thedrifter
06-07-07, 01:35 AM
06-03-2007
Give Military Death Benefits to Those Who Need It, When They Need It
By Matthew Dodd
Back on Feb. 21, 2007, I opened an article with the following observations:
“I am a firm believer in the adage, “Paperwork must reflect reality, and reality must conform to paperwork.”
I am not sure when I first heard or read that adage, but as a retired Marine officer, I do know that when paperwork and reality do not match, you have a problem. One common problem is when laws, orders, or directives are not reviewed and updated as needed. That problem may seem trivial, but if you are involved in a situation with outdated laws, orders, or directives, as either the enforcer or complier, the “trivial” problem can quickly become a frustrating or even an exasperating one.”
Well, I believe I have found another case of a paperwork-reality conflict that again affects military families and their children...
According to an Apr 25, 2007 DesMoinesRegister.com article and the May 21, 2007 Marine Corps Times, 29-year-old Navy reservist and corpsman Petty Officer (PO) 2nd Class Jaime Jaenke, a single mother assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 25 of Fort McCoy, Wis., died on June 5, 2006 when a roadside bomb exploded near her Humvee in Anbar Province, Iraq. She left behind a 9-year-old daughter, Kayla, and her parents, Susan and Larry Jaenke of Iowa Falls, Iowa.
In an unsent letter to her mother dated “2006 March,” PO Jaenke wrote:
“...I have got all my paperwork done and here is what I did. My big policy goes to Kayla. That has to be put away for when she gets 18. You will know what to do and how to handle it. There is a smaller policy that goes to you that is for 100,000. That is for you to raise Kayla with and 25,000 of that goes to the barn... I have put you down as the person to be the caretaker of Kayla...”
To me, it is crystal clear what PO Jaenke’s intention and priorities were with regards to her daughter and to the $100,000 death benefit she (PO Jaenke) would be entitled to if she were to die while serving in Iraq. So, what is the problem? According to the Register:
“The death-benefit money is meant as a "bridge" paid within 24 hours to help families when a relative dies in the line of duty and their paychecks abruptly stop. But a federal law intended to guard against misuse bars the money from going to grandparents - even if they are the grandchildren's sole care providers, like Susan Jaenke and her husband, Larry.
The rule is a concern in a military with many female single parents, who rely on relatives to care for their children while they are deployed.”
As a result of that federal law prohibiting the death-benefit money from going to PO Jaenke’s parents, Susan and Larry Jaenke have experienced financial hardships in raising Kayla without Jaime’s paychecks to help keep them financially soluble. Susan is disabled and cannot work, and Larry is a truck driver who has been in and out of work. During the time spent filling out and submitting the required government paperwork (sometimes multiple times), then waiting for Kayla’s monthly government entitlements to start, the Jaenkes had two cars repossessed, fell behind on their house payments, and would not have been able to celebrate Christmas with Kayla without the local Veterans of Foreign Wars chapter and Target store giving them a $1,000 gift card.
Besides the frustration of dealing with typical government bureaucracy, the Jaenkes also had to deal with some very uncooperative, unsympathetic, and unprofessional governmental employees who made a tough situation even worse, according to the Register. One bureaucrat even told Susan that Kayla would just have to "learn how to do without." But, the biggest problem the Jaenkes are facing is that federal law which gives the death-benefit money to Kayla, after holding it in trust until she turns eighteen.
In testimony before a House subcommittee on veterans affairs, Susan Jaenke’s frustration was evident as she pleaded, “"This is not right. Please, congressmen, don't ask my granddaughter to go without anymore." Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., the chairman of the hearing, tried to comfort her by saying, "On behalf of the government, I want to apologize to you, and to Kayla."
For what exactly was Hall apologizing?
One may hope he was apologizing for the too many uncooperative, unsympathetic, and unprofessional bureaucrats who have apparently lost sight of the fact that without our volunteer warriors and their families, they would not have jobs. Bureaucrats, in my opinion, are those who view warriors and their families as problems. Government servants are people who view warriors and their families as opportunities to help those who have given so much of themselves for their country.
