COLA Hoax: Benefits Will Not Double in 2011

Over the last few weeks, a chain e-mail started to circulate in military and veterans' circles, purporting that this year's increases in compensation for service-connected disabled veterans would nearly double. However, the e-mail is a hoax.

The e-mail included a mock version of a Congressional bill, H.R. 4667, which was rife with errors. The text included a chart outlining how the rates would supposedly increase "to bring monies in line to the America[sic] middle class." Here is a copy of the phony bill:

The four-page text contains multiple inconsistencies ranging from the type font to erroneous capitalization and syntax errors such as "disable veterans" and "be low." The bill also claims to be from the first session of the 111th Congress, which ended on Dec. 4, 2009.

Recently, Congress did pass a version of H.R. 4667 that will increase COLA rates for 2011 keeping with the standard percentage increases in Social Security taking effect on Dec. 1, 2010. To view a copy of the bill, which is now Public Law 111-247, Click Here.

The hoax bill was forwarded to AMVETS National Headquarters by an AMVETS National Service Officer in Georgia who was suspicious of the e-mail's content, after receiving it from a client. Other service officers soon started to receive similar inquiries into the validity of the e-mail.

AMVETS National Legislative Director Ray Kelley quickly discovered that the e-mail was fake and AMVETS National Service Department informed service officers in the field, providing each of them with the accurate bill to properly inform the veterans they serve.

Stars & Stripes Rumor Doctor also caught wind of the e-mail and published findings on the hoax.

AMVETS leaders supported the real version of H.R. 4667, which ensures veterans' service-connected compensation will increase for 2011, accounting for perpetual increases in the cost of living.

Snyder v. Hateful Church Arguments Today in Supreme Court

Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments on behalf of Gold Star Father Albert Snyder and the hateful Kansas church that pickets military funerals, in an effort to rule whether military families have a right to peaceful funeral proceedings for their fallen loved ones.

The church, which we refuse to identify on this blog, has made headlines across the country for picketing the funerals of fallen Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, brandishing signs with inflammatory, hateful rhetoric against American service members.

Snyder, whose son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq in 2006, originally sued the church's pastor for $17 million after the group disrupted the Snyder funeral in Maryland.

Courts originally ruled in favor of Snyder, but the decision was overturned upon appeal and Snyder was ordered to pay court costs for the church. Fortunately for Snyder, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the case for this session.

According to Stars & Stripes, Snyder's lawyers will argue that free speech rights do not extend to harassing private citizens.

Meanwhile, the church argues that they have the constitutionally-protected right to convey their message that God is punishing American service members for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

Media watchdogs have sided with the church out of fear that a decision in favor of Snyder could create a slippery slope limiting the kinds of speech protected by the constitution.

However, AMVETS leaders continue to argue that intrusions such as the funeral protests also violate grieving families' first amendment rights to freely practice their religion and honor their fallen loved ones in a peaceful, dignified manner.

"What this radical church has done is abhorrent and cannot simply be viewed in the context of preserving First Amendment rights," said AMVETS Past National Commander Duane J. Miskulin when news of the appeal broke. "Our grieving Gold Star families deserve only the utmost respect when mourning the loss of their loved ones. AMVETS hopes that the Supreme Court will agree that picketing military funerals violates the personal rights of a grieving family."

Legislators with military experience, like Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and John Boccieri (D-Ohio) even stepped in, expressing to the Supreme Court that the right to free speech must end where the privacy of a mourning family begins.

In the past, Supreme Court rulings have established reasonable parameters on speech, offering equal protections for the rights of private citizens. AMVETS leaders urge the court to rule in a similar fashion on this issue, ensuring that grieving military families are protected during their most vulnerable hours.

Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Update: VA to Recoup $3,000 Emergency Payments

Today, VA announced it will seek to recoup the fall $3,000 emergency check payments for student-veterans caught in the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill processing delays. Though any student taking advantage of a G.I. Bill benefit was eligible to take advantage of the advance payment, the intention was to help veterans taking advantage of the new Chapter 33 benefits, which were taking longer to process than VA had anticipated.

