Vets still being denied benefits

Washington Times:

Veterans groups hailed the passage last year of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which made it easier for wounded soldiers to have their injuries rated and treated by the federal government.

But less than a year after President Bush signed the bill, the Defense Department interpreted the law in a way that reduced its scope and denied many veterans the benefits they thought they had been promised.

The Pentagon's interpretation, which veterans groups are challenging, is laid out in two memos written in 2008 by David S.C. Chu, who was undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.

The effect of the memos, which have been obtained by The Washington Times, is to disqualify numerous soldiers who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder from receiving medical benefits and to prevent others from receiving extra pay that the NDAA promised to veterans with combat-related injuries.

In drafting the NDAA, Congress relied on the recommendations of a bipartisan panel headed by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala.

The legislation permitted troops who were injured during training operations to receive extra pay, but Mr. Chu, in one of his memos, defined "combat-related operations" in such a way that troops injured during training or simulated conditions of war would not qualify.

Some lawmakers involved in enacting the 2008 law had expected differently. During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Mark Pryor, Arkansas Democrat, said: "This addition expands the population that is eligible for the enhancement of disability severance pay to include injuries incurred during performance of duty in support of combat operations."

But Congress did not explicitly include in the bill a definition of combat-related operations, leaving it to the Pentagon to make that determination. The result was Mr. Chu's first memo, issued in March 2008.

Mr. Chu said that the injury must have been inflicted during "armed conflict," or in a combat zone, in order for the service member to receive the benefits authorized.

...

There is more.

Congress has it within its power to fix this problem and it should do so. It can do it by amending the legislation are making it clear to the Department of Defense that it wants their interpretation to come in line with the intent of the original legislation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Is the F-35 obsolete?