This initiative has bicameral, bipartisan support— the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees are in agreement about this effort. The Senate and House Armed Services Committees have stressed the need to address historical end strength shortfalls, particularly in the Army. The primary purposes of Section 1053 are to increase the readiness and strength of the Guard, and to accommodate a review of adverse actions above state levels. To address end strength, Congress wants the Guard to backfill every technician transferred to Title 5.

The National Guard Technician Act of 1968 established a workforce to support the readiness of the National Guard in each state commanded and controlled by their Governor. Dual Status Technicians are employed in administration and training, and for the maintenance and repair of supplies issued to the National Guard. While performing these duties they must be a military member, hold military grade specific to their position, and wear the uniform appropriate for the member’s grade and component of the armed forces. Technicians serve under the provisions of Section 709 of Title 32 of the United States Code. They are considered excepted employees, meaning that they are exempt from the normal civil service hiring processes, but have special conditions of employment. In this case, they must be members of the Army or Air National Guard and must be in a compatible unit assignment to their full-time position. Non-dual status technicians have no military obligation to maintain their full-time position.

Title 5 refers to the section of US Code that establishes the basic law for managing human resources in the Federal Government. Title 5 has its origins in the Pendleton Act of 1883, which required agencies to hire employees in headquarters offices based on merit, not political patronage. Over time, Congress expanded the coverage of the merit system, and established Government wide principles, systems, and practices in staffing, compensation, employee relations, labor relations, and other areas of human resource management. In essence, Title 5 is the “default” human resources system for Federal executive branch employees not explicitly exempted or covered by other statute. It treats Federal organizations with varied missions as a single employer to facilitate interagency mobility, guard against counterproductive interagency competition, and ensure equitable treatment of employees.

For the most part, the benefit package for Title 32 technicians and Title 5 civilians is identical. Pay and allowances, health care, retirement, Thrift Savings Plan participation, holidays and time off provisions are all the same. Some differences include compensatory time off (technicians) versus payment of overtime (civilians); military uniform worn (technicians) versus appropriate business clothes (civilians); grade restrictions; rank restrictions; supervisory channels (State TAG versus Service Secretary); bonuses and incentives (technicians do not qualify but civilians do); priority placement program; adverse action appeal; promotions and transfers; union representation; and EEO complaints. Federal employees cannot use TRICARE for medical coverage, and conversion does not change this.

The timing of the transfer is yet to be determined. Section 1088 of S. 2943, the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act would delay the implementation date from January 1, 2017 to October 1, 2017. However, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees are conferencing their respective bills, and we will not know the outcome of this provision until November or December 2016. The bill also includes language to grant the Chief NGB authority to appoint Title 5 civilians, currently reserved to the service secretaries and defense secretary. Other language in the bill affords The Adjutants General authority to supervise and administer Title 5 employees.

To date, the EANGUS National Office has not taken an official position. Furthermore, there were no resolutions presented, discussed, or passed by the delegates expressing a position or sense on the issue during our previous National Conference in New Orleans. Between annual conferences, the Executive Council has the authority to consider and determine the political posture of an issue, and when presented with this issue, chose not to take a position for or against NGA, AGAUS, NGAUS or the National Guard Bureau, until the Department of Defense reports back to Congress with a plan of how it would convert these positions. The Department was supposed to report to Congress in June 2016, but nothing has been delivered to date. Therefore, we wait. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we gather more information about the technician transfer initiative.

The eleven Clinton for America campaign people spoke about VA improvement, GI Bill preservation, and making government work. They talked about moving away from arbitrary budget caps, maintaining a strong commitment to White House initiatives like Joining Forces, but said they had no strategy for fixing the budget or cultural issues within the government.

The ensuing discussion covered such salient points as personnel compensation and the pay gap; privatizing the VA; impact on the defense industrial base; commissary; national defense strategy; health care and electronic health records; military readiness; survivor issues; and the uncertainty of the future.

The five Trump campaign officials talked about ending sequestration; not holding defense funding hostage to domestic funding; VA reform but not privatization; putting veterans in charge of their health care; protecting benefits; increasing defense funding; family support and jobs; transferrable licenses and certificates between states; suicide prevention; and how veterans are talked about.

The discussion included many of the same points from the earlier meeting. Other topics included women serving in uniform; perceptions tying women to sexual assault; VA Commission on Care report; Toxic Agent Exposure Act; Fairness for Veterans Act; the demonization of the VA system; other than honorable discharges and its effect on suicides; and personnel versus weapons systems spending.

