do not adequately relate to veterans of this conflict and are not as effective as they could be. The silhouette employed in the ad is clearly not of a modern soldier, and the ad itself blends into the background of ads that litter our public transportation system. It is clear that while the VA had the right idea with their outreach efforts, they have not done sufficient advertising research to connect with veterans of the current conflicts.

IAVA is doing its part to reach out to new veterans, and ensure that they know about the services available to them. IAVA has recently partnered with the Ad Council for a historic 3-year Public Service Announcement campaign set to launch on Veterans Day. It is our belief that through extensive research, testing and the use of multiple mediums, including TV, radio, print, and the internet, we will be able to reach those veterans who need and do not typically seek help.

However, outreach alone will not stem the rise in veteran suicide. IAVA believes that a mandatory and confidential mental health screening with a mental health professional pre- and post- deployment is the first and most critical step in the early detection and prevention of combat-stress injuries that so frequently lead to suicide. Additionally, IAVA believes that the VA must open its doors to the families of veterans so that they can receive and participate in the recovery and reintegration of our service men and women. Coupled with a targeted and thoughtful outreach campaign by both the VA and the VSOs, these critical actions can begin to stem the tide of suicides that is tragically affecting our nation's heroes.

It is clear by the success of the VA hotline that there are those out there who want to reach out and need to receive care. Now, we must redouble our efforts to reach out to those who are reluctant, yet need care none the less. IAVA looks forward to working with the VA and the VSO community to ramp up outreach and formulate a message that modern veterans will respond to. The alarming trend of suicides can be reversed and we are committed to providing any and all assistance needed to the VA to improve their outreach efforts. Together as a community, we can help our brothers and sisters return from war and readjust from warrior to citizen.

Go to war then go to jail

Originally posted August 8, 2008

It's no secret that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has had lingering effects on the home front as well as the battle field. The after effects of war have been known to veterans as far back as the Revolutionary War and throughout the history of armed conflict. With our current conflict we see that the lasting effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder manifest across areas as varied as the service member themselves. It is no surprise that engaged and dedicated civilians are mobilizing to help local veterans seek treatment when they most need it.

As soldiers, many of us have seen the effects personally, from loss of control on the battle field to rises in divorce rates, and disability. The stigma attached to psychological injuries and their treatment further complicates the ability of service men and women from seeking the help they need. Recently, many municipalities around the country have seen a sharp rise in crime committed by veterans reacting to the lasting effects of combat stress and related injuries. Too frequently, veterans turn to drugs and alcohol to deal with stress placed on the transition from warrior to citizen. These individuals may not seek out help form a passive VA system, and can fall afoul of the law.

In recognizing that veterans have sustained psychological injury on societies behalf, several states have opted to treat the veteran rather that throw them in jail where their untreated issues can fester and return tenfold upon release back in to the civilian world. By directing treatment in the sentencing process, the court is effectively rehabilitating the veteran, and protecting society by reducing the likelihood for repeat offenses.

In 2006 California passed a law that provides judges with a basis to depart from presumptive prison sentences in case involving veterans with PTSD. Veterans are professionally screened for PTSD and, if suitable, are ordered to treatment in lieu of prison or jail. Following this example, Minnesota passed a similar provision earlier this year.

After noticing 300 veterans come through his court last year, Buffalo, NY Judge Robert Russell has set up a separate court to address not only vets' crimes but their unique mental health issues. Surrounded by fellow veterans and peer councilors, these former service members are given a chance to account for their behavior and seek treatment; reducing the likelihood of repeat offenses and getting back on the road to readjustment and recovery.

Programs like this are critical to success if we are to combat the long term effects of multiple deployments and inadequate VA outreach. The success of the programs in California, Minnesota, and New York has lead to a national movement to treat veterans that have turned to substance abuse and criminal behavior. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has offered six $400,000 grants for communities to begin pilot programs to support local implementation and statewide expansion of trauma-integrated jail diversion programs. The IAVA along with a coalition of veterans and criminal justice groups is sponsoring a concurrent resolution in the Congress recognizing the importance of these local programs and encouraging states to implement them across the country. Our efforts along with those already in place have garnered attention from members in Congress. On July 31^st Senator John Kerry (D-MA)introduced S. 3379; authorizing additional grants to establish veteran's treatment courts across the nation.

