Group pushes for 'veteran' definition change

Lt. Cmdr. Jack Townsend, a Navy Reserve retiree in Richmond, Va., first became aware a decade ago that he wasn't considered a military "veteran" under federal law.

It's been bothering him ever since.

Townsend was applying for a job when asked for a copy of his DD Form 214, "Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty," to prove veteran status.

Townsend, who had earned his reserve commission through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, didn't have a DD 214 because he never had served under active duty orders.

He did have his Navy Reserve retirement letter to verify 24 years of service. But employers are schooled to ask for the DD 214, proof from a job seeker of veteran status for completing a period of active duty service.

"It put me in a bad light," Townsend said.

Roger Miller, 60, of Denver, who retired from the Navy Reserve at the same rank also after 24 years, spent six of his years as an Air Force Reserve enlistee, loading cargo on aircraft that others crewed.

"I knew that to be classified a veteran you had to have 180 days of continuous active duty, not including basic training or tech school. I finished up tech school at 179 days," Miller said, just as the Air Force intended.

Non-veteran status didn't string Miller until years later when he applied for federal civilian positions that fit his experience well in television and mass communications.

He couldn't, however, claim veterans' preference points and he lost those jobs to former service members with active duty time.

"People ask me, 'Are you a veteran?' I say well, yeah, I served 24 years in the Reserve so I consider myself a veteran — even though the government doesn't.' That's my answer to them," Miller said.

Townsend said it's illogical that the law denies Reserve retirees veteran status but they can draw military retirement at age 60, get military health care, shop on base and the Department of Veterans Affairs even finds them eligible for certain benefits including VA guaranteed home loans.

"The only thing I'm lacking," said Townsend, "is the paperwork."

After years of complaints by reserve component retirees, a change to their veteran status may be near.

The Military Coalition, an umbrella organization for 34 military associations and veterans' groups, is restarting a lobbying campaign for the new Congress and will push for passage of a bill to alter the definition of "veteran" for more than 200,000 Reserve and National Guard retirees.

The Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act will be re-introduced this month in the House by Reps. Tim Walz, D-Minn., and Jon Runyan, R-N.J., of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Co-sponsors in the Senate will be Republican John Boozman and Democrat Mark Pryor, a bipartisan team from Arkansas, at least on this issue.

The House has passed this legislation twice. It died each time in the Senate on opposition from Richard Burr of North Carolina, ranking Republican on the veterans affairs committee.

Burr's staff could not be reached to comment.

But advocates say the senator is worried that extending veterans status to reserve component retirees would open the door to more benefits. Proponents say the bill specifically states that those to be honored as veterans in the bill "shall not be entitled to any benefit by reason" of it.

Tom Philpott can be contacted at Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, Va. 20120-1111, or by e-mail at: [email protected]