Military Officer - May 2006 - (Page 34)

washingtonscene grams. They urged Congress to: ■ insist that commissaries, exchanges, MWR, and family support programs remain in place at both the closing and gaining installations during major troop movements, including global rebasing and base realignments and closures; ■ ensure full funding necessary to sustain the commissary and exchange beneﬁt and MWR and quality-of-life support programs; and ■ resist any initiatives to close, cut, or limit access to these programs and facilities. Campos speciﬁcally mentioned TMC’s concerns about DoD’s proposal to consolidate some exchange operations. She questioned the $17 million DoD spent on the consolidation/shared services study and asked whether that money wouldn’t have been better spent on funding more urgent MWR activities. MOAA and Congress were relieved to hear that DoD no longer plans to pursue a proposal to consolidate some exchange operations, due to the lack of agreement among the military services. What’s the Need for a Total Force MGIB? ■ Restructuring the MOAA’s Cmdr. René Campos, USNRet., defends quality-of-life programs before the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee. tions, including MOAA — is urging Congress to combine the reserve and active duty MGIB programs, which now are overseen by different committees under different laws. MOAA thinks synchronizing beneﬁts to the length and type of service performed will better support military recruiting, reenlistment, and readjustment objectives. Reserve MGIB beneﬁt value has fallen far behind its original relationship to active duty beneﬁts. And many reservists say they really can’t use the beneﬁt — they deploy too much to be able to use it while serving, and their eligibility under current law ends when they get out. Unfortunately, senior DoD ofﬁcials who testiﬁed before the full House Veterans’ Affairs Committee March 15 don’t share those concerns. They told the committee they see no “signiﬁcant shortcomings” in the Reserve GI Bill program. Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) noted the disconnect between that input and the statements of National Guard and Reserve commanders at the same hearing. Committee Chairman Steve Buyer (RInd.) and Snyder were skeptical of DoD’s argument that it would hurt retention PHOTO: STEVE BARRETT Montgomery GI Bill will reflect modern Guard and Reserve service and correct erosion of this benefit. To see the full list of recommendations, visit www.moaa.org/mgib. MOAA to Hill: Fix Reserve MGIB Services and DoD disagree on need to revamp GI Bill. A proposal to establish a “total force” Montgomery GI Bill was the subject of House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearings on Capitol Hill and in Rogers, Ark., March 15 and 22, respectively, which offered contrasting perspectives on the plan to modernize educational beneﬁts under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). The Partnership for Veterans Education — a broad-based group of military, veterans’, and higher education associa- 34 MILITARY OFFICER M AY 2 0 0 6 http://www.moaa.org/mgib

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Military Officer - May 2006

Military Officer - May 2006 Contents From the Editor President's Page Your Views MOAA Directory Rapid Fire Washington Scene Financial Forum Ask the Doctor Chapter Activities Raising Iraq Dogfight Fun Caring For Our Own Pages of History Information Exchange MOAA Scholarship Donors Member Books Advertising Index MOAA Calendar Sounding Taps Encore

Military Officer - May 2006

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.