When news of Chapter 33 delays began to surface, AMVETS suggested that VA deliver a good faith payment to eligible student-veterans, similar to the emergency check program implemented in October.

On Stripes Central, the official blog of Stars & Stripes, Leo Shane explained that VA will send letters to student-veterans who took advantage of the emergency check program, outlining repayment options.

In the meantime, AMVETS leaders urge veterans not to panic. The VA has competent systems in place to audit its accounts, with appellate systems and safeguards in place to ensure accuracy.

American Veteran will work to secure an example of the letter and keep you posted in the coming days on how VA plans to balance its books on the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill.

Army Should Reconsider Censoring Stars & Stripes

Yesterday, Stars & Stripes ran a story about the Army's refusal to embed reporter Heath Druzin with the 1st Cavalry Division in Mosul. Druzin had previously been embedded with another unit in Mosul.

Stripes, an independent newspaper partially funded by the military, accused the Army of censoring their reporter based on apparent dissatisfaction with past coverage.

As a writer, Stripes' accusation is serious to me and one that the Army must address. I was particularly disturbed at the tired talking point provided by an Army PAO attacking Druzin's journalistic integrity. Here's a sample from the Stripes' story:

"Officials said Stripes reporter Heath Druzin, who covered operations of the division’s 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team in February and March, would not be permitted to rejoin the unit for another reporting tour because, among other things, he wrote in a March 8 story that many Iraqi residents of Mosul would like the American soldiers to leave and hand over security tasks to Iraqi forces.

"'Despite the opportunity to visit areas of the city where Iraqi Army leaders, soldiers, national police and Iraqi police displayed commitment to partnership, Mr. Druzin refused to highlight any of this news,' Major Ramona Bellard, a public affairs officer, wrote in denying Druzin’s embed request."

Aren't we past this kind of trite accusation? I've heard this "positive news" spin far too many times since 2003--I may even be guilty of reiterating the assertion from time to time while I served in Iraq--but the assessment of Druzin's work is completely off base.

For some perspective, I took a look at the March 8 story in question. Interestingly enough, I found two stories filed by Druzin on that day--one critically assessing the tenuous security situation in the Mosul, the other highlighting the positive work of the battalion.

To me, it looked as though Druzin made a concerted effort in his coverage to capture the whole story. In fact, he quoted a U.S. soldier in the security story on why the residents of Mosul clearly preferred for the Americans to leave.

While this first story certainly painted a grim picture of the last insurgent hotbed in Iraq, it appears to be factual journalism and it does not malign the Army in any way. Moreover, the second story carefully chronicled the efforts of the soldiers patrolling Mosul and the marked improvements in the war-torn city. Both stories clearly refute the Army's assertion that Druzin refused to cover the collaboration among Iraqi and American forces.

After reading through Druzin's body of work from his previous assignment in Mosul, it's easy to see why Stripes is eager to send him back. He clearly knows the lay of the land and has the ability to track down the most accurate and compelling details. Hopefully, the Army will reconsider its position as U.S. forces prepare to withdraw from Iraq's major cities at the end of the month. Mosul is certainly a critical piece of this story, and it would be a disservice to the readers of Stars & Stripes for a green reporter to cover it.

Stripes is in a difficult position with the military. The publication has the duty to report independently to members of the U.S. military deployed overseas. However, Stripes has repeatedly faced scrutiny over their ethical responsibilities and their ties to the Pentagon. In light of this, reporting from within the pages of Stripes is usually regarded as reputable within the military community and beyond. It would be a shame to see a short-sighted decision on the part of the Army sully that reputation.

-Ryan

(The contents above strictly reflect the opinion of Ryan Gallucci as a contributor to American Veteran magazine. They do not reflect the official stance of the AMVETS organization. Photo: Army Spc. Rodney Davidson reads a copy of Stars & Stripes while deployed to Iraq in 2005. Photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Reynaldo Ramon, released.)