Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 42 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Soldiers missed benefits by a day
Congressional delegation working to resolve issue
Published Friday, October 19, 2007
Roughly a month after returning from National Guard service in Iraq, Sam and Joe Dinsmore of Fergus Falls re-entered college life. Their father, John Dinsmore, says his sons have been treated well by North Dakota State University and Concordia College-Moorhead, the schools Sam, 24, and Joe, 22, attended before going to Iraq.
“They went to the top of the list in terms of housing,” John Dinsmore said. “It’s just been wonderful.”
Yet the Dinsmore brothers are among the many Minnesota National Guardsmen whose service orders prevent them from obtaining full educational benefits under the GI Bill. Nearly half of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division do not have the 730 service days required to qualify for the full benefits package. The Dinsmores, like many others, have orders recording 729 days.
Sgt. Mark Sjostrom of the Fergus Falls Armory said nearly every local guardsman does not qualify for the full benefits package.
“As far as I know, I don’t know any of them that got the 730 days,” he said, explaining that soldiers are eligible for some money but not the full amount.
“I think there are a lot of people who are speculating that it was an administrative error,” Dinsmore said, adding that many families wonder whether the issue is a bureaucratic mistake or a larger systemic flaw requiring legislative action.
Dinsmore said soldiers in his sons’ position essentially have two options: fill out paperwork requesting a change of order (as Sam Dinsmore has done) or wait for the federal government to address the Minnesota group as a whole.
On Tuesday, Rep. Collin Peterson and other members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation sent a letter to President Bush, requesting he take immediate action to restore education benefits for Minnesota soldiers.
Following a Wednesday phone conversation between Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Minnesota Democrat Rep. Tim Walz, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Gates had committed to resolving the educational benefits issue.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by eripsni (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is ridiculous, those boys should get the full-deal...one day off? Come on! They better get this resolved quickly...
Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on October 19, 2007 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The absurdity of this is incredible, but not as incredulous as the restraint shown in this quote:
“I think there are a lot of people who are speculating that it was an administrative error,” Dinsmore said, adding that many families wonder whether the issue is a bureaucratic mistake or a larger systemic flaw requiring legislative action.
Beureaucratic mistake? What a laugh. It's a total screw-job that should be fixed immediately. What's to discuss?
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why have service length rules at all then. What is ridiculous is changing the rules because they're close. Had these outstanding gentlemen enlisted regular army this would not be an issue.
Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is there an address or email address that we can write to in regards to this utter and complete idiocy? This ridiculous. This is beyond ridiculous. We should be bending over backwards for these people, but instead, we're shortchanging them? Dumb dumb dumb.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How may days of active service should qualify you for full benefits?
Two weeks?
Two months?
Two Years?
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Only a complete idiot or the most naive elf could believe that this rule was not written for the sole purpose of extracting the most service in exchange for the least reward by an administration chicken hawk with one eye on his own butt and the other one on the bottom line. But, we should all remember that this administration SUPPORTS THE TROOPS.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DevoBill, answering your nations call is all that should ever be required for full benefits.
Posted by Hennepin (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To Devobill,
Typical in today's military. My daughter and her regular Army buddies are being sent home ONE WEEK before they qualify for the $1,000 bonus per month for the the 3 month extension they got. Halliburton, Blackwater and the rest are pocketing BILLIONS while our patriotic sons and daughters are getting screwed.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I did not write the law. It's always said two years of active service. That's how it was when I was collected benefits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_Bill
Chapter 30
The Montgomery GI Bill - Active Duty (MGIB) states that active duty members accept a pay reduction of $100 per month for 12 months; when they use the benefits, they receive as of 2007 $1101 monthly for a maximum of 36 months of education benefits. This benefit may be used for degree and certificate programs, flight training, apprenticeship/on-the-job training and correspondence courses if the veteran is enrolled full-time. Part-time veteran students receive less, but for a proportionately longer period. Veterans from the reserve have different eligibility requirements and different rules on receiving benefits. MGIB may also be used while active, but as each service has additional educational benefit programs for active duty members most delay using MGIB benefits until after separation, discharge or retirement.
Time limit / Eligibility
MGIB benefits may be used up to 10 years from the date of last discharge or release from active duty. The 10-year period can be extended by the amount of time a service member was prevented from training during that period because of a disability or because he/she was held by a foreign government or power.
The 10-year period can also be extended if one reenters active duty for 90 days or more after becoming eligible. The extension ends 10 years from the date of separation from the later period. Periods of active duty of less than 90 days qualify for extensions only if one was separated for one of the following:
* A service-connected disability
* A medical condition existing before active duty
* Hardship, or
* A reduction in force.
