SiteRing by Bravenet.com

Please support Soldiers' Angels and Project Valour-IT

As I noted in my earlier post, HEROES Act Improvements!, the FY 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (PL 109-163) corrected what I considered to be a glaring error in the Original HEROES Act. The original act provided improved benefits for the survivors of military personnel killed in the line of duty in designated combat zones but not for the survivors of others who died on duty but not in combat zones. I could never see any reason why the survivors of a Sailor killed when a sub hit an undersea mountain or a Paratrooper who died when his chute didn't open over Ft. Benning should be treated any differently than survivors of deaths in the Mideast.  PL 109-163 fixed that discrepancy. Unfortunately, the government has done an absolutely pathetic job of getting information out to the survivors affected by the improvements. I'm still getting frequent emails from people who know they have money coming but have no idea how to get it, and I'd hate to guess how many people have money coming and don't even know it. I find it absolutely scandalous that information is so scarce that people are having to turn to little sites like mine to find anything out. Is this how we honor the sacrifice our warriors have made for our country?

Julie left the following comment on my earlier post a little earlier today:

---

I have some information on the Hero Improvement Act. The Benefits are retroactive to Oct 7, 2001 for all military Deaths that have occurred since that date.I have researched this extensively. My son was stationed at Camp Pendleton and pass-away Mar 1, 2002 from a brain aneurysm. I found several DOD references as to how the disbursement is supposed to be done. The respective branch will send out some forms to be filled out by the beneficiary. I have also called the USMC, and was told as of today 2/24/06 that the forms have not been sent yet, but will be as soon as they get the green light to send them. I made sure and updated my address info because I had moved since my son passed. I hope this information will help out. I found some contact information at the NMFA National Military Family Association

http://www.nmfa.org/site/PageServer?pagename

Below are Service casualty contacts,
Army: LTC John O’Brian: 703-325-9201
Navy: Mrs. Dale Armstrong: 1-800-368-3202  (Mon - Fri 7:30 am - 4:00 pm (CT)) or (901)874-4292
Marine Corps: Mr. Gerry Castle: 703-784-9580
Air Force: Mr. Scott Hand: 210-565-3505
Coast Guard; Lt Terrance Walsh: 202-267-1648

---

Thank you, Julie. I think it's absolutely disgraceful that people like you are having to dig for information like you have but I'll do what I can to spread the word.

If you're reading this and know anyone who might possibly be affected by this situation won't you please pass Julie's information on to them? Fellow bloggers, please help me spread the word; you are hereby granted permission to use any information in this post or my prior posts on the subject without regard to any copyright or plagiarism concerns. Just help me spread the word, please.

***

Don't miss Greyhawk's latest Open Post, Argghhh!'s latest H&I fires or James Joyner's Beltway Traffic Jam.

Posted by Bill Faith on February 24, 2006 at 07:36 PM in Brianna, The American Warrior | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

My thanks to Jackie Ferguson for letting me in on some good news she received recently. Here's a very important section from an email she forwarded to me summarizing the FY 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (PL 109-163):

---

Enhancement of Death Gratuity and Life Insurance Benefits.  Increase SGLI coverage to $400,000 and raise death gratuity to $100,000 for all deaths in the line of duty, retroactive to 10/7/01.  $150,000 free SGLI coverage in combat zones.  Require spousal notification if member elects less than maximum or changes beneficiary designation.

---

As my long-term readers may recall from last spring, I expended a lot of blogging effort trying to do what I could to help get the HEROES Act passed. You may also recall that one of my few complaints about the Act was that it increased benefits for survivors of servicemembers killed in designated "combat zones" but not for survivors of servicemembers dying in the line of duty in other areas. I recall using the examples of the Sailor who died when the USS San Francisco hit that undersea mountain and a Paratrooper killed in a training jump as two examples of people whose survivors, I thought, should receive the same treatment as survivors of combat zone KIAs. I am pleased to be able to announce, thanks to Jackie's remembering that I cared, that the FY 2006 National Defense Authorization Act corrects that shortcoming in the original bill, retroactively to 7 Oct 2001.

Insert HUGE smile here.

Here's the relevant portion of Public Law 109-163 from http://thomas.loc.gov. I couldn't find a way to link directly to it so I guess you'll either have to take my word for it or dig it out yourself:

---

SEC. 664. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS OF DEATH GRATUITY FOR SURVIVORS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DYING ON ACTIVE DUTY.

(a) Increased Amount of Death Gratuity-

(1) INCREASED AMOUNT- Subsection (a) of section 1478 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking `$12,000' and inserting `$100,000'.

(2) AMENDMENTS- Such section is further amended--

(A) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking `(as' and all that follows in that sentence and inserting a period; and

(B) by striking subsection (c).

(3) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect as of October 7, 2001, and shall apply to deaths occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act and, subject to subsection (c), to deaths occurring during the period beginning on October 7, 2001, and ending on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Retroactive Payment of Additional Death Gratuity for Certain Members not Previously Covered- Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(d)(1) In the case of a person described in paragraph (2), a death gratuity shall be payable, subject to section 664(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, for the death of such person that is in addition to the death gratuity payable in the case of such death under subsection (a).

