Military Life News

Military Life News, Commissary Rewards and Military Discounts

Military Families Living On-Base Worry About the Safety of Their Drinking Water

By

Military families may need to add drinking water to their growing list of lifestyle-related worries and concerns. A recent report from the Department of Defense confirms that potentially hazardous chemicals are in the tap water at many military installations.

Military Families Living On-Base Worry About the Safety of Their Drinking Water

A total of 126 military installations have polluted water that could cause health problems. Are you worried about drinking the tap water at your on-base house?

These recent reports have left a stain on the current White House and Department of Defense because it looks like a cover-up might have happened.

Don’t Drink the Water at Your Military Base

Before military families go into full-on panic mode, it’s important that we know exactly what we’re dealing with or at least understand as much as we can with the information currently available.

What is the issue with the drinking water?

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) are two chemicals commonly found in everyday objects. You can find PFOS/PFOA in everything from Teflon coating to waterproofing on fabric to fast food wrappers. It was phased out of use by American manufacturers starting in May 2000.

Why are PFOS/PFOA a concern?

According to the DoD report and additional reporting by news outlets, PFOS/PFOA exposure can be harmless in small amounts. However, repeated and long-term exposure comes with a host of health complications.

Both men and women can experience impacts on fertility. Babies may be born with developmental delays. Those exposed may experience increased cholesterol levels, increased uric acid and changes in liver enzymes. There may also be changes to the immune system too.

Finally, exposure to PFOS/PFOA may have an increased risk of prostate, kidney and testicular cancers.

As of August 2017, 401 current and former military installations have had their water tested. Of those, 90 have water samples that exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lifetime Health Advisory (LHA) levels.

Additionally, 2,668 groundwater sources have been tested. Of those, 1,621 have PFOS/PFOA levels above the EPA’s LHA. All told, 1,711 sites have compromised water sources.

Reports also indicate that a total of 126 military installations have polluted water that could cause health problems.

The DoD’s response at this time, according to their published report, is to educate the services, investigate the use of products containing PFOS/PFOA and begin planning for cleanup operations.

Since the water was tested in 2017, why wasn’t the water contamination report released earlier?

The PFOS/PFOA report is enough to cause public concern. However, it now appears that the White House and DoD officials might have prevented the immediate release of information.

Through emails obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists, officials at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned the EPA of a “public relations nightmare” when the PFOS/PFOA report was released. These emails are dated January 2018.

Reports on the water contamination were released in spring 2018.

What can military families do?

If you are living on or near an impacted installation or groundwater source, it might be time to consider changing how you drink water.

Adding a water filtration system, according to a 2016 report on Water Online, can have some impact on the levels of PFOS and PFOA in your tap water supply. However, no single system has been shown to be totally effective for both categories or related chemicals. Granular activated carbon has been shown to be the most effective filtration system, along with nanofiltration and reverse osmosis.

Another option is to switch to bottled water. The Food and Drug Administration monitors bottled water manufacturers to ensures compliance with health and safety standards.

Military families should also document health concerns that might be related to PFOS/PFOA contamination. Correlating your family’s physical location with health problems that might stem from exposure to chemical contaminants is important for long-term care and solutions.

Military communities have already banded together to provide documentation of military-caused health issues due to contaminated drinking water. Current and former residents of Camp Lejeune scored a victory in this arena.

Are you stationed at a military base with unsafe drinking water? What precautions are you taking to protect your loved ones from the threat of unsafe water?

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?

Keeping Supplements Safe for Service Members

By

It’s impossible to turn on the television, listen to music or read online publications, without happening upon an ad for some kind of dietary supplement. Even a trip to the exchange or commissary offers supplement options, including full-fledged GNC stores operating on many military installations.

And it’s not like we just have one or two options. There are hundreds if not thousands of supplements to choose from. Some promise help with weight loss, others with building muscle mass. There are supplements for better sleep, better digestion, stress relief, bone and heart health, and even better sex.

Given all the promises that these products have to offer, it is understandable why so many service members would turn to supplements. Long hours, expectations for physical and mental endurance, and competition for promotion and awards pushes many to consider any option for even a small competitive edge.

But how can a service member be sure that the supplements they are taking are safe?

And how can service members ensure that the supplements they are taking don’t contain any one of a number of restricted substances banned by military guidelines and tested for in routine urinalyses?

The common sense answer is, talk to your doctor and do your research before buying and taking any dietary supplement.

Many of us will search of any number of supplement information online before talking with our doctors. Have you searched online for this information? Try it now. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Chance are, any online search produces hundreds and hundreds of pages, most touting the benefits of said supplement. Before and after pictures offer proof of a supplement’s effectiveness and countless endorsements make it appear that you’ve found the miracle pill that will make you run faster, grow stronger or stay sharp for hours on end.

