Military Life News

Military Life News, Commissary Rewards and Military Discounts

Payroll Mistake Leads to Military Spouse Teachers Owing DoDEA Money

By

Debt letters are showing up at military spouse teachers’ homes around the world. The Department of Defense Education Activity or DoDEA, has been issuing debt letters for debts accumulated during a military spouse’s time teaching in the DoDEA system.

These debts are often inaccurate or completely unsubstantiated and they can come years after leaving the DoDEA system.

Being a military spouse comes with plenty of challenges. Finding and keeping employment is one of the biggest challenges. Many military spouses are unemployed or underemployed.

Teachers Receive Debt Letters from DoDEA

DoDEA teachers are reminded to routinely check their LES and make sure their pay is correct.

Choosing a portable career is important and teaching professions are one of the top fields military spouses work in. DoDEA schools are rumored to be excellent work environments.

Once you are in the DoDEA system, moving with your spouse and finding a teaching position becomes easier. You don’t have to get a new state license to teach with them each time you PCS. They also offer relocation assistance and competitive salaries.

One surprising thing many military spouses have discovered is that working for the DoDEA can also lead to debt, even before you start working for them.

M.J. Allen found this out the hard way. While waiting for her paperwork to be approved to begin a job, she started receiving debt letters. After going around in circles with them, she learned that she had been put on the school’s payroll even though she had not started teaching and they wanted their nonexistent money back.

Many military spouse teachers report receiving similar debt letters.

It’s become a running joke among DoDEA teachers that you don’t truly work for them until you’ve received debt letters. Why are military spouses not standing up to this?

Some choose to pay the debt off while others tangle with debt collectors. If you are one of the teachers that have received debt letters, know that someone is working on your side to fight this.

The Federal Education Association (FEA) is working on military spouse teachers’ behalf to crack down on these erroneous claims. They recommend all DoDEA teachers routinely check their LES, making sure their pay is correct. Keeping up with your pay and any deductions is important. These debt letters can come years down the road, even after you’ve left the DoDEA system.

There are a few things to pay particular attention to on your LES (Leave and Earnings Statement) because even though it is illegal, the DFAS routinely deducts money from DoDEA employees. They have been known to deduct funds even if the debt has already been paid back.

You can invoke your rights under the Debt Collection Act, Back Pay Act, and Negotiated Agreement but that still might not stop them from taking back your money or sending debt letters.

Be vigilant and check your LES for these things:

  • a negative amount in the “retroactive earnings” section
  • a notice on your LES of “debt deduction”
  • a note of “indebtedness” in the “Remarks” section

If you do find these things or receive debt letters, don’t pay them right away. The burden of proof of debt is on the government. You can seek help from the FEA.

Don’t be a military spouse that simply pays the debt off. Debt letters might just find their way to your mailbox again.

Many military spouses are outraged by this breakdown in DoDEA. Working for them can be mentally rewarding, but receiving debt letters can be tolling.

Don’t let your desire to teach turn into a debt headache that can last for years. Be vigilant in watching your pay and stand up for your rights if you do receive debt letters.

Do you work as a teacher? Have you received one of these debt letters from DoDEA?

Why the Commissary Bagger Topic Struck a Nerve

By

Bagger-free checkout lanes at your commissaries are quite the hot topic.

In response to a recently published article about these checkout lanes, many readers wrote comments with their opinions on having baggers or not. Don’t panic if you didn’t read the article yet. DeCA, the Defense Commissary Agency that oversees commissaries, is not doing away with baggers at this time. They are simply adding bagger-free checkout lanes at commissaries because customers asked for this option.

We asked for your opinion on having your groceries bagged and there wasn’t a shortage of answers.

DeCA does a lot of listening. When customers make suggestions for changes at the commissaries, they really do take them into consideration. DeCA’s vision is to

Understand our Customers and Deliver a 21st Century Commissary Benefit.

They want to know what patrons would want to see changed or improved upon at their commissaries. When they had shoppers ask for bagger-free checkout lanes, they responded. Commissaries across the country started offering bagger-free checkout lanes alongside the traditional checkout lanes.

Commissary managers receive input from shoppers on a daily basis.

Why the Commissary Bagger Topic Struck a Nerve

DeCA is always listening to your suggestions. They want to improve your shopping experience at the commissary.

One of the popular requests is to increase the natural and organic section. Many Americans are becoming more health conscious. They read nutrition labels and want to know that what they are buying is healthy. There are grocery store chains that offer large natural and organic sections and some that have made the transition to offering only these products. If commissaries want to compete for customers, they’ll need to meet these needs.