Both campaigns believe there is value in continuing the discussion with Military Coalition members and conducting periodic meetings after the elections to ensure that the military and veteran voices are heard.

It is apparent that the only way to stop the harassment of National Guard Soldiers over GRAP is through the political arena, where it began.

Click Here for press release from Senator Claire McCaskill’s Office that refers to “up to 100 Million” in fraud.

Click Here for article on the harassment targeting National Guard Soldiers by Active Duty CID because the level of fraud is so low that it amounts to Army CID lying to a Senator.

Click Here for the 60 Minutes episode and transcript stating that the fraud is 10 Million, and in our estimation, the National Guard GRAP fraud amounts to perhaps 3 Million and the remainder comes from the Active Duty Army Referral Bonus Program and the Army Reserve AR-RAP.

This is an effort by Active Duty to poke the National Guard in the eye, again, and show that they cannot manage money and programs.  They have attempted to remove combat equipment from the Guard (the Apaches) and cut our end-strength.  Both of those efforts failed, and since that was not successful, they are now creating felony charges out of thin air for National Guard Soldiers.  Active Duty CID violated their own CID regulations and hid problems in GRAP from TAGs and NGB.  Now they want to blame the National Guard for not addressing the problems.

Ask CID why their regulations changed several times during the investigation time frame.  Could it be because they were not following their own guidelines?

• AR-195-2 – 1985
• AR-195-2 – 2009
• AR-195-2 – 2014

This White House petition is one of several things that EANGUS is doing to help the innocent Soldiers of the National Guard.  Stop G-RAP (Guard Recruiting Assistance Program) investigations and indictments until it is determined that Army CID (Criminal Investigation Division) is operating within its authority and that the purpose of the investigations is held valid.  Recruiting Assistants were private subcontractors, yet Army CID has taken program deviations and turned them into allegations of criminal conduct to justify the wildly exaggerated amount of fraud reported by the Army to Congress.  We believe the process violates the Constitution, Posse Comitatus statute, DoD regulations and policy.  The investigation has cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and ruined the lives, families and careers of Soldiers and Veterans.

For instance, there were 106,364 registered representatives of the program (“recruiting assistants, or RAs”), not 105,000. There was no mention of Document and Packaging Brokers Inc., also known as Docupak, the prime contractor for the program, and employer of the recruiting assistants. It is important viewers understand that these 106,364 individuals were not performing National Guard duty—they were employed by Docupak.

Since the recruiting assistants were contractors, Army Criminal Investigative Division (CID) agents had no authority or jurisdiction. [Neither do they have jurisdiction over National Guard members in state status, such as on drill weekends. Jurisdiction of National Guard members in state status resides with each state’s Adjutant General, none of which were interviewed in the story.]

The 60 minutes episode stated that the National Guard did not have any internal controls for the program, even though the program was administered by Docupak, not the National Guard. Nor did it make mention of any internal controls the Army National Guard and Docupak had in place for the G-RAP program employees, the RAs. Oversight of National Guard contracts (such as Docupak’s) in each state resides with the United States Property and Fiscal Officer, an active duty officer, yet none of them were interviewed in the story. Congressional testimony confirmed that internal controls were, indeed, in place.

During a Congressional Hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on February 4, 2014, testimony stated that thousands of recruiting assistants committed fraud. However, with 106,364 recruiting assistants who worked the program, only 1,219 recruiting assistants were investigated by Task Force Raptor, 80 were found guilty and only 60 are still under investigation. The CID cleared over 105,000 recruiting assistants of wrongdoing as of May 22, 2016.

CBS stated that CID spent $27.9 million on Task Force Raptor which employed 60 agents. Independent estimates are that the Army has spent in excess of $40 million (they don’t reveal exact costs) and some allege costs as high as $58 million, and congressional testimony said that Task Force Raptor employed 200 personnel.

According to CBS, the Army testified to Congress that the fraud committed could total $95 million, and that $10.2 million has already been identified. To date, the investigation has surfaced only $2.3 million—which we admit is a lot of fraud but nowhere near what the Army testified to in Congress or what 60 Minutes reported.

The 60 Minutes program included two interviews with Lieutenant Generals from the active Army, but interviewed no one from any state National Guard, Army National Guard Directorate in Arlington Virginia, or National Guard Bureau. The two Lieutenant Generals interviewed were uninvolved with the three recruiting incentive programs run by the Army during the time frame in question: G-RAP, Every Soldier a Recruiter (ESAR), and the Army Reserve Recruiting Assistance Program (AR-RAP).  LTG Claude Vaughn (USA, ret.) was the only senior National Guard leader mentioned (not interviewed) in the show, but he retired in 2009 and had nothing to do with the G-RAP program from that point forward.