One may also hope that he was apologizing for having an outdated, inflexible federal law that does not meet the needs of our warriors and their families. I do not know the statistics, but I do know that the military, and society in general, are seeing an increase in single-parent families. With those military families come deployments and special custody and guardianship arrangements. Just as I wrote about fallen warriors’ children birth rights I am convinced that somebody somewhere at sometime should have realized that something was amiss in our federal laws regarding the immediate ‘death benefit’ to help military families adjust. Regardless of who should have seen this situation coming, the immediate task at hand is to update this outdated policy.
Fortunately, I am not alone in recognizing this immediate priority. According to the Register:
“Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ia., who represents Iowa Falls in Congress, has introduced legislation that would allow service members to designate a parent, brother or sister who has custody of a service member's minor child as the recipient of the death benefit. He said that out of the 3,323 U.S. service members killed in the war on terror, 143 were single parents.
"I believe a change in the law is needed as a matter of fairness to our service members who put themselves in harm's way, and their families," Latham said. All the members of the Iowa congressional delegation have signed on to Latham's bill and a similar proposal in the Senate.”
Latham’s bill, H.R. 1115, was introduced and referred to the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 16, 2007. On Mar. 14, it was referred to the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel, where it is apparently still awaiting further action. To me, this simple bill is a ‘no-brainer,’ and it should not take very long to get it voted into law.
I hope our elected government officials act like the government servants they are supposed to be and give this bill the appropriate sense of urgency so that we will not have any more military families suffer and struggle like the Jaenkes. If not, we will have to ask Rep. Hall to apologize again for those bureaucrats who put their personal agendas ahead of doing the right things for our warriors and their families.
As I researched this article, I was reminded of and inspired by the below excerpted words of President Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address on Mar. 4, 1865. May those words, especially the spirit of the bolded and italicized words, help compel Congress to support our special troops who have special families and special situations:
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Matthew Dodd is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at mattdodd1775@hotmail.com. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
Ellie
Give Military Death Benefits to Those Who Need It, When They Need It
By Matthew Dodd
Back on Feb. 21, 2007, I opened an article with the following observations:
“I am a firm believer in the adage, “Paperwork must reflect reality, and reality must conform to paperwork.”
I am not sure when I first heard or read that adage, but as a retired Marine officer, I do know that when paperwork and reality do not match, you have a problem. One common problem is when laws, orders, or directives are not reviewed and updated as needed. That problem may seem trivial, but if you are involved in a situation with outdated laws, orders, or directives, as either the enforcer or complier, the “trivial” problem can quickly become a frustrating or even an exasperating one.”
Well, I believe I have found another case of a paperwork-reality conflict that again affects military families and their children...
According to an Apr 25, 2007 DesMoinesRegister.com article and the May 21, 2007 Marine Corps Times, 29-year-old Navy reservist and corpsman Petty Officer (PO) 2nd Class Jaime Jaenke, a single mother assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 25 of Fort McCoy, Wis., died on June 5, 2006 when a roadside bomb exploded near her Humvee in Anbar Province, Iraq. She left behind a 9-year-old daughter, Kayla, and her parents, Susan and Larry Jaenke of Iowa Falls, Iowa.
In an unsent letter to her mother dated “2006 March,” PO Jaenke wrote:
“...I have got all my paperwork done and here is what I did. My big policy goes to Kayla. That has to be put away for when she gets 18. You will know what to do and how to handle it. There is a smaller policy that goes to you that is for 100,000. That is for you to raise Kayla with and 25,000 of that goes to the barn... I have put you down as the person to be the caretaker of Kayla...”
To me, it is crystal clear what PO Jaenke’s intention and priorities were with regards to her daughter and to the $100,000 death benefit she (PO Jaenke) would be entitled to if she were to die while serving in Iraq. So, what is the problem? According to the Register:
“The death-benefit money is meant as a "bridge" paid within 24 hours to help families when a relative dies in the line of duty and their paychecks abruptly stop. But a federal law intended to guard against misuse bars the money from going to grandparents - even if they are the grandchildren's sole care providers, like Susan Jaenke and her husband, Larry.