Along the same lines, there are millions of Americans that have special diets. Food allergies are prevalent. Patrons have said that they would do more shopping at commissaries if there were more options available for these special dietary needs.

Dairy allergies for example are very common now. While commissaries offer dairy-free products, their selection is still very limited. Shoppers have asked for a larger selection to include dairy-free cheese, yogurt and sour cream. Customers have also said that there are very little wheat- and soy-free options in the frozen foods department.

Another suggestion that has been made to help commissaries keep up with today’s shoppers is to add online ordering for curbside pickup. Many grocery stores now offer this option. Online ordering, like Click2Go, is a huge convenience to be able to order your groceries and simply pick them up.

If the commissary wants to attract more shoppers, online grocery shopping is a sure way to get them.

What many patrons who have suggested this do not know, is that there are commissaries already testing this out. The pilot test done at these commissaries turned out to be so popular that the program is going to continue at those facilities. Hopefully, DeCA will roll that option out to more commissaries in the near future.

One last request is to offer home delivery of groceries from commissaries. Many people have turned to Amazon Fresh and Peapod for their needs. Having groceries sent right to your home would certainly be a 21st century shopping experience.

Home delivery would be a huge undertaking for commissaries of course, but it would bring a large customer basis to the wonderful commissary benefit that veterans have earned. Shopping at the commissary is a great benefit that many veterans and their families are not taking full advantage of. Adding home delivery would increase the number of people using the commissary benefit.

DeCA is always listening to your suggestions. They want to improve your shopping experience at the commissary. Many additions and changes have been made over the years thanks in part to patrons talking to the management team at commissaries.

If you have a suggestion, speak up. Your voice could be the one that makes the changes happen.

What changes would you like to see at your commissary? Tell us in the comments section.

Trump Releases Transgender Troop Policy

By

President Donald Trump recently released his policy directive regarding the continuing service of transgender troops in the U.S. military.

Under recommendations from Secretary of Defense James Mattis, the Trump administration has ruled that transgender individuals are generally disqualified from military service except under certain circumstances.

Transgender Troops Are Out Under New Policy

Mattis outlined the new policy recommendations in a February 22 memo. Transgender individuals are disqualified from military service unless they have not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Troops must also be willing to serve in their biological gender. Changing gender identity is no longer allowed under most circumstances.

Troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria or with a history of this diagnosis are generally barred from military service. However, they may serve if they have been deemed stable for 36 consecutive months in their biological gender prior to joining the military.

Transgender troops may also remain in uniform if they were diagnosed after joining, but remain in their biological gender and maintain deployability status in that gender.

If a service member was diagnosed between the Obama administration’s policy change in July 2016 and the adoption of this new policy, they may continue to serve and receive medical treatment for their diagnosis. This small subset of transgender troops may continue to serve in their preferred gender.

Trump Releases Transgender Troop Policy

The reaction to Trump’s policy on transgender troops is split along party lines.

Mattis based his changes on a new transgender policy study conducted by Department of Defense officials and military leaders. This study generally contradicts the findings of a 2016 Rand Corporation study. The earlier study indicated that there would be minimal impact on military readiness and morale caused by the service of transgender troops in their preferred gender identity. The new study found that allowing troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria to serve or join the military would be detrimental to military readiness and morale.

“(T)he Department concludes that accommodating gender transition could impair unit readiness; undermine unit cohesion, as well as good order and discipline, by blurring the clear lines that demarcate male and female standards and policies where they exist; and lead to disproportionate costs,” the DoD report reads in part.

Transgender Policy Changes Were Rapidly Reversed

Under the former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, transgender individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria were allowed to transition to their preferred gender identity. This policy was implemented in stages. As of July 1, 2016, currently serving transgender troops were allowed to openly serve without fear of discharge based on their gender identity. The final policy change of allowing transgender individuals to join the military in their preferred gender was set to roll out on July 1, 2017.

However, after a series of tweets from Trump in July 2017 and with coordinating action from Mattis, this policy was halted for a 6-month review process. This review led to the creation of the current administration’s policy on the military service of transgender troops.

Based on the Rand study, between 1,300 and 7,000 transgender troops are currently serving in the U.S. military. Per the new policy, only those troops willing to serve in their biological gender and who have not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, except under specific circumstances, will no longer be allowed to serve or join.