Initiatives like these represent proactive and innovative approaches to dealing with the complex problems faced by returning service members and their families. Veterans and members of the Armed services are at the forefront of public service and are frequently troubled by their own criminal behavior and the resulting charges. By acknowledging the underline causes of this behavior we can direct veterans to treatment that they might not otherwise seek on their own and stem long term psychological effects of a generation of warriors that have fought and suffered on our behalf.

VA gets a (second) life

Originally postedJune 28, 2008

As someone with a pretty full first life, I've not felt the need to interact with the cyberpunk phenomenon known as Second Life. With 13 Million users mostly concentrated in the US and UK, second life has become an online community in more ways than one would expect. With a similar feel as a Massive Multi Player Online Roll Playing Game (MMPORG), yet more interactive and personal, it is part Sims and part MySpace. Essentially, one has an avatar that can live out a life in a virtual world populated by, created and shaped by other users. While my first impressions of this program not very positive, I began to notice how expansive, involved, and interactive this world is; providing services and integrated web links to users.

In an effort to reach out to a web 2.0 world, the VA Health Administration has opened up a branch office in Second Life.While I still find the whole thing creepy and weird, I think that the effort to reach out in new and innovative ways is the important point to take from this. The VA is genuinely making an effort to improve its outreach and support to the growing and younger veteran's population.

The VA branch in Second Life is pretty basic. It consists of a 3 story office building in a corporate office park surroundedby virtual branches of other companies and agencies. The VA info center itself is pretty basic with posters that link to corresponding VA.gov web pages. Additionally, there is a Fitness video playing on the wall and a memorial out back. While not an overly impressive interactive environment, it is a good start and a genuine attempt to raise the profile of VA services. As the population of Veterans with combat related physical and mental wounds increases, every effort to make the VA more accessible is a step in the right direction. Despite the creepiness.

Testifying for the Joint Economic Committee

Originally posted June 26, 2008

On Thursday the 12th, I had the opportunity to give my first Congressional testimony. I was invited to testify before the Joint Economic Committee regarding the economic costs of the Iraq war. My initial impression of the hearing based on the invitation was that it was primarily an excuse for political theater. However, it turned out to be a good discussion that analyzed the total cost of the conflict, bringing together several aspects of the war that we usually talk about separately. While I felt that my testimony was successful (read: didn't drool on myself or set the building on fire), it was the testimony of my fellow panelists that I found engaging.

Dr. Christine Eibner from RAND outlined results from RAND's Invisible Wounds of War study that you may recognize from being endlessly referenced by IAVA in its many papers and articles. This study is the gold standard for OIF/OEF mental health reports and any chance to hear one of its authors speak is an opportunity not to be missed. Mr. William Beach from the Heritage foundation spoke about the methodology used in accounting for the monetary costs of the war, and brought up a very good general point that is often overlooked when we pontificate about the costs of government programs and activities. Frequently, we look at the accounting costs of a program or action rather than the total economic cost. This means that we typically look at something based on its raw dollar value, rather than the value taking into account the later benefits and earnings. The GI Bill is a great example of this, as the Blue Dog Democrats frequently bemoan the $52 billion price tag without taking into account the return in tax revenue and productivity that the GI Bill would give back to the U.S. Treasury.

The star of the show was Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Gov. Schweitzer entered the room in a black suit and bolo tie, giving off an "awe shucks" good old boy vibe that is very disarming and likable. Like his junior Senator John Tester, you get the feeling that these men are just normal guys who reluctantly took public office at the request of their peers. One finds out quickly however that any assumptions that he is not one of the smartest guys in the room is made at one's own peril. Gov. Schweitzer was able to eloquently and forcefully state his case and advocate for the refit of his National Guard while outlining the difficulties that are faced by rural veterans as they try to readjust to civilian life and obtain VA care. I for one never thought anyone would be able to reference cattle vaccination and castration while speaking to Congress, yet when he did, it made total sense. I look forward to seeing what he does while in office and in the future.

Overall, it was good to bring all of the issues that we usually work on separately into one forum. It reminds us that all of these issues are intrinsically linked and concern all Americans regardless of party or geography. You can read my testimony below and watch the video of the hearing here.

Joint Economic Committee

Hearing on the Future Costs of Funding the Iraq War
Testimony of Tom Tarantino, IAVA Policy Associate

Mr. Chairman, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and our tens of thousands of members nationwide, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding economic challenges facing our nation's veterans, and the long terms costs of veterans' unemployment.