Should you trust these claims? How much is marketing fluff designed to make you spend your money on a magical pill?

You might not know it, but there is a trusted source you can use to find out more about the supplements you are taking and how to use them both effectively and safely. It’s called: Operation Supplement Safety.

After several instances of harmful supplements being sold on military installations, the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs put out a request for the creation of a dedicated resource for members of the DoD community. In 2012 Operation Supplement Safety (OPSS) was born.

OPSS was created by the Consortium for Health and Military Performance (CHAMP), a Defense Center of Excellence department at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Its mission is to both educate and protect members of the DoD community by providing “evidence-based, up-to-date information on dietary supplements.”

And its efforts to promote awareness and safety are further enhanced by its industry partnerships with agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health.

As part of OPSS’s ongoing efforts and community partnerships, the supplements sold in commissaries and exchanges must be vetted against a list of supplements and ingredients included on the DoD’s list of banned or prohibited substances.

This means that if you buy on-post or online through the exchange, you can trust the products you are buying.

Additionally, the OPSS website is a treasure trove of information on how to use supplements safely and effectively. For example, want to know how to safely use caffeine to help “boost your mental and physical performance?” Check out this infographic created by OPSS.

Want to check the ingredients of your supplements against the banned ingredient list? Here’s a chart that lists all of these substances and the dangers associated with them.

We still live in a time of buyer beware, but it’s nice to know that when it comes to our health, there is one place we can trust to get the information we need.

Do you buy dietary supplements? Why do you buy and take them?

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?

GAO Report Says DoD Lacks Data to Make Cuts to Commissaries

By

Remember that Department of Defense report that said budget neutrality isn’t a vital option for commissaries?

Well that report isn’t the end of this discussion.

More likely that report is just the beginning of an ongoing discussion about the feasibility of self-sufficient commissaries.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report titled “Plan and Additional Information Needed on Cost Savings and Metrics for DoD Efforts to Achieve Budget Neutrality.” In this report GAO evaluated the DoD’s report and found that it lacked specific data to support its stance that budget neutrality isn’t feasible for commissaries.

“GAO’s analysis found that DoD’s report fully addresses three of the seven mandated elements and partially addresses the remaining four. Although DOD’s report discusses the seven mandated elements, GAO found that including additional information would have made the report more consistent with relevant generally accepted research standards and would have made the report more useful to decision makers,” the GAO report stated.

More useful to decision makers? Wait…what?

Let’s take a step back into the recent history of reports on cost-saving measures for the commissaries.

As commissary shoppers, we know that that DeCA operates the commissaries. Prices at the commissaries are product cost plus a 5 percent surcharge. In fiscal year 2015, DeCA’s annual sales for its commissaries were approximately $5.5 billion. DeCA received $1.3 billion in appropriated funds in fiscal year 2015 to operate the commissaries.

Those appropriated funds are currently under the microscope of the defense department.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 “mandated DoD to provide a comprehensive plan to achieve ‘budget neutrality,’ which DoD interpreted as ending the use of appropriated funding for commissaries and the military exchange system, by October 1, 2018,” as explained in the recent GAO report.

This mandate has caused a lot of head scratching and number crunching for those at both DoD and DeCA.

The Boston Consulting Group was contracted to conduct 2 separate studies that may lead to cost-saving measures. In February, DoD established the Defense Resale Business Optimization Board. This board is working to help implement reforms within and among the commissary and exchange systems.

Then DoD released its report saying budget neutrality will be difficult, if not, impossible. GAO then reviewed that DoD report as it was directed to in last year’s defense budget. That’s what lead to this report and GAO’s recommendation that “DoD provide information to Congress to support its conclusion about budget neutrality; develop a plan for achieving alternative reductions to appropriations; and identify specific metrics for customer satisfaction, product quality, and savings.”

“DoD did not provide a plan to achieve budget neutrality by October 2018 as mandated because according to the report, DoD cannot achieve budget neutrality without reducing savings to patrons or other benefits provided by commissaries and exchanges.”

“For example, the report stated that drastic changes, such as store closures and price increases, would have to be implemented if DOD were required to achieve budget neutrality. However, DOD did not provide additional information about potential steps to reach budget neutrality, such as cost estimates and assumptions, or include specific details about trade-offs, constraints and limitations to achieving budget neutrality such as reductions in benefits,” the GAO report said.

“Instead of providing a plan, DOD estimated a $2 billion reduction over a 5-year period, which would fall short of achieving budget neutrality by about $5 billion. DOD officials told us the cost savings amount was an arbitrary estimate, and that therefore DOD did not develop details on steps it would take to achieve the $2 billion in savings. DOD officials could not explain the assumptions, methodology, data, specific time frames or DOD efforts that would lead to the $2 billion in savings.”