Trump’s Ban Faces Legal Battles and Mixed Public Reaction

Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the Armed Forces is already facing legal pushback. The Human Rights Campaign and Washington State are moving ahead with their federal lawsuit against the ban. They are joined by legal challenges in California. These legal battles continue earlier challenges that lifted the block on transgender individuals enlisting earlier in 2018. Based on these legal battles, Pentagon spokesperson Army Maj. David Eastburn noted that these policy changes would have little impact immediately.

Reaction to the change in policy has been generally split along party lines.

The Family Research Council, a conservative think tank, praised Trump’s decision in a series of tweets.

Congressman Ted Lieu wrote, in an opinion piece for Fortune magazine, that he believed these policy changes to be “stupid” and “unconstitutional.” Lieu is a veteran.

Troops and their families impacted by this decision are disturbed by these policy changes.

“The Trump administration’s continued insistence on targeting our families for discrimination is appalling, reckless and unpatriotic,” said Ashley Broadway-Mack, president of the American Military Partners Association and spouse of an active duty Army officer.

What do you think of Trump’s policy on transgender service members?

Is a ‘Deploy or Get Out’ Rule Fair for Our Service Members?

By

Secretary of Defense James Mattis instituted a new retention rule for troops. Now service members must be deployable or in his words, “get out.”

Mattis feels that too many are carrying the load for all, with about 11% of all current troops on active duty, in the Reserves or in the National Guard classified as non-deployable. That amounts to 235,000 individuals out of the 2.1 million total troop force.

The thought behind this new rule is for the good of the military family. Mattis, rightly, remarks that “we may enlist soldiers, but we reenlist families.”

Is a 'Deploy or Get Out' Rule Fair for Our Service Members?

We expect our teachers to stay up to date with the best classroom practices. We expect our lawyers to know about new laws. We expect our service members to be ready and willing to deploy.

High Tempo Missions

Mattis is right: too many of the same service members have been deployed over and over again for the last 17 years. I’ve seen more friends and neighbors pull almost back-to-back deployments than I care to count.

This high operational tempo leads to burnout for troops and families. It’s hard to stay motivated with a “go team” mentality when your group is always doing the grunt work. Even when often deployed troops are home, it can be hard to settle into family life. Disconnecting from the mission and rejoining a different pace of life can be a struggle.

Military spouses and children feel the burn too. Too many families have almost become single parent homes due to the frequent absence of one parent. Military spouses of deployed troops feel constantly on edge, just waiting for that knock. The mental load is heavy and all too real.

It’s only right to equally spread the burden among all service members. Part of doing your job means being able to fulfill all portions of that position. Military troops must be ready to deploy in support of the mission. It’s simply not fair to rely on the same people over and over again.

Deployable, Not Deployed

At this juncture, I feel it’s important to note one key phrase in Mattis’ rule. He states that troops who have been non-deployable for 12 or more months must separate. He does not expressly state that all troops must actively deploy within the same time frame.

This is an important difference.

Not all positions require the same tempo of deployments. Each military job is very specific about the requirements needed and the potential operational tempo. An infantryman is likely to face a different deployment schedule and mission than a doctor or a pilot or a mechanic.

What Mattis is asking for is simply that troops remain at the ready. I think that this is reasonable. We expect our teachers to stay up to date with the best classroom practices. We expect our lawyers to know about new laws.

Military troops should put their checks in their deployment boxes.

This means maintaining an acceptable level of physical fitness, ensuring that medical and dental exams are complete and continuing to develop in their assigned billet. None of this seems out of order.

For troops that are non-deployable due to their own lack of follow-through, like missing vaccinations or poor PT scores, they should be asked to leave. Part of the job is being mission ready and they were unable to meet that requirement. It shows a lack of commitment.

Of course, this assumes that these services are readily available both physically and in actuality. Appointments for medical and dental care are often hard to come by. Individuals should need to show their good faith efforts to complete their duty before being asked to leave.

Not Considerate Enough

There are exceptions for troops who are injured in the line of duty or in the field. Mattis has given assurances that troops who meet this requirement will be given alternate assignments and retained. This is only fair. It shows a willingness to support those who have suffered a workplace injury. This caveat helps to reenlist families.

What doesn’t help to reenlist families is the lack of guidance regarding pregnancy and the postpartum period. Female service members are likely to be non-deployable for at least 40 weeks when you account for pregnancy alone. If we consider the time needed to recover from childbirth, that puts most women over the 52-week mark.

Is Mattis suggesting that women, who have recently given birth, be asked to leave the military?