I began my military career in 1997 when I enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves as a Civil Affairs Specialist. In 2003 I was commissioned a 2LT in the Armor Branch and deployed to Iraq as a Platoon Leader from 2005-2006. Currently, I am a Policy Associate for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; the first and largest nonpartisan nonprofit organization for veterans of the current conflict.

My story serves as a good example of the challenge that many NCOs and Officers face when leaving the service. During my tenure as a Civil Affairs Specialist, I was trained in populace resource control, disaster and emergency management, civil defense planning, and humanitarian relief operations. I graduated from University ofCalifornia Santa Barbara with a degree Global Studies and International Relations. For the next four years I served as a combat arms officer, holding several jobs across many functional disciplines. In addition to leading two platoons through combat, I, on a monthly basis, conducted and participated in the most complex training the military has to offer while assigned to the Opposition Force at the National Training Center. As a Headquarters Executive Officer at the National Training Center, I was responsible for the logistics and administration of a company of 400 with 3 multi-million dollar budgets. As a public relations officer, I was the public face of a regiment that not only trained the force, but prepared themselves to re-deploy. I had a long and honorable service. I gained skills and accomplished tasks that many of my civilian peers would not face until much later in their careers. Conventional wisdom, and the rhetoric from the Army's Transitional Assistance programs, told me that I should have no problems finding employment in the civilian world.

This, however, turned out not to be the case. After putting my belongings into storage and returning home after 10 years of service, I began what would be a 10 month journey of shock, disappointment and education as to the disposition of the civilian work force toward members of the military. I learned that in the civilian world, military achievements and equivalent skills are misunderstood and undervalued. In many positions I had practical experiences that matched or far exceeded the prospective job, yet employers did not understand or were not interested in learning how experience as an officer and a soldier translated to their industry. Additionally, I found that there was a fear attached to hiring former combat soldiers; the stigma of combat stress made employers view me as a potential liability to the company.

My difficult experience in the civilian job market is not unique. According to a recent report prepared for the Department of Veterans Affairs, recently separated service members are more likely to be unemployed and tend to earn lower wages than their nonmilitary peers. Among veterans who completed their service within the last 1 to 3 years, 18% were unemployed, and a full 25% earned less than $21,840 a year. College-educated new veterans suffered the largest wage gap – earning almost $10,000 a year less than their nonmilitary peers. We can all agree: veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan deserve better.

Over time, the lost economic opportunities of this generation of 1.7 million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans will have an untold cost not only for our military and their families, but for the economy as a whole.

IAVA has made a number of policy recommendations to help veterans transition to civilian life, and to forestall the dire economic consequences of a generation of underemployed veterans. These suggestions include:

Tax credits for patriotic employers who support their deployed reservists. When reserve component employees are called to active duty for over 90 days, employers who pay the difference between the service members' civilian salary and their military wages deserve tax credits.

Tax credits for the hiring of homeless veterans

Better protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

You can see these complete recommendations in our Legislative Agenda. While IAVA believes that these issues present a roadmap to better the lives of veterans, there is one issue that is immediate and before you now as members of Congress. The WWII GI Bill was never designed as a first rate economic stimulus plan, or the most effective recruitment tool in military history. These benefits were welcome side effects. The GI Bill was and will be the single most important readjustment tool to the 1.7 million veterans of this conflict; reducing the long term strain on veterans services while providing them with an opportunity at a first class future. It is for these reasons that I would like to focus on the GI Bill.

After World War II, Americans fulfilled their responsibility to the millions of troops coming home by helping them readjust to civilian life. In 1944, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the "Servicemen's Readjustment Act," better known as the GI Bill, which made higher education affordable for eight million veterans. The original GI Bill, which expired in 1956, covered tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend while they were students. The only requirements were at least 90 days of military service and an honorable discharge.

The GI Bill helped reinvent America after a half-decade of war. The GI Bill has given many of our nation's leaders their start, including the Senators and combat veterans who are supporting a new GI Bill: Jim Webb, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, Frank Lautenberg, and Daniel Akaka.