The 60 Minutes story made no mention that CID and the Army purposefully withheld disclosure of their investigation from National Guard leaders.

60 Minutes said Master Sergeant Jerry Wilson had been given a letter of reprimand from The Adjutant General of Colorado. This is a misrepresentation of the facts; the document used as an exhibit in the story was from the Commander, Troop Command, a subordinate command under The Adjutant General—another irregularity in reporting the story.

Unfortunately, the success of the program was omitted altogether. The Army Guard end strength grew from 2005 through 2012. Furthermore, the Army Guard employed fewer full-time recruiters because of the efforts of the recruiting assistants, who brought in over 150,000 new recruits with a 92% successful ship rate to basic training, during a critical juncture in the prosecution of the war. At a time where the cost of finding new recruits was $18,327 for the Army, G-RAP reduced that cost to $2,400, a savings of $15,927 multiplied times 150,000, totaling $2.39 billion. With a contract cost of $338 million and a savings of $2.39 billion, we’d say that the G-RAP program was highly successful.

Docupak informed CID of issues with fraud in 2007, but CID chose not to investigate until 2012. Indeed, despite reports of fraudulent activity, the Secretary of the Army did not cancel the recruiting incentive programs until 2012.

It is troublesome that CBS chose to use Specialist Aves, and $244,000 in fraudulent payments perpetrated by him, as an example. Specialist Aves was terminated by Docupak in 2007, but CBS failed to report that detail.  It also failed to report that the CID was aware of his case in 2008 and purposely did not pursue, and that the majority of the $244,000 of fraud committed was not in relation to G-RAP. In fact, the fraud was related to ESAR and AR-RAP.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, CBS never mentioned the pervasive loss of financial resources, promotions, careers, military status, professional licenses, homes, marriages, financial standing, legal defense fees, professional and personal reputations, or physical well-being of those accused but never charged or prosecuted with G-RAP fraud.

We believe the investigations of innocent Guard members must stop immediately. We believe that the Army now has a duty to each individual harmed by the investigation to restore their integrity and honor as if the investigation had never happened. It’s the right thing to do and encompasses three of the Army’s cherished values—duty, integrity and honor.

The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, EANGUS, believes the unwarranted and baseless investigations by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (CID) of thousands of innocent Army National Guard Soldiers who legitimately participated in the Guard Recruiting Assistance Program (G-RAP) must stop and stop immediately.

The Recruiting Assistance Program was created in 2005 when the Army National Guard was struggling to meet its recruitment numbers due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The National Guard’s Recruiting Assistance Program would provide incentives to National Guard soldiers and civilians to act as informal recruiters, or recruiting assistants (RA). These recruiting assistants would receive a payment of $2,000 for every new recruit they referred to a recruiter and that recruit finished their initial entry training. The Army National Guard’s Strength Maintenance Division contracted for these Recruiting Assistants with Docupak, who administered the contract. The recruiting assistants were hired by Docupak as subcontractors. After the program was put in place, the National Guard began to meet its recruiting goals and the Active Army and Army Reserve began their own similar programs.  All components of the Army implemented a form of RAP for various periods of time: The Army National Guard from 2005 to 2012; the Army Reserve from 2007 to 2012; and the active duty from 2008 to 2009. The total program was approximately $459 million.

In a Senate hearing, the Army alleged approximately $100 million in fraud. The Army CID, using over 200 agents, has spent about $40 million on the investigations to date, but only $2.377 million has been recovered—nowhere close to the alleged amount of fraud and a horrible return on the investment of resources.  Yes, there was some fraud, and the guilty have been prosecuted in court. But some of that money reflects mere capitulation; it was easier for some soldiers to simply return what they had earned through G-RAP than fight CID.

The Army Audit Agency conducted five separate audits of G-RAP. CID itself criminalized G-RAP program violations (not following ever-changing rules). Guardsmen who ran amiss of these rules were accused of fraud, a felony defined by the Army, audited by the Army, investigated by the Army and prosecuted by the Army in both civilian courts and through military administration. In some cases, the G-RAP “crime” amounted to just one payment of $2,000 when recruits could not remember the names of the individuals who recruited them from several years earlier…failed memory as felony!