In case you’re wondering why DoD didn’t conduct these types of detailed analysis in its initial report, DoD experts, who were interviewed by GAO investigators for this report, pointed to time constraints as their reason for the lack of specifics.

“According to DoD officials, for some efforts that are already being considered, DoD officials told us that they did not include some information in the report to support their conclusions because they have not had time to verify the information,” the GAO report said.

Here’s another important nugget of information: DoD concurs with GAO’s recommendations.

Now that we know that the decision makers aka Congress lack the information needed to make decisions about changes to the commissaries, what’s the next step?

I have a strong sense we’ll be reading another federal report in the near future.

What do you think of this GAO’s report saying that the DoD’s report on cost-saving measures for the commissaries was incomplete?

Commissary Closures: It’s All or Nothing, DoD Report Says

By

By now, if you have any connection to the military community you’ve likely heard some heated discussion and some of the rampant rumors about the possible closure of all CONUS commissaries.

Commissary Closures: It's All or Nothing, DoD Report Says

An outside view the commissary located at Naval Station Norfolk. Source: U.S. Navy

In the Report on Plan to Obtain Budget Neutrality for the Defense Commissary System and the Military Exchange System dated May 2016, the Department of Defense reported to Congress details on the current sales and usage of the commissary system and explored options for reducing the $1.5 billion shortfall between projected costs and the revenue required to achieve budget neutrality by October 1, 2018. The report reiterated the DoD’s commitment to keeping both commissary and exchange services.

But perhaps the most surprising boost in the fight to keep our commissaries open came from the report’s recommendation that neither commissary closures nor the implementation of significant price increases be seen as viable budgetary solutions.

Commissary Closures: It's All or Nothing, DoD Report Says

How often do you shop at your commissary? Would you shop there less if the prices were increased by 5 percent?

It’s All About Buying Power

As any savvy shopper knows, buying in bulk is a great way to save money. Buying in bulk is a great budgeting tool for individual consumers, but it also is the ace in the hole for large retailers like the commissary. Just like commercial grocers, DeCA leverage large-volume buying power in price negotiations with manufacturers and brokers.

Closing commissaries reduces DeCA’s buying power and reduces its ability to negotiate for the best possible pricing. Close too many commissaries and the significant decrease in volume could even eliminate DeCA’s ability to negotiate directly with manufacturers, forcing them into buying relationships with wholesalers and introducing a “middle man” into price negotiations.

In order for DeCA to offer our community the products and pricing we need and expect, significant decreases in volume must be avoided.

What About a Simple Price Increase?

Another alternative explored included the feasibility and impact of raising prices unilaterally above the cost-plus-five-percent level currently in place.

The report cited research in the Military Resale Study performed by the Boston Consulting Group in July 2015 which noted that polled commissary patrons indicated that “if prices increased even five percent, they would shop 25 percent fewer times per month.”

And while the finite impact of raising prices is difficult to quantify, if commissary sales decreased by 25 percent, the resulting loss of revenue would total nearly $2.1 billion. Additional price increases would then be needed, resulting in additional losses in sales, creating a vicious cycle of higher prices and decreasing sales until the commissary system became entirely defunct.

What if We Closed Them All?

Not only would closing all CONUS commissaries greatly impact moral, but it would create an even greater burden on already difficult budget constraints. The DoD report indicated that nearly 80 percent of all active duty families use the commissary at least once annually, with the greatest percentage of patrons utilizing services “two to three times per month.”

According to DeCA calculations, at this level of patronage, active duty families average just over $1,500 per year in savings. If the DoD were to compensate military families for this loss of benefit, the cost would be nearly $2.4 billion, a significant increase over the current projected budget shortfall. This analysis also fails to take patronage and sales to retirees and their families.

Commissary closures would also have several second and third order effects. AAFES exchange stores rely heavily on the proximity to commissaries to support their revenue.

AAFES estimates that between “20-30 percent of its foot traffic” and the resulting $1 billion in sales comes from exchange locations in close proximity to commissaries. Subsequently, the significant contributions to MWR funding made by AAFES would be greatly impacted.

And let’s not forget about our commissaries located OCONUS. These facilities derive great benefit from their connection to the stateside system.

Decreased buying power would greatly impact cost and availability of products that can make an overseas assignment feel a bit more like home.

According to report calculations, if all CONUS commissaries were closed, the resulting loss of buying power and management support would result in nearly a 25 percent increase in costs for OCONUS commissary operations.

We are by no means out of the woods when it comes to the future of our commissary benefits. The DoD is still examining options that include privatization or varied pricing to help DeCA achieve budget neutrality by the target date.

However, this report seems to solidify the DoD’s intent to ensure commissary benefits for active duty families and retirees remain in place and intact for as long as possible.

Since this report found that shutting down all the commissaries is the only way to operate them without taxpayer money, do you think privatization is the answer to reducing their operating costs? Why or why not?