But the GI Bill has benefited more than just a handful of America's leaders and luminaries. 2.2 million Veterans attended a college or university on the original GI Bill. It is estimated that almost half a million of these veterans would not have been able to go to college without it. An additional 3.5 million veterans went to vocational schools, 1.5 million vets got on-the-job training, and 700,000 more received farm training. The GI Bill produced "238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 450,000 engineers and a million assorted lawyers, nurses, businessmen, artists, actors, writers and pilots." Although the vast majority of beneficiaries were men, the GI Bill also put 64,000 women through college.

Perhaps most impressively, every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue. And the effects of the original GI Bill are still being felt today.

This Congress has shown tremendous foresight in passing the new GI Bill as a part of the emergency supplemental funding for the war. More than any other single piece of legislation, the GI Bill will make a difference in the economic futures of the troops returning every day from Iraq and Afghanistan. We look forward to this key legislation being quickly signed into law.

The battle for a new GI Bill highlights a key gap in our accounting of the Iraq war. All of the care and support for our veterans, including programs to help them reintegrate into civilian life, should be understood and categorized as an unavoidable cost of war, and yet the cost of the GI Bill is not typically accounted for in the war's budgets. In the long term, budgeting should reflect all the support our troops deserve – before, during, and after combat.

Thank you for your time.

When your base speaks to you

Originally posted May 28, 2008

Being new to the GI bill debate I do not have a personal connection to the genesis of this legislation. However, I feel that I do have a clear perspective of how the GI Bill looks to the outside world and the larger Veteran's community. In my humble review of the GI Bill (S.22) and the subsequent "alternative" legislation by Sen. Graham (S.2938), I find that Sen. Webb's bill is not only far superior, but makes the most sense given the bigger picture. What sticks out about S.22 is the overwhelming support of the Veterans Service Organizations as well as both parties in Congress. VSOs are not known for playing nice or universally agreeing on veterans' issues, and the political parties can't seem to agree on the weather these days. Yet, we all seem to come together on this GI Bill. The media frequently refers to Sen. Graham's bill as the "Republican Alternative" to S.22. While this claim sounds sexy on TV , it is in contrast to reality as S.22 has more republican co-sponsors than S.2938 has total people signed on to the bill.

75 Senators voted for this bill last week because it is the best thing that we can do for our returning veterans; giving them a proven readjustment benefit as well as strengthening the pool of new recruits to the military ranks. Our leaders did what leaders are supposed to do; make decisions for the betterment of the people rather than the benefit of their political position. However, we are finding this issue being used as a political football in the presidential race. While it does keep the issue in the public eye, it moves dangerously close to becoming a hot button issue that our leaders will no longer be able to objectively look at without the stain of political gamesmanship.

It seems though that positions taken by the White House and Sen. John McCain against S.22 are not entirely resonating with their base or their supporters. In addition to VSOs, members of Congress, and the larger military community, some in the McCain base are pleading with their candidate to not drink the kool-aid and continue to oppose what the country at large seems to be getting behind. This morning I found a reasoned and thorough blog in blogs4mccaain.com. While not an official campaign outlet, it is clearly a McCain fan site. What I find interesting is that while firmly behind the candidate, this blogger (who has a clear grasp of the subject matter) pleads with McCain to do the right thing and support this issue, not just because it is a good idea, but it could cost him the election.

Read the blog here.

While I personally don't care about how this affects Sen. McCain's presidential chances, I do care about the ability of S.22 to be signed into law. The President really has nothing to lose here by signing this legislation that has such overwhelming support, and I do hope that Sen. McCain comes around to the side of not only the VSOs, but that of many in his party. S.22 is the real deal, and (let's face it) the only deal in town. By getting on board before it's too late, Sen. McCain can take this legislation out of the hands of political theater and put it back in the win column for all of our nation's heroes.

The floggings will continue until leadership improves

Originally posted May 8, 2008

On Tuesday, I had the opportunity to attend an event at the New America Foundation titled Beyond the Torture Debate. At first I wasn't really sure what to expect as the use of torture and the abuse of prisoners is tangential to the usual veterans' issues we deal with here in DC. As a former officer and professional soldier however, the issue is never far from my thoughts. Speaking at the event was Philippe Sands, author of the book Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the betrayal of American Values of which is the source for this months expose in Vanity Fair. Joining Mr. Sands was COL (Ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The discussion was both riveting and lively, as Mr. Sands has conducted on-the-record interviews with all of the major players involved and Col Wilkerson was able to give a perspective from inside the administration. Essentially, both men convincingly expressed the view that there was a conscious decision made by senior administration officials to reform the law allowing for harsher methods of treatment and interrogation. Furthermore, that this pressure to change the existing law came not from commanders in the field, but from senior administration lawyers, bypassing the normal established methods of decision making. In short, they changed the legal definition of torture and ignored Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention in order to interrogate and detain prisoners of the War on Terror. With the surfacing of internal memos relating to enhanced interrogation techniques -(many of which are considered torture by military field manuals), and the Supreme Court's 2006 5-3 decision that Common Article 3 does apply to the War on Terror, the House Judiciary Committee is now perusing action on several individuals to include David Addington (then council, current Chief of Staff to the Vice-President), and John Yoo (Legal council to the Department of Justice 2001-2003).