In many cases, where there was only an investigation, Guard members have been flagged, their promotions and other favorable actions stopped, and their careers ruined over nothing more than unproven allegations. Many have capitulated and repaid their payments just to try and put an end to the unfounded allegations, and then found out the allegations didn’t end. Some have gone to court and been exonerated, yet still received punishment or career ending actions. Some have lost their conceal-carry licenses or job credentials. Some have lost their civilian jobs—all due to heavy handed investigations by CID agents who had no authority to question or investigation those with whom they had no jurisdiction.

This domestic attack on the Army National Guard must stop. The Army must own up to their embellished Congressional testimony and set the record straight. The Army, and especially the CID Command, owe it to each and every Guard member whose life has been terrorized and ruined to make them whole again, whatever it takes—do the right thing. And it needs to happen now.

Overview

There are provisions in the bill that effect EANGUS members. The EANGUS National Office staff brought numerous issues to the attention of the committee members and staff leading up to the markup, this spring: Health care plan improvements for National Guard members, to include access to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) slew of health care plans, better access to urgent care, and improving the survivor benefit plan for deaths during inactive duty training, to name a few.

One of the 2016 EANGUS Legislative Workshop point papers relating to mileage reimbursement was adopted. While the mileage tax credit was not reduced from 100 miles to 50 miles per the EANGUS point paper, the HASC provided the service secretary to review servicemembers travel expenses for inactive-duty training “outside normal commuting distances” on a case by case basis. The Guardsman or woman must live in the same state as the training location.

The Committee approved a 2.1 percent military pay raise and increased ARNG end strength to 350,000 and ANG end strength to 105,700.

Pertinent Sections of the Committee-passed Legislation

Section 527—Pilot Program on Consolidated Army Recruiting

This section follows the recommendation made by the National Commission on the Future of the Army Final Report: January 2016. This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to establish a 3-year pilot program in which recruiters from all three components (Regular, Reserve, and National Guard) are authorized to recruit individuals into any of the components, and receive credit toward periodic enlistment goals for each enlistment regardless of component.

Section 641—Maximum Reimbursement Amount for Travel Expenses of Members of the Reserves Attending Inactive Duty Training Outside of Normal Commuting Distances

Authorize the Secretary concerned, on a case-by-case basis, to reimburse travel expenses at a higher amount for Reserve Component members traveling to training from rural areas. The Guardsman or woman must live in the same state as the training location.

Section 1088—Modification of Requirements Relating to Management of Military Technicians

Delays the implementation date, from January 2017 to October 2017, on the conversion of not less than 20% of nondual status technicians with dual status technicians. This section also directs a report from DOD on the feasibility and advisability of converting any remaining dual status technicians to personnel performing Active Guard and Reserve Duty. To date, the EANGUS National Office has stayed silent on this issue, as DOD completes its internal reviews and analysis.

SECTION 624—EQUAL BENEFITS UNDER SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN FOR SURVIVORS OF RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS WHO DIE IN THE LINE OF DUTY DURING INACTIVE-DUTY TRAINING

Treatment of Inactive-Duty Training (IDT) in same manner as Active Duty. Eliminate the different treatment under the Survivor Benefit Plan accorded members of the Reserve Component who die from an injury or illness incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during Inactive-Duty training, as compared to the treatment of members of the Armed Forces who die in the line of duty while on Active Duty.

SECTION 642—STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RECOVERY OF AMOUNTS OWED TO THE UNITED STATES BY MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, INCLUDING RETIRED AND FORMER MEMBERS

If, through no fault of the member, an indebtedness occurs as a result of the overpayment of pay or allowances to the member or upon the settlement of the member’s accounts, DOD may not recover the indebtedness from the member (including a retired and former members) using deductions from the pay of the member, deductions from retired or separation pay, or any other collection method unless recovery of the indebtedness commences before the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date on which the indebtedness was incurred.

SECTION 701—TRICARE Preferred and Other TRICARE Reform

Narrow Tricare options to a health maintenance organization (HMO) and preferred provider organization (PPO). The HMO would still be called Tricare Prime. Tricare Standard, the fee-for-service insurance option, would be renamed Preferred and its network of providers called a PPO.

Authorize SECDEF to establish an annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Preferred for beneficiaries who were in the Active Duty or retired categories prior to January 1, 2018.

In 2020, if DOD shows Congress they have improved overall quality and access, retirees on start paying annual enrollment fee of $100 individual, $200 family. Currently there is no annual enrollment fee.