This doesn’t seem right and certainly doesn’t support military families. Studies vary, but several have found that full recovery postpartum takes longer than the typical maternity leave of 12 weeks. Asking a new mom to leave her place of employment due to childbirth seems cruel and unusual.

There needs to be additional guidance regarding pregnancy and childbirth. Reasonable and medically sound timelines for a return to full duty should be implemented and explained.

Family Friendly Rule

While this rule is still in its infancy, the intention is good. Spreading the workload by ensuring a highly deployable force is fair. It removes an undue burden from troops who have faced repeat deployments as a result of others in non-deployment status. It also forces troops to take their deployment status seriously.

Some specifics need to be clarified and it is really too soon to say just how this rule will actually impact deployments. But on its face, it seems like a good way to clean up the Armed Forces and ensure that we are ready to face today’s challenges.

What do you think of the new “deploy or get out” rule?

How POTUS’ Food Stamp Plan Will Impact Military Families

By

When you consider that the United States is one of the world’s wealthiest counties, it is disheartening to hear that 1 in 6 Americans don’t have enough food to eat. Many of those struggling with hunger are children and many are part of military families.

POTUS' Food Stamp Plan Will Impact Military Families

Do you use food stamps or have you in the past?

In a 2015 report, an estimated $80 million dollars’ worth of food was purchased in military commissaries using the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). This number doesn’t include military families who use other programs like Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) or who don’t shop at the commissary.

So proposed changes to the SNAP program will have a profound impact on military families.

As part of the 2019 budget request, the Trump administration has proposed a dramatic change to the food stamp program. The proposed change includes a reduction in “cash” benefits by half for anyone receiving $90 or more per month. Instead, SNAP cash benefits will be supplemented with a “Blue Apron-type” box filled with shelf-stable foods like canned fruits and vegetables, peanut butter, cereals, pasta, butter and beans. These boxes, called “America’s Harvest Boxes,” will supposedly save over $129 million dollars over the course of the next 10 years.

The fact that there are military families in need of assistance is an issue for another day, but let’s discuss these food boxes.

It’s an Interesting Idea

There is a part of me that thinks that these boxes could work. I mean, buying in bulk almost always drives down the cost. If the government is using its buying power to get great pricing on products, then I can see the merit. Especially, if that buying power is being used to buy all of the things that are often out of reach, like fresh fruits and vegetables, or gluten-free or organic items.

Except, that these boxes won’t include those items.

Staples like peanut butter, pasta, even canned fruits and vegetables aren’t inherently bad, but the best nutrients and the healthiest of diets, don’t often include many things out of a can.

What about those families who have a child allergic to peanut butter? Or who need gluten-free pasta? Or who need their food to be kosher? What if a family buys from a food bank program or farming cooperative and can actually stretch their SNAP funds further than the box provides?

The argument can be made that beggars can’t be choosers, but the families on SNAP and WIC aren’t exactly beggars. They are often young families or those impacted by loss of employment.

Shouldn’t families be allowed to select the food they know their family will eat?

Should they be forced to eat what the government says they should?

I find this incredibly ironic, considering how adamant this same administration has been in dismantling the school lunch program put in place by the previous administration that was designed to get kids to eat a government mandated balanced meal.

What About Distribution?

If you read through the proposed box system, you’ll notice the distribution of these boxes has been left to the states to figure out. They can “distribute these boxes through existing infrastructure, partnerships, and/or directly to residences through commercial and/or retail delivery services.”

Really?

Current food stamp infrastructure most often includes direct deposit of money to a SNAP food card, which can be used like a debit card to pay for groceries. Kind of hard to “distribute” boxes in that same way. And I find it hard to believe that door-to-door delivery is a) efficient and b) actually going to save money.

Instead, it will likely require recipients to travel to a distribution center. Taking hours away from the work day and potentially adding the cost of transportation to an already tight federal budget.

Better Options

Call me an optimist, but I think if we really wanted to conquer hunger, there are better ways to do it. Some states have started edible food forests to help produce food for needy families. Some cities are seeing a growth in urban farming, cutting down on distribution time and costs, and there are plenty of non-profit farms working to add fresh fruits and vegetables to the diets of our poorest Americans.

I’d much rather see our government working to support these ideas instead of boxing up cans of corn and jars of peanut butter.

For our military families, this is yet another reason why we have to keep our commissaries open. How many more military families will find themselves simply unable to buy the things they need if the savings offered on base are taken away?

Do you use food stamps or have you in the past? What do you think of the proposed changes to food stamps?