For those eligible based on two years of active duty and four years in the Selected Reserve, they have 10 years from their release from active duty, or 10 years from the completion of the four-year Selected Reserve obligation to use MGIB benefits.
Posted by toad3 (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think any service member who has one day in a war zone should receive full benefits. king George and his morons need to get their head out of their you know what! It is a shame the way the government is taking care of these men and women when they return. Like Chipmunk said, "remember that this administration supports the troops"
Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is not the law that is in question, but rather the ORDERS which were written for 729 days in order to avoid the law.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No sorry not the "administration" but Congress makes these rules. It's not like these guys get nothing as a full time student they get payment rate of $317 a month.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ffprofessor said:
"It is not the law that is in question, but rather the ORDERS which were written for 729 days in order to avoid the law."
Wow there is someone in the Army watching out for the tax payer.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I misspoke in my 4:09 pm post. Where I said “rule” I should have said “orders” which is what I meant.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DevoBill, when you said “Wow there is someone in the Army watching out for the tax payer” did you really mean to imply that it is acceptable to cheat our soldiers on a technicality if the tax payers save money? Because if you did, that sounds very close to sending our troops into action with unarmored Hummers, that also saved money. How about we do this up right and take away their M-16’s and replace them with BB guns or take away breakfast that will save one third of the meal cost to the taxpayer. I guess I would be out of line if I suggested we save some tax payer dollars by stopping no bid “cost plus” contracts to Halliburton.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They had options, they could have enlisted regular army and had the active duty benefits. They were not cheated out of anything unless they actually have orders saying they served over 729 days active. If they get deployed again they will. Wasn't the brew ha ha a year ago about how they have to stay longer. Now we have them back and it's not good enough.
Posted by sweetpea (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DevoBill, are you really a veteran?
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 19, 2007 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes I'm disabled Army veteran 87-91. I'm acquainted with Sam and Joe as well. There could not be two finer gentlemen.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 20, 2007 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wanted Sheep Detective
I have lost my sheep and will pay whoever finds them one dollar per sheep, plus a bonus of ten dollars per sheep if you find all 730 of them.
Call 218 737-0007 after 6:00pm thank you L.B.Peep
………………………………………………………………………………………………
For Sale
One sheep, cut up, wrapped and packaged.
Call 218 739-0000 after midnight. B.B. Wolfe
………………………………………………………………………………
Posted by toad3 (anonymous) on October 20, 2007 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DevoBill,
I cannot believe a fellow veteran, a disabled veteran would not be for these service men and women who have returned from war would be so against them receiving full benefits! I still think one day in a war zone should be enough for full benefits.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 20, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Ms. Peep
I have worked my butt off and found nearly all your sheep, 729 of them to be exact. One still appears to be missing for some reason. I still think I should get the bonus. Since you have all your sheep back except one.
Sincerely
S. Holmes
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 20, 2007 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My Dear Mr. Holmes,
Tough poop. You knew the rules when you started looking for my sheep. It’s not my fault you can’t find number 730, perhaps you should have started looking for them before I lost them. Now hand over my sheep and the check is in the mail.
Sincerely,
L. B. Peep
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 20, 2007 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jerry exactly!
Posted by sweetpea (anonymous) on October 20, 2007 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Devo, I'm glad to see that you changed your mind.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 21, 2007 at 12:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sweetpea,
I would not say changed my mind. I'm saying the Jerry gets it.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 21, 2007 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know of many Two (2) year draftees who served with me in Vietnam and returned to CONUS with less than sixty (60) days on their contract and were let out early and still received full benefits. Close not only counts in horseshoes and grenades but also government work. Just ask any defense contractor.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 21, 2007 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sure Chip "early outs" are a reduction in force and one of the exceptions.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 21, 2007 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Devo, in 1968, 1969, 1970 no one ever mentioned the concept of “Reduction in force”. The US ARMY simply considered it inefficient to reassign someone with less than sixty days to go. Especially when one considers that most G.I.’s had thirty days leave coming after a year in Vietnam. Nor was there a reduction in force in actuality, everyone who left, on their own two feet or otherwise, was replaced by at least one other warm body. It is possible that things have changed between my time and yours, either way I still think these guys are getting screwed. Two years equals 730 days. Why on earth would anyone write orders for 729 days for any purpose other than to cut off benefits due one day later. The number 729 did not just pop into some clerks head. Some number crunching, pencil pushing jerk issued orders that would keep these troops “In Country” as long as possible and still get them out before they qualified for full benefits, and hope no one would notice. That is not acting in good faith. Here is a quote from the Veterans Administration webpage’ “In 1984, former Mississippi Congressman Gillespie V. “Sonny” Montgomery revamped the GI Bill, which has been known as the "Montgomery GI Bill" ever since, assuring that the legacy of the original GI Bill lives on, as VA home loan guaranty and education programs continue to work for our newest generation of combat veterans.’’ So you see the “Montgomery” provisions of the bill were not in effect during Vietnam.