These decisions fundamentally altered the rules of acceptable behavior in wartime - a line that all leaders who have served in combat have had to monitor in one form or another. In a combat environment, it takes strong leadership to maintain discipline and prevent abuse. As soldiers operating on the streets, we are faced daily with decisions that can have moral and legal consequences far beyond the next engagement.

Early on in my deployment to Iraq, my platoon was patrolling regularly around North Baghdad. Four of my soldiers were on their second tour with only 6 months between deployments. We were in the middle of a combat zone and several of my soldiers were still dealing with PTSD from their first deployment. One of my gunners began to make mistakes. At first they were silly, but out of character for an outstanding NCO. As the weeks progressed, his attitude and his mistakes began to add up, until finally the full potential of this problem became clear.

We were searching a truck that was out past curfew and I noticed that the driver (a teenager) had a sticker of Muqtada Al-Sadr on his window. He claimed that vandals put it there and he hated Sadr. I could immediately tell he was lying to me, as he was wearing a Sadr t-shirt while professing his hate for the Mahdi Army leader. I told the platoon to search the truck and immediately heard the sound of breaking glass and popping tires. As I turned around to see what was happening, I saw my "problem" NCO vandalizing the Iraqi's truck.

I immediately stopped him and had a Section Sergeant supervise the search while I questioned the driver. After the patrol was complete, I talked to my NCO. Fortunately, his outburst was against an inanimate object rather that a detainee, but it became clear how easily one can succumb to the stress and anger of the moment. Luckily, we caught it before it became a serious issue. The decision was made to take him out of action for 30 days while he dealt with his issues and sought help.

My NCO sought counseling and did eventually return to duty. But the point of my this story is just how easily PTSD compounded by multiple deployments and little dwell time can affect our judgment in combat and further blur that line or right and wrong.

This is why the torture issue is so important to us as veterans and professional soldiers. As deployments continue to cycle and the numbers of troopers with multiple deployments continue to rise, it is up to all of us to ensure that we stay on the side of right. The key here is leadership, at every level of the chain of command. The last thing we need is our civilian command deliberately blurring the line, costing soldiers the credibility that they need to execute their mission.

The lost front

Originally posted May 8, 2008

Last week I posted a blog about the stigma of psychological injuries in our returning veterans and their spouses. As my perspective is from that of a combat veteran, I focused primarily on the mental health concerns of service members from the battle front. However, the survey by the American Psychiatric Association that I mentioned goes beyond the effects that this war has on our military and delves in to the effects that deployment has on our wives and husbands. Despite an overwhelming number of spouses (83%) who believe that mental health illnesses can be successfully treated, 67% of military spouses say they know little or nothing at all about effective treatments for mental health issues. about 1 in 5 spouses say they know nothing at all. While I acknowledged this in the blog, it was really a passing concern to me as I was writing. Since writing that blog however, the thought about the effects this war has at home has stuck with me.

This weekend, a plumber came to fix the shower in my new apartment, and as he was working, we were talking. He was a Vietnam era Army NCO and his daughter had just returned from Iraq.

He was a tall, fit gentleman in his mid-50's with very noticeable salt and pepper hair. He was very quick to point out (and deadly serious) that he did not have even one gray hair prior to her deployment. While this is a commonly used colloquialism when discussing times of stress, I believe that he was speaking literally, as you could see all of the weariness of a long, hard year of worry still in his face.