The Debate Surrounding Transgender Troops Serving in the U.S. Military

By

Beginning last summer, the U.S. military community has been debating whether transgender troops are fit to serve. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, along with many military leaders, seem to be at odds over a policy relating to transgender troops.

The Debate Surrounding Transgender Troops Serving in the U.S. Military

The White House is anticipated to release its final verdict and policy on transgender troops this month.

Final Policy Pending

Mattis was under a February 21, 2018, deadline to return his recommendations to the president. According to The Washington Post, it is anticipated that Mattis will support transgender troops currently serving, as well as those wishing to join in the future. Mattis made his official recommendation regarding Trump’s proposed transgender military policy on February 23, 2018. The Pentagon has not confirmed or commented on Mattis’ final recommendation.

As of January 1, 2018, individuals identifying as transgender are free to enlist or seek a commission in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Mattis’ likely position could be supported by a 2016 Rand Corporation study that was commissioned by the Obama administration. Former President Barack Obama and his administration had removed the ban on transgender troops who serve openly in June 2016.

This study found that less than 1% of active duty troops identify as transgender.

Approximately, between 1,320 and 6,630 active duty troops identify as transgender. Additionally, the study found that total medical costs related directly to transgender-specific medical care would be negligible, amounting to less than $10 million annually. This is a “relatively small” amount in the military budget. It represents a 0.04% to 0.13% increase in the overall active duty health care expenses.

Finally, not all transgender troops would elect to transition medically, with surgery. The study concluded that between 29 and 129 service members would experience a disruption to deployment readiness as a result of transgender-specific medical care.

Currently 1.3 million troops are on active duty.

Trump Tweets New Transgender Policy

On July 26, 2017, Trump tweeted his desire to reinstate a ban on transgender troops. He cited the increased cost of medical care for transgender troops as well as the disruption of military service. His announcement, which claimed that he had consulted with top military brass, seemed to catch Mattis and other military leaders off-guard. At the time of the tweets, Mattis made no immediate official comment.

Days later, military leaders appeared to walk back Trump’s sweeping policy change. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford made clear that transgender personnel would continue to serve until Mattis received clear direction from Trump. Then, that direction would need to be implemented over time. This decision was supported by Mattis.

According to recently released emails, Dunford communicated to the other service chiefs that he was “not consulted.” Dunford appeared willing to confirm this to the media and wrote that this policy change “was unexpected.”

Ban Blocked in Court

On October 30, 2017, the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C., issued an injunction in favor of 8 transgender individuals who were in ROTC programs or enrolled at service academies. The D.C. court’s decision was backed by the Maryland district court in a November 12, 2017, ruling. The Maryland judge also issued an impending injunction that blocked Trump’s proposed ban to take effect due to constitutional violations of the plaintiffs. Both cases are still pending a final ruling.

The initial rulings from Maryland and D.C. allowed these individuals to continue to take steps toward active duty service. The injunctions also swayed the Pentagon to allow transgender individuals to enlist starting on January 1, 2018.

Trump directed Mattis, per an August 25, 2017, executive order, to review the current policy as well as his proposed policy. His recommendations were due back to the White House on February 21, 2018.

The White House is anticipated to release its final verdict and policy statement on March 23, 2018.

Questions Remain for Transgender Troops

In the middle of all of this political discussion, are the openly transgender troops currently serving. Their continued service is potentially at risk. In addition, as of January 1, 2018, openly transgender individuals are allowed to join active military service.

Trump’s March 23 decision could have immediate ramifications for troops currently serving, as well as those who are beginning their initial processing and training. Troops who are currently serving may be forced to resign without benefits. However, the actual proposed policy regarding current transgender service members remains unclear.

What do you think? Should transgender service members be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?

No Fanfare for 6 Female Expert Infantryman Badge Earners

By

Six female soldiers recently stood among the few who earned the right to wear the Army’s Expert Infantryman Badge.

To earn the badge, they were required to pass a grueling multi-day challenge that tested their modern-day warfighter skills. That list of skills, 30 tasks deep, included passing an Army physical fitness test with a minimum of 80 percent in each category, multiple weapons lanes, day and night land navigation, as well as proficiency in several combat lifesaver skills, chemical decontamination, and an arduous 12-mile ruck march with a 40-pound pack.

The names and units of these female soldiers were not released, and like so many other noteworthy female pioneers, they quietly took their place in the trophy halls of American feminism.

The Expert Infantryman Badge challenge, attempted by hundreds of infantry soldiers each year, remains attainable by only a small percentage. Of the 1,007 who competed in November 2017, only 289 remained standing at the end.