The rule is a concern in a military with many female single parents, who rely on relatives to care for their children while they are deployed.”
As a result of that federal law prohibiting the death-benefit money from going to PO Jaenke’s parents, Susan and Larry Jaenke have experienced financial hardships in raising Kayla without Jaime’s paychecks to help keep them financially soluble. Susan is disabled and cannot work, and Larry is a truck driver who has been in and out of work. During the time spent filling out and submitting the required government paperwork (sometimes multiple times), then waiting for Kayla’s monthly government entitlements to start, the Jaenkes had two cars repossessed, fell behind on their house payments, and would not have been able to celebrate Christmas with Kayla without the local Veterans of Foreign Wars chapter and Target store giving them a $1,000 gift card.
Besides the frustration of dealing with typical government bureaucracy, the Jaenkes also had to deal with some very uncooperative, unsympathetic, and unprofessional governmental employees who made a tough situation even worse, according to the Register. One bureaucrat even told Susan that Kayla would just have to "learn how to do without." But, the biggest problem the Jaenkes are facing is that federal law which gives the death-benefit money to Kayla, after holding it in trust until she turns eighteen.
In testimony before a House subcommittee on veterans affairs, Susan Jaenke’s frustration was evident as she pleaded, “"This is not right. Please, congressmen, don't ask my granddaughter to go without anymore." Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., the chairman of the hearing, tried to comfort her by saying, "On behalf of the government, I want to apologize to you, and to Kayla."
For what exactly was Hall apologizing?
One may hope he was apologizing for the too many uncooperative, unsympathetic, and unprofessional bureaucrats who have apparently lost sight of the fact that without our volunteer warriors and their families, they would not have jobs. Bureaucrats, in my opinion, are those who view warriors and their families as problems. Government servants are people who view warriors and their families as opportunities to help those who have given so much of themselves for their country.
One may also hope that he was apologizing for having an outdated, inflexible federal law that does not meet the needs of our warriors and their families. I do not know the statistics, but I do know that the military, and society in general, are seeing an increase in single-parent families. With those military families come deployments and special custody and guardianship arrangements. Just as I wrote about fallen warriors’ children birth rights I am convinced that somebody somewhere at sometime should have realized that something was amiss in our federal laws regarding the immediate ‘death benefit’ to help military families adjust. Regardless of who should have seen this situation coming, the immediate task at hand is to update this outdated policy.
Fortunately, I am not alone in recognizing this immediate priority. According to the Register:
“Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ia., who represents Iowa Falls in Congress, has introduced legislation that would allow service members to designate a parent, brother or sister who has custody of a service member's minor child as the recipient of the death benefit. He said that out of the 3,323 U.S. service members killed in the war on terror, 143 were single parents.
"I believe a change in the law is needed as a matter of fairness to our service members who put themselves in harm's way, and their families," Latham said. All the members of the Iowa congressional delegation have signed on to Latham's bill and a similar proposal in the Senate.”
Latham’s bill, H.R. 1115, was introduced and referred to the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 16, 2007. On Mar. 14, it was referred to the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel, where it is apparently still awaiting further action. To me, this simple bill is a ‘no-brainer,’ and it should not take very long to get it voted into law.
I hope our elected government officials act like the government servants they are supposed to be and give this bill the appropriate sense of urgency so that we will not have any more military families suffer and struggle like the Jaenkes. If not, we will have to ask Rep. Hall to apologize again for those bureaucrats who put their personal agendas ahead of doing the right things for our warriors and their families.
As I researched this article, I was reminded of and inspired by the below excerpted words of President Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address on Mar. 4, 1865. May those words, especially the spirit of the bolded and italicized words, help compel Congress to support our special troops who have special families and special situations:
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Matthew Dodd is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at mattdodd1775@hotmail.com. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
Ellie