Military Benefits, Navy Benefits, pay, education, health, housing, moving, MWR - Navy Times

Congress working toward GI Bill improvements

The Defense Department does not mind the idea of improving the GI Bill — as long as the education benefits are not improved so much that people want to get out of uniform to use them.

In testimony that was not entirely unexpected, and appears to be more speed bump than road block, a defense personnel official told a House subcommittee that the Pentagon believes better GI Bill payments for active and reserve forces could help recruiting, but also could make people more likely to get out of the military to become full-time students.

“Attracting qualified recruits using large, across-the-board basic benefits incurs the risk that many who enter for the benefits will leave as soon as they can to use them,” said Tom Bush, acting deputy assistant defense secretary for manpower and personnel.

Bush, appearing Oct. 18 before the House Veterans’ Affairs economic opportunity subcommittee, said improvements that make attending college more attractive reduce first-term retention of experienced noncommissioned officers and petty officers, which would ratchet up the already considerable pressure recruiters face in today’s recruiting market.

Bush did not oppose every increase, but he said that if monthly benefits are “higher than the total cost of education,” the negative impact on retention would outweigh any positive effects of the improvements.

One of the more generous proposals being considered in Congress would pay monthly benefits equal to the cost of tuition and fees at a four-year public college or university, plus a $1,000 monthly stipend for living expenses — in other words, more than the total cost of education.

The maximum active-duty GI Bill benefit today is $1,101 for a full-time student who spent at least three years on active duty. That is less than the average $1,450 in tuition and fees reported by the National Center for Education Statistics, which is one reason lawmakers have been pushing for GI Bill upgrades.

At the same hearing, representatives of major military and veterans groups had their own ideas for the GI Bill.

The groups generally agree on dropping the $1,200 enrollment fee that is required to receive active-duty GI Bill benefits and making that change retroactive to the start of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan in October 2001.

However, another official at the hearing said such a step could cause resentment among those who left the military before that date.

“These individuals would be disadvantaged merely because of their dates of service,” said Keith Wilson, education service director for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Providing GI Bill benefits for National Guard and reserve members that are commensurate with their military service is another matter under discussion, with talk of various formulas to award benefits based on consecutive or cumulative amounts of active service.

The American Legion offered a simple plan, recommending one month of more generous active-duty GI Bill benefits for each month of mobilization, with a maximum of 36 months of payments — making the potential total equal to what an active-duty member could receive for a three-year commitment.

Also being discussed is the idea of allowing some career service members the right to transfer earned GI Bill benefits to members of their immediate family, something allowed so far only under limited tests to see whether the idea has value as a re-enlistment incentive.

Ronald Chamrin, of the American Legion’s economic commission, said the Legion supports allowing anyone on active duty who has served six years in the military to be able to transfer GI Bill benefits if they re-enlist for four more years, and allowing any veteran already separated from the military to transfer benefits to a spouse or children.

Robert Norton, of the Military Officers Association of America, said very few people have used transfer rights as a re-enlistment bonus, preferring to opt for cash bonuses instead. He supports a modified program that would allow transfer rights only in return for agreeing to stay in the military for a full career.

The House subcommittee has no immediate plans to approve any of the benefits improvements, but it is looking at options, committee aides said.