That women could compete and subsequently earn and wear the badge has only recently become an option. We just passed the two-year mark on the history-changing decision to allow women to serve in infantry positions.

In May 2017, the first gender-integrated infantry basic training graduated 18 female soldiers. Those soldiers now serve in one of a number of infantry units across the Army.

And while there were 6 women who earned their Expert Infantryman badges at Fort Bragg last year, they are not the first women to have charged into this challenge and passed.

In 2011, Captain Michelle Roberts, a company commander in the 2nd Battalion, 60th Infantry Regiment earned the EIB, but because she did not have an infantry MOS, was not authorized to wear the badge.

Additionally, 2 female soldiers from the South Korean army passed the EIB challenge in 2014. And since the South Korean army has allowed women to serve in infantry positions since the 1990s, their achievement is proudly displayed on their uniforms.

No Fanfare for 6 Female Expert Infantryman Badge Earners

Why do you think there wasn’t any fanfare for these women who earned the Expert Infantryman Badge?

There wasn’t much fanfare in the announcement of these new awardees, which gave me pause to wonder why.

Was it because these 6 women feared the inevitable backlash that always seems to ensue when a woman manages to crash through a glass ceiling or wall that protects the mighty accomplishments previously achieved only by men?

Peruse any article touting female soldier accomplishments and the comments are a mix of cheering and ridicule, celebration and suspicion. Accusations of “lowered standards” permeate the rhetoric of those still convinced there is no room in today’s Army for female infantry soldiers.

A quick review of the latest guidance issued by the Army regarding the required standards for the Expert Infantryman Badge offers only one area in which there could be any perceived difference of standards and that’s the APFT.

Participants are required to pass their APFT with a minimum score of 80 in each of the 3 events – 2-mile run, sit ups, and push-ups. Current Army standards do present a difference in the number of sit ups and push-ups, and the time requirements based on gender. However, there is not one standard for males, either, as the APFT also makes allowances for age.

Perhaps it was the choice of these new female EIB awardees to avoid the PR and countless media interviews.

Maybe they are part of the significant number of female service members who are tired of standing out simply because of their gender.

Maybe they believe we have finally reached a point where female soldiers have done enough that their successes no longer need be celebrated as firsts.

Instead, maybe these 6 women simply want to put on their boots, show up and excel at their jobs. Something female soldiers have been doing every day for years.

Why do you think there wasn’t any fanfare for these women who earned the Expert Infantryman Badge?

What I Wish I Could Change About Military Life

By

Mostly, I love the military life I live. Exciting duty stations are possible every 3 years. The military community is strong and supportive. Plus, this life has given me the change to pursue a passion for writing and education advocacy.

Need I even mention the chance to play Cinderella at least once a year? Those dress blues still make my heart flutter after almost a decade.

Still, though, there are things I wish I could change. I believe that these changes would, largely, benefit the entire military community.

What I Wish I Could Change About Military Life

What do you wish you could change about your military life?

What I Wish I Could Change About Military Life

Tour Time

In some places, it just seems too short. In others, too long. I understand that there will never be a happy medium that fits every location or situation, but something needs to give. Generally, I think that longer tours at most CONUS posts would benefit the troops and their dependents.

When military families are required to move, on average, every 2.5 years, it creates ripple effects for the whole family. Personally, I’ve changed my career in major ways due to our PCS tempo.

By the time I arrive at a duty station, get licensed to teach and find a position, it’s practically time to move again!

I have not ever taught anywhere for longer than 2 consecutive school years. Even the one time I made that happen, it was broken up due to pregnancy and maternity leave.

For children, moving so often can cause stress and distress at school. Military children are perpetually the “new kid” at school. By the time they make friends and settle into a routine, it’s time to pack their things and hit the road. Every 3 years or so, everything starts from scratch at the new school. Education plans, athletic pursuits and extracurricular activities are interrupted, changed or dropped due to frequent moves.

For troops, becoming an expert in one job in one location doesn’t seem like a bad thing either. Especially for positions that interact with the public or those carrying out sensitive operations, tenure might be a great thing. I understand the military wants troops to experience their career field from different angles and deploy with different units. However, it seems like service members are PCSed just as they are gaining total expertise in a field or becoming the go-to person in a shop. Just when you need the expert the most, you swap that person out for someone just learning the ropes. This isn’t helpful to anyone!

It seems to me that extending tour times would benefit troops and their families with additional stability at work and home. Military spouses could build solid careers or employment history. Children could at least attend one school level in just a single place. Troops could become develop their expertise and level up their position.