For those enlisting on or after 1 January 2018, must pay annual fee, to include active duty

• ACTIVE DUTY PRIME: $180 individual, $360 family
• ACTIVE DUTY PREFERRED: $300 individual, $600 family
• WHEN RETIRED PRIME: $325 individual, $650 family
• WHEN RETIRED PREFERRED: $425 individual, $850 family

House panel votes to end military pay-benefit slide, tweak ex-spouse law [Stars and Stripes]

Section 704—Access to Urgent Care Under TRICARE Program

MTFs must stay open past normal business hours and maintain urgent care facilities open to 11pm—or – contract  with community based urgent care clinics open to 11pm without needing a referral.

MTFs will be rightsized for their surrounding community to provide care the community cannot

Eliminates preauthorization for urgent care

SECTION 712—STUDY ON IMPROVING CONTINUITY OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS

The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study of options for providing health care coverage that improves the continuity of health care provided to current and former members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve who are not serving on Active Duty, eligible for transition assistance, eligible for Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP).

Study to include:

• Whether to allow current and former members of the Selected Reserve to participate in FEHBP
• Whether to pay a stipend to current and former members to continue coverage in a health plan obtained by the member
• Whether to allow members of the National Guard assigned to Homeland Response Force Units mobilized for a State emergency to remain eligible for the TRICARE program
• Any other options for providing health care coverage to current and former members of the Selected Reserve the Secretary considers appropriate

Pertinent Amendments ADOPTED During Committee Markup

Exemption of Dual Status Military Technicians from Civilian Employee Furloughs [Rep. Nugent (R-FL)]

Extended TRICARE Program Coverage for Certain Members of the National Guard and Dependents During Certain Disaster Response Duties (Rep. Larsen D-WA)]

• Authorizes DOD to recoup, from the state, costs associated with providing Guardsman or woman TRICARE coverage during disaster response.

Repost from NPR:  http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305887787/army-vs-national-guard-who-gets-those-apache-helicopters

“The debate is about how to make these cuts in the Army, and in particular how to allocate cuts between the active component and the reserve component,” says Todd Harrison with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.  “I would think a Black Hawk helicopter is going to be far more useful in a natural disaster situation than Apache attack helicopters,” he says.

Repost from Watertown Daily Times:  http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/army-officials-tell-stefanik-fort-drum-will-receive-apache-helicopters-on-schedule-video-20160227&

Fort Drum will receive a set of 24 Apache helicopters from the National Guard this summer, Army officials confirmed Friday.  “We will execute those transfers on time and on schedule,” said Gen. Daniel B. Allyn, Army Vice Chief of Staff. “The 10th Combat Aviation Brigade will receive its Apaches on schedule,”

Repost from DefenseNews:  http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army-aviation/2015/01/29/army-aviation-restructure-initiative-ausa/22525965/

Key US Army aviation modernization plans all hinge on the service’s cost-cutting Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI), senior service officials said on Thursday.  The plan, which has stirred controversy with National Guard advocates, is unpalatable but necessary in light of sequestration budget cuts, said Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Daniel Allyn, speaking at an Association of of the US Army aviation event.

Repost from Federal News Radio:  http://federalnewsradio.com/army/2016/02/army-wants-guard-reserve-deployments-2017/

Citing ongoing readiness strains within its active duty force, the Army is asking Congress for permission for a significant uptick in its use of National Guard and Army Reserve forces to handle missions in combatant commands throughout the world.  “We need more flexible access to the reserve component, specifically for emerging missions,” Gen. Daniel Allyn, the Army’s vice chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee Friday. “Where the stress is really starting to press down on our active formations is in meeting emerging requirements where we have time constraints that don’t let us prepare and deploy a reserve component unit to meet the requirement.

Meanwhile, some military-related groups have publicly declared their opinions on a presidential veto.  The Reserve Officers Association is urging Obama not to veto the bill because it does include some items favorable to the National Guard and Reserves.  “While we may not agree with every provision, the effect of the bill is more positive than negative,” the group said in a letter to the president.

Other groups want the president to veto the measure, including anti-war groups and anti-nuclear advocates.  In a letter to the president, they said they are “deeply troubled” by the $38 billion added to the overseas contingency operations fund as a way to sidestep military budget caps.  EANGUS and NGAUS have not taken a public stand on the bill because they consider the debate now to be a partisan one and we remain bipartisan as organizations.

We are disappointed that Veteran status appears to have been stripped from both versions, that Army Guard end strength was not increased, and that dual-status technicians were not exempted from civilian employee furloughs.  On the positive side, we were able to stop the retirement of the A-10, fund the purchase of additional UH-60 Blackhawks, and prohibit the transfer of ARNG Apaches until the enactment of the FY16 NDAA.