His story made me think of my family and the hardship that they had to endure during the year I was patrolling the streets of Baghdad. My mother, in good Irish fashion holds her emotions (and temper) very close to the surface. While she has a strong will and is able to push through hard times, I know that my deployment had a terrible effect on her, as it does all mothers who worry about the safety of their children. My father while behaving in a stoically Sicilian manner, was similarly effected. As they have expressed to me; my sister, grandmothers and assorted cousins were also constantly worried, and the family collectively held its breath for a year. I'm not sure if my ex-wife felt anything at all, but that's a subject for another blog.

What this story (as well as all of our stories) boils down to is an acknowledgment of another front in this war. The front being fought at home by our loved ones is a lost front, as the general public greats news of the war with fleeting interest and increasing apathy. There is truth to the slogan "The military went to war, America went to the mall". However, I would point out that as we went to fight, our families came to war as well. It's hard to acknowledge from our perspective, as we deal with the constant revolving door of combat, boredom, mortal terror and stress, that those (although safe at home) are dealing with similar emotions and terror on our behalf. When we come home, life is a whirlwind of relief, handshakes, free drinks and thank yous from friends, family, and citizens that more or less sort of get whats happening, but feel guilty about not knowing more about our country at war. As we reintegrate, the reintegration of out families gets lost in the shuffle. We get caught up in our process, and frequently overlook the effects that the war had on those who love us. It's understandable, and it doesn't make us bad people. After all, we just spent a year or more dealing with people who want to kill us, so it's okay to focus on ourselves for a little while.

The bottom line here is that once the whirlwind has died down, and you have a better handle on you own combat stress, go thank your parents, wives, husbands and other family members. Buy them a drink and listen to their story. But above all else let them know that their sacrifice was critical to you completing your mission. The APA survey clearly quantifies what we already knew, but don't always acknowledge. It made me realize that I may have marginalized or not given full credit to my friends and family that endured the stresses of combat that extend beyond the battlefield. Next time I go home to California, I owe my folks a few drinks and a few hours of conversation. It's the least I can do for their service.

You're not crazy and it's not just you

Originally posted May 2, 2008

For those of us who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, it is no surprise to find that the stress of combat has a lasting and profound effect on our state of mental health. Additionally, it is well recognized among service men and women that the homecoming is rarely a teary-eyed movie-like reunion where everybody will live happily ever after. After safely coming home, one must reintegrate with "normal" life and begin to process the stress and rigor of deployment. To compound matters, you as a Soldier, Sailor or Marine are not alone in suffering the after effects of combat. The stress of war is felt by soldiers and their family members alike. For those of us who have experienced the redeployment and reintegration process, these statements are not a startling revelation. However, to the public at large, the day to day issues of combat related mental illness is an abstract and murky concept. This week, the American Psychiatric Association released a survey of mental health issues that are faced by service men and women and their spouses. There were no shocking revelations in the survey, but it did serve to validate many of the issues that commanders and military mental health officials have been dealing with for the past few years.

The primary finding of the survey is that stigma is still playing a major role in preventing service members and military spouses from getting the mental health care they need. Overall, military members (71%) and military spouses (75%) rate their current mental health as excellent or good. But many of the respondents report experiencing symptoms of mental health issues, including stress, difficulty sleeping, anxiety, and feeling depressed. This incongruity could be attributed to the fact that half of military members (49%) and spouses (53%) said they are somewhat or not at all knowledgeable about the warning signs of mental health issues. Although 68% of military members say that they know where to seek help for mental health concerns, more than half (53%) believe that others will think less of them if they do seek help. Additionally, 61% of military members, and 53% of spouses believe that seeking mental health treatment would have at least some negative impact on their or their spouses' career. 28% of service members and 25% of spouses think that it would have a moderate or great deal of impact.

In order to overcome this "damaged goods" mentality we must move beyond issues of pride, macho bravado, or fear and look at mental injuries as we would any other injury. As veterans and concerned citizens alike, we must change our way of thinking about mental health injuries and begin to look at them as we would any physical injury. Like physical injuries, mental health problems arise as an effect of trauma. If we break our arm, we seek help to heal the wound, not let it hang until it is no longer useful. When we suffer mental health injuries it is critical that we acknowledge the wound, and seek treatment so we can fight another day.

Reports like the one the APA released this week help a great deal toward removing the stigma attached to combat related mental injuries. Acknowledgment and help from the civilian sector are critical as a taxed military mental health system works overtime to deal with the flood of patients coming off the battle field. As veterans we must make it our mission to reach out to our wounded comrades and help the general public understand our trials and experiences in order to better reintegrate in to the civilian world.