Hurry Up and Wait

I understand the need for secrecy and security. After all, this is our nation’s defense system we are talking about. But some things are just plain silly.

For example, board results and orders.

Troops submit their packages, which are reviewed and recommended (or not) to whatever board(s) that individual is eligible for. That board meets, discusses the service members presented to them, and makes decisions: promote or not; career field school or not; PCS or PCA or not.

And then everyone waits for weeks or months on end.

Why?

I can understand the issues perhaps a decade or more ago. Communicating all of these selections and coordinating placements took time. Today we probably have an app for that or at least a very large spreadsheet. There surely must be a more timely and efficient way to coordinate board result announcements.

The wait is stressful. It’s filled with anxiety about “what if’s.” Or a service member is fully confident in positive news, only to have a devastating blow delivered.

Then there are the PCS orders. I get that the needs of the military come first. But could they arrive in a more timely fashion? There are only so many individuals in a service in each career field, and there are only so many open positions available. Why is there such a song and dance routine about where people will go to next?

Am I the Only One?

Which brings me to my last beef: OCONUS PCSing in general.

I need this question answered: Am I the very first person to move OCONUS with a small child and a dog?

No really. I’m not joking.

Based on how my last PCS was handled, it would appear that my family was the very first ever to attempt such a move. Nothing happened in a timely fashion, every little thing was an issue and there was so much miscommunication that I still can’t tell what was actually true.

Additionally, from the chatter on military spouse Facebook pages, it seems as if we are not, in fact, the first to attempt this move. However, it would seem that the folks in charge of PCSing forget how to do these things or communicate the SOP to troops or dependents.

Everyone is confused, upset and anxious because no one knows what is going on. Ever. We can’t get straight answers or seek advice from others because every single service and duty station operates differently.

Get. It. Together.

Create one streamlined way for everyone to move to a given destination, especially for OCONUS PCS moves. Make a fun and informative manual and distribute it widely. Then be done.

Maybe if the folks in charge of facilitating the moving process weren’t moving every few years, everything would run smoother.

Now it’s your turn: what do you wish you could change about your military life?

Is Congress Being a Bully to Military Families?

By

Sometimes I feel like Congress is the bully on the school playground. They make all the rules and tell everyone how to play the game they want to play. They give out great toys, our military benefits, but they constantly taunt us saying they’ll take them away.

Military families want Congress to play fair.

When they promise us something, we expect them to live up to it.

Is Congress Being a Bully to Military Families?

What do you think? Is Congress being a bully to military families?

Every year Congress looks at military spending. They question how to save the government money. Military benefits are put on the chopping block every time. Think about the benefits you or your service member were promised when enlisting.

Are you getting everything you were promised? Probably not.

I’ve been part of the military community my entire life. My parents were both in the Army and my husband is in the Navy. I have seen firsthand how Congress plays. I read the transcripts from subcommittees that debate changes to military benefits.

I pay close attention to the wording of bills I follow to see how they progress through the Senate and the House. Not many people do, which is why I enjoy writing about what Congress is doing in regards to changes that affect military families.

I want you to know what is going on so you aren’t blindsided.

So many changes have occurred recently. Have you kept up with what Congress is doing or have you been thrown a curve when you’ve needed a benefit?

Tricare had significant changes start on January 1, 2018, for example. Did you know that while Tricare Prime remained the same, Tricare Standard and Tricare Extra merged to become Tricare Select? A significant part of the change is that beneficiaries will no longer be able to switch between Tricare plans at any time. There will now be an open enrollment window. Life events will continue to enable you to switch however.

I’m sure you know that we got a pay raise this year. That’s one thing military families keep track of. There are some important things to consider though. Congress isn’t necessarily giving away extra money without caveats. You might want to read up on BAH rates for locations you are considering for your next PCS. Rates have gone up, slightly, in some locations and down in others.

Did you know that Congress wants military families to start covering 5% of BAH starting as early as next year?

Military retirement changed on January 1 as well. Congress made the most significant change to military retirement pensions in 70 years. The old plan, known as the legacy retirement system, stayed the same. A new retirement program known as the blended retirement system allows incoming service members to basically set aside money that is matched by the government up to a point. They will no longer be required to stay in the set 20 years to earn a retirement benefit.

The post-9/11 GI Bill also changed. Previously there was a 15-year cutoff date to use or lose the benefit after a service member left the military, if they left after 2013. That was eliminated. Reservists will now see their benefits increased. Surviving dependents and Purple Heart recipients get better benefits as well. A great thing is that those who attended a college that closed in 2015 or later, who ended up losing their money, will now get a new allotment.