`(2) This subsection applies in the case of a person who died during the period beginning on October 7, 2001, and ending on May 11, 2005, while a member of the armed forces on active duty and whose death did not establish eligibility for an additional death gratuity under the prior subsection (e) of this section (as added by section 1013(b) of Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 247), because the person was not described in paragraph (2) of that prior subsection.

`(3) The amount of additional death gratuity payable under this subsection shall be $150,000.

`(4) A payment pursuant to this subsection shall be paid in the same manner as provided under paragraph (4) of the prior subsection (e) of this section (as added by section 1013(b) of Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 247), for payments pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) of that prior subsection.'.

(c) Funding- Amounts for payments after the date of the enactment of this Act by reason of the amendments made by subsection (a) with respect to deaths before the date of the date of the enactment of this Act, and amounts for payments under subsection (d) of section 1478 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (b), shall be derived from supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Global War on Terrorism, contingent upon such appropriations being enacted.

(d) Coordination of Amendments- If the date of the enactment of this Act occurs before the date specified in section 106(3) of Public Law 109-77--

(1) effective as of such date of enactment, the amendments made to section 1478 of title 10, United States Code, by section 1013 of Public Law 109-13 are repealed; and

(2) effective immediately before the execution of the amendments made by this section, the provisions of section 1478 of title 10, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of Public Law 109-13, are revived.

---

***

Greyhawk's latest Open Post is up.

Posted by Bill Faith on January 16, 2006 at 02:35 AM in Brianna, The American Warrior | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

---

DoD Announces Increase in
Death Gratuity and SGLI

The Department of Defense announced today a significant increase in the death gratuity for the survivors of service members killed in action and the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) coverage for service members deployed to designated combat zones.

The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief Act 2005 (Public Law 109-13) increases this immediate cash payment from $12,420 to $100,000 for survivors of those whose death is as a result of hostile actions and occurred in a designated combat operation or combat zone or while training for combat or performing hazardous duty.

The supplemental also increases the maximum amount of SGLI coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 for all service members effective Sept. 1, 2005 and provides that the department will pay or reimburse the premiums to service members, who are deployed in a designated combat zone for $150,000 of SGLI coverage.

[Read the whole thing here.]

---

I'd posted what I knew about this earlier, here and here (the President signed the relevant legislation on May 10th), but it's great to finally have a link to an official announcement. Thank you Julie B. for sending it to me! (Julie's sent me quite a bit of related information over the past few months, all appreciated.)

Update: Welcome Mudville Gazette readers. Those of you who are regular readers of my blog already know how much I enjoyed posting this announcement. Those who aren't might find my previous posts on the subject interesting.

Posted by Bill Faith on July 1, 2005 at 11:35 PM in Brianna | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

[Continued from They didn't forget, Brianna]

I still need time to study it more but the text of the Emergency Appropriations Bill is now available on the web (click here.) If someone else beats me to studying it closely I hope you'll let me know so I can post your email or link to your blog. Based on a quick reading, I think it's even better than I thought before. If I'm reading it correctly, it increases the "death gratuity" and maximum SGLI benefits for our KIAs to $100,000 and $400,000, respectively, for all active duty military deaths occurring on or after May 10, 2005, and for all Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom deaths occurring on or after October 7, 2001 and before May 10, 2005.  That still misses some people I feel like should have been entitled to the increased benefits, but it's probably the best we can hope to do anytime soon.

(Don't forget to check out Greyhawk's latest Open Post.)

Posted by Bill Faith on June 3, 2005 at 07:16 PM in Brianna | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Posted by Bill Faith on May 29, 2005 at 11:06 PM in Brianna | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Posted by Bill Faith on April 29, 2005 at 12:59 AM in Brianna, The American Warrior | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Does Spencer miss his Daddy any less than Brianna misses hers?

This was left as a comment on this post, but it deserves more attention than it will get there so I'm turning it into a separate post.

---

This is a copy of the letter I have been sending to Senators and news organizations.  In the Feb 28 issue of the Army Times there was an article [click here -- BF] about survivor benefit and in the opinion section part of this letter. [Click here and scroll down a little to see the letter the Times posted -- BF]  It breaks my heart to think that a distinction between soldiers lives might actually happen.  It is like they would be saying thanks for your sacrifice but it was not enough. What else can I give or offer my country, how could our son grieve more, because my husband died here and not there? It seems his service will be treated as less honorable.

February 5, 2005

To whom it may concern:

I am a widow of a soldier.  My husband was injured in the line of duty and passed away due to the injuries. My husband was stateside when his injuries occurred and was determined to be in the line of duty. I am very grateful for the support and benefits I have received since the loss of my husband.

I am writing to express my opinion about the possibility of increase in the survivor benefits.  I understand that they will only apply to those soldiers that have lost their lives in a war zone.  I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest that one soldier’s life is more valuable than another. Service during combat is not the only honorable service to our country.

In times of conflict many Americans can be seen flying flags, writing songs and giving speeches about patriotism and the love for our military and their sacrifices. As a military family, we fly our flags and service ribbons all day, everyday.  We know that not only in times of conflict but every day our military men and women give 100%.  The soldier as well as the family gives a lot to this country, so the soldier is prepared for each mission.  I do not see how my loss is any less significant than any other family.  It is not only my loss but a loss of the Army as a whole.