Posted by sweetpea (anonymous) on October 21, 2007 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think jealously has reared its ugly head with DevoBill, no one else should get what he got unless they did exactly what he did. My dad had to serve for the DURATION during WWII (much longer than two years) in order to get fewer benefits than DevoBill and I’m sure he would not begrudge DevoBill or these latest soldiers to get shafted.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 21, 2007 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like Jerry said. What is the advantage of enlisting regular army, if you get the same benefits as a reservest or guardsman?
No I'm not jealous, just point out they were not cheated as the law stands.
Vietnam Era G.I. Bill Educational Assistance Program
In accordance with Chapter 34, Title 38, U. S. Code, the Vietnam Era G.I. Bill was implemented for those members serving on active for a period of more than 180 days, any part of which occurred after January 31, 1955, and before January 1, 1977, and were discharged or released there from under conditions other than dishonorable. Unlike the subsequent Educational Assistance Programs, this program required no monetary payment by the member to be eligible. This program however did expire on December 31, 1989 and no additional payment of benefits was made after this date.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 21, 2007 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Devo, I was reading your last post and comparing it to some of your previous posts when my head exploded, I’ll be back after I seek medical attention. Don’t go away.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 21, 2007 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK Mr chip
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Devo, I just have one question for you. Your answer will tell me and anyone else watching exactly where your mind is.
Do you believe that the Department of Defense or the Army or whoever wrote those orders for 729 days was acting in good faith?
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't believe the orders were deliberately written to exclude them from getting the full chapter 30 education benefits.
I'm sure the orders will be amended to include an extra day.
Maybe congress should write a retro-active law regarding chapter 30 benefits. I have had orders along with buddies that very in dates, so its not that uncommon.
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Devo, your unresponsive answer is very illuminating.
Posted by Smljhndnsmr (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This amending of orders has not officially been completed. However, military and government officials have repeated assured us that the matter is diligently being pursued. For now, my brother, myself, and the considerably large group of other returnees of the 1/34 BCT who did NOT receive extension orders that include a "730" instead of a "729" are drawing from Chapter 1607 (REAP) VA education benefits rather than the Chapter 30 (Active Duty) offerings. Bottom line: If a group of people all do the same job for the same extent of time, they ought all be able to be eligible for the same set of benefits. From what I've gathered, this matter about these benefits being entirely contingent upon the dispute between membership of a reserve component verses membership of an active duty component of the armed forces is irrelevant. If such was the case, then the great number of soldiers of the 1/34 BCT who DID receive extension orders containing "730" would never have been able to receive such orders in the first place. Post-secondary civilian education has never been a low-cost endeavor, so I only wish that those of us who were seemingly given the "short straw" will be allowed to receive fair treatment.
-Sam Dinsmore
Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It sounds like DevoBill and Jerry want to be on both sides of this issue. That’s both unbecoming and small.
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What about the Arkansas' 39th Infantry Brigade that spent 18 months in Iraq? Should they get chapter 30 benefits?
Iowa had some 600 guardsman in Iraq for 18 months. New Jersey Charlie Troop of the 117th Cavalry were held in Iraq as part of the "surge" and ended up spending 15 months there. Why not extend the chapter 30 to them as well?
Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Eighteen months equals five hundred and fourth seven and one half (547.5) days.
Fifteen months equals four hundred and fifty six (456) days.
Both, a far cry from 729
Posted by DevoBill (anonymous) on October 23, 2007 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He won't answer you Jerry, and it really does not matter how much trigger time he has. The way the Army works, there is NO way this was a grand conspiracy to save money. How I would like to think so I'm sure it's not true.
Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on October 23, 2007 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have no “trigger time” but I do have an opinion and the ability to voice it. I can also add and subtract.
Likewise, I have no “naive time”
Posted by sweetpea (anonymous) on October 24, 2007 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“TRIGGER TIME?”, Do people really talk that way? Sound like something out of a comic book.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)