These are just a few of the changes Congress sent our way already this year. It’s great that those entering the military will have some improvements to benefits such as the retirement plan and the post-9/11 GI Bill. Those that have been in for a while are excluded from many benefit improvements coming though. Tricare is a major benefit that many people joined the military for. That’s taking a big hit. Copays for medication increased. The dental plan changed, and not for the better, not to long ago. The commissary has changed so that prices fluctuate with the area.

In some ways it’s like Congress is making friends with the new kids and bullying their other classmates on the playground. The bully didn’t play favorites during the recent government shutdown though. Congress mandated that service members continue to work, even if they weren’t going to get paid. And our representatives didn’t lose money or sleep over this decision.

What do you think? Is Congress being a bully to military families?

Will Tricare’s Changes Impact Military Retirees?

By

By now the cat is out of the bag and you’ve probably heard and maybe even read about all of the changes to Tricare coverage for active duty personnel starting in 2018.

But what about the changes to plans offered to military retirees?

Much like the changes for Tricare Prime and Tricare Select (formerly known as Tricare Standard and Tricare Extra), the changes depend on the plan you use.

Yes, there are changes and increases to fees, and yes, there are also some increases in coverage for certain types of care.

The good news is that 2018 will be a transition year for the permanent changes and just as in years past, retirees will be able to switch plans as they wish. However, starting in 2018 for coverage beginning in 2019, Tricare for Retirees and Tricare for Life will see enrollment periods opening once per year and any changes to plan enrollment will need to take place during the open-enrollment period from the middle of November to the middle of December.

Will Tricare's Changes Impact Military Retirees?

Will you be impacted by Tricare changes this year? What’s changing for your health insurance plan?

Changes in Prescription Fees

All beneficiaries will see a change in prescription fees starting in February 2018. A 30-day supply of name brand drugs will run retirees $28, while generics will cost $11. Ninety-day supplies via home delivery will be $24 for name brand and $7 for generics. There will continue to be no co-pay for prescriptions filled at military treatment facilities for eligible plans. Non-formulary co-pays will be $53 for both 30-day retail in-network filled and home delivery.

Changes to the Retiree Dental Plan

The current Retiree Dental Plan will be retired in December 2018. The plan will be replaced with the same plan currently offered to federal employees and more information about the plan and any additional changes will be put out later this year.

Changes to Tricare Retirees – Select

All retirees using Tricare were notified late last year about the enrollment requirement. Enrollment is required in order to continue care. Current Tricare Retirees-Standard (now called Select) will see out-of-network fees charged for any care received without enrollment, so if you use this plan and haven’t already enrolled, take the time to do so. It will save you money if you end up needing care this year.

In addition, Tricare Retirees-Select will continue to see no enrollment fees until 2021. After that an annual enrollment fee will be charged, similar to the Tricare Retirees-Prime fees already in place. These annual enrollment fees will be due in January 2021.

Medical retirees and survivors of service members killed in action using Tricare Retirees-Select however, will be exempt from the fee.

Other changes include upping the the catastrophic cap for retirees using the Standard plan staring in 2021 from the current $3,000 to $3,500.

For Select users starting in January 2018, in-network primary care visits will cost $35 and in-network specialty care will cost $45 per visit. In-network emergency room visits will run $116 per visit and urgent care $35 per visit.

Changes to Tricare Retirees – Prime

Tricare Retirees-Prime will continue to see much of the same coverage currently offered. Annual enrollment rates will see annual increases equal to COLA rates. Enrollment dates and fees will move from October to January starting in 2018.

For any point-of-service visits outside of a military treatment facility, retirees using Prime will pay $20 for in-network primary care and $30 for in-network specialty care. In-network emergency room visits will cost $60 and urgent care, $30.

Changes to Tricare for Life

Retirees using Tricare for Life will see almost no changes to their current coverage. The current $150 (single rate) and $300 (family rate) will remain the same for costs not picked up by Medicare.

Additionally, the catastrophic cap will remain the same. The only change Tricare for Life users will see is a change in the reset date for deductibles and cap. Instead of October, the plan will reset in January just like all of the other Tricare plans starting in 2018.

Tricare has done a pretty decent job of notifying its beneficiaries of the changes and more information about changes to specific plans can be found on their website.

Now that you know how military retirees will be impacted by major changes from Tricare, what other questions do you have?