The soldiers train, attend school, teach others to be skilled soldiers, provide peace keeping missions, fight the war on drugs, natural disaster relief and perform their duty.  These are things that are done everyday by every soldier.  To distinguish between a soldiers whose life is more valuable than another’s I cannot imagine how that can be done.

We should show appreciation for all soldiers and their families.  It does not take war for a soldier to be doing their duty or for a family to be important.  We stand by our soldiers when they leave for a tour in Korea, peace keeping in Kosovo, fighting the war on drugs in the Bahamas or South America, and travel for training missions. Even when they are going to the range or to jump from a plane, we as families stand by our soldier.  All of these things are necessary for a prepared military.

The next time you are around a child ask them to define “going to the field.”  Most children will reply a place on a farm, or a place to play football, soccer, or baseball.  Ask a military child they will say where mom or dad works. Just because all of our soldiers are not in combat zones does not mean they do not contribute or play a valuable roll in the Army as a whole.

Being a military family is not easy; if it was easy everyone would do it. We do not complain about the stresses of deployments or the long periods of time away from family.  This is what we do.  I love what we did, where we did it, when and how our lives revolved around something so great.  As families we give a lot of ourselves, not just the service member but the entire family.  What my family has offered to our country is no less than
any other family.

Army of One.  That is the motto of the Army.  The Army functions as a unit, as one.  Then how can it be that one part is more valuable than another. ?

Each individual that enters the Army sign the same contract and are expected to perform their duty throughout their enlistment.   They all receive the same training and are prepared in the same way to do their job. When a man or woman enlists they know up front that they might give their life in the line of duty.  With that said, how can a distinction be made that one life is more valuable than another?

Losing my husband has been a hard road to walk but I will continue down this road with my son. The hardships that my son and I experience are as real as any other family.  Please think about what I have said and consider that our loss is not any less than that of any other military family.  The soldiers’ duty where ever it takes them is all part of the big picture and everyone is equally important.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jackie and Spencer Ferguson

---

Everything I've read recently has left me feeling very optimistic about seeing a major increase in benefits for survivors of our military people who die in combat zones, but the question of applying those same increases to the survivors of those who die on duty in other parts of the world is still very much up in the air. It's not too late to call or write your elected representatives and let them know how you feel about the matter. Don't know how to reach them? Click here for some help.

Update 2005.03.20.20:08: Linking to Mudville's latest open post to get a little more exposure for a worthy cause.

Posted by Bill Faith on March 20, 2005 at 01:57 AM in Brianna | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Posted by Bill Faith on March 18, 2005 at 12:04 AM in Brianna | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Do the children care where Daddy fell?

US Army retiree Gene Douglas left this as a comment on an earlier related post. I think it deserves more visibility than that. Thank you Gene for reinforcing an important point I've mentioned before. (emphasis mine, hyperlink added, praise for my blog removed)

---

There are several Senate and House bills, currently being considered, that would increase the military death gratuity to $100,000 and the SGLI to 400,000.  The bills are authorizing a $238,000 retroactive payment to those service members who have died "IN COMBAT as of Oct 7, 2001.  The Democrats, during a recent Armed Services Committee hearing, have strongly suggested that the legislation not be limited to only those in combat zones but include all who wear the uniform and died as of Oct 7, 2001.  The President at one time was to include this in his budget but did not, and I assume will put it in a supplemental.  His budget also limited the legislation to those who died in a combat zone.  My question:  How can this distinction be made?  Are not all who wear the uniform combating the GWOT in some manner irrespective of where they are providing that support?  In an organization that is built on cohesion and team work no one should be made to feel that their life is less valuable than another’s.  A surviving spouse certainly cannot make the distinction.  This is a well deserved and long overdue piece of legislation.  However, it needs to be broader.  It needs to include all who wear a uniform.

Although I support the increase the HEROES act calls for and believe it is long overdue; I simply cannot understand the distinction between a soldier dying in theater as opposed to a soldier dying at Camp Shelby or Ft Wainwright in preparation to deploy to theater.  All have given their life in support of the GWOT.  There should be absolutely no distinction and the new legislation should apply to anyone who wears a uniform and makes the ultimate sacrifice.

gd
US Army , Retired

---

Gene, I couldn't agree with you more. Two Air National Guard pilots were killed in a recent midair collision, practicing dogfighting techniques about ten miles from my home. Were their deaths any less traumatic for their families because they died over downstate Illinois than if they'd died over Iraq? Our local Guard unit is currently in Mississippi preparing to deploy to Iraq. A guy I went to school with has a son and a daughter in that unit. If he loses one of them in a training accident before they get to Iraq, will his loss be any smaller than if it happens over there?

It's not too late to call or write your elected representatives and let them know how you feel about this, people. Don't know how to reach them? Click here for help.

Posted by Bill Faith on March 14, 2005 at 05:30 PM in Brianna | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Posted by Bill Faith on March 14, 2005 at 03:01 AM in Brianna | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack