Congressional Lobbying to change law?

[Rogue]

Has anyone ever done this or know how it's done?

Yesterday I basically lost out on on a GS-11 Government position because of a law that denied me registration in the government job system. I am an Army Reservist and have been my entire 8+ years of service. As so often happens, I had a friend on the inside who told me about this job that was opening up where he works, so he called me and let me know. It went so far as me interviewing with what would have been my new boss as well as with the guy I was replacing. Both were extremely satisfied with my technical knowledge and experience and very much wanted to hire me, going so far as to tell me that if I get registered in the VRA (Veterans Readjustment Act) system, which permits them to select qualified candidates by name rather than posting the job publicly, that I would definitely get the job. The stipulations for VRA eligibility are that you are either a) a disabled veteran, b) have a foreign service or campaign medal or c) served more than 180 days on Active Duty and were discharged in the last 3 years. It was c) I was most concerned with as many of you might know, I was called up immediately after September 11th for nearly two years of Active Duty time. Only problem is, it specifically states that Active Duty time served in the Army Reserve or National Guard don't count and this really, really angers me for several reasons. First off, I did my time and served my country. Granted, I stayed here in the states the whole time as a Military Policeman guarding an installation, but Active Duty is Active Duty, just not according to the law Congress passed. Second, there are many, many of my fellow soldiers overseas right now getting shot at and killed with no distinction by the enemy or their mission as to a different in Active Duty service.

My second issue is that now the job will be posted publicly, requiring me to compete with all the other candidates. Sounds okay, right? Hell, I can't honestly say I thought it was fair to select me internally when I don't already work for them, but I was willing to let that slide . Anyway, now that the job is going public, I am low man on the totem pole, despite my technical knowledge. You see, for most government jobs it doesn't matter if you know what you're doing, you only have to be a disabled veteran to get the job. Now before you attack me or think I'm over exagerating or bitching about this, let me tell you that my future boss told me that he REALLY wanted to hire me because I was young (27) and knew what I was doing. He said that now he's gonna be stuck with some older man or woman claiming disability who doesn't know anything about computers at all, don't like computers and all they're gonna do is make his life difficult. Because a disabled vet gets more VA points than a perfectly healthy vet let myself, I won't even get looked at once someone with more points applies for the job. That's a fact too, you can look it up. This is why so many government employees do such a piss poor job and do them until they die, because of this extreme version of affirmative action for disabled veterans.

Now when I'm saying disabled, I'm all for the guys and gals that stepped on a land mine and lost some toes or someone that had their legs run over by a tank or something like that. Those people probably make up maybe 10-15 percent of all disability claims though. Nearly everyone I know who claims disability does so falsely so they can get this benefit as well as the monetary one, especially since they enacted concurrent receipt of disablilty recently. Did you know that your government is paying people to do jobs and paying people monthly checks because with the way the current system is, they can say they suffer hemhorroids and it's service connected? That, sadly, is also a fact. I know people that were screwing around on top of a tank, fell off out of sheer stupidity and the system lets them claim it as a disability, even though it was their fault. Bullshit, huh? I was all but told by the VA rep during redeployment that if I had ANYTHING that hurt or MIGHT hurt in the future, claim it. I know many people who say their knees hurt just so they can get disability even though they really don't and they're as active as anyone else physically.

I could go on and on, but my question here really is, how do I go about changing the laws on this stuff? Oh, BTW, we will now most likely have an unqualified, non-computer literate person protecting our national interests in an IT Security position in the government now. Scary, huh?

 

[Jzero]

Oh, BTW, we will now most likely have an unqualified, non-computer literate person protecting our national interests in an IT Security position in the government now. Scary, huh?

Sounds like status quo to me

I could go on and on, but my question here really is, how do I go about changing the laws on this stuff?

It's not going to be easy, but basically you have to campaign and communicate. Definitely contact the congressmen and senators in your area. Write a letter. Not an e-mail. A real letter. But one letter isn't going to do it.

You will also need to find people who agree with you or are in the same boat and get those people to write.

You can also "demonstrate" but I don't think there's much value in standing around chanting slogans. You might raise awareness but someone like me is not going to lend support to those nutballs shouting in the streets.

Setting up a website could be a good way to find supporters.

 

[Rogue]

All good starts, some of which I hadn't thought of yet. I started drafting a letter yesterday to my Congressman. I consider that the first salvo.

Anyone else with any experience or knowledge of doing this, keep the info coming. Thanks Jzero. I'll start looking for a domain name that works.

 

[ElFenix]

Congresspeople will do remarkable things for people in their district

 

[Reel]

A letter to the editor in the paper (or multiple papers) can draw some attention. From my experience, it is mostly old people that get really into those letters. Conveniently, you can find a lot of old people that are WW2 vets and perhaps some from vietnam too would fit that age group. You might be able to get some support out of it.

I assume this is a national law so remember that you have 3 congressmen that represent you, 1 rep and 2 senators. If you package the idea properly, you are likely to get some good support out of them because military proposals are good attention getters for them.

From what you said, I do think you are right about this change. I guess you have to consider what the spirit of the law might be to better suggest a change. Is it to help people who have been out of non-military work for 6 months+ to readjust to civilian life? Is it to reward people that put their lives in danger? I do not know what the spirit is and I am not really in a position to do more than guess. Most likely though, you will be able to point out your situation as going along with the spirit and an oversight rather than a drastic change in the law.

Good luck.

 

[Jzero]

From what you said, I do think you are right about this change. I guess you have to consider what the spirit of the law might be to better suggest a change. Is it to help people who have been out of non-military work for 6 months+ to readjust to civilian life? Is it to reward people that put their lives in danger? I do not know what the spirit is and I am not really in a position to do more than guess. Most likely though, you will be able to point out your situation as going along with the spirit and an oversight rather than a drastic change in the law.

This is good advice. It is important to remember that a PROPOSAL will get you farther than a COMPLAINT. You can bitch that you think the law should apply to you, but you will get a much better response if you can explain why the law exists, and why you think the law should be expanded to include the folks from the Nat'l Guard and reserves. Don't just say why it's wrong, suggest how it can be made better!

It could be a useful tack to note that the military atmosphere of the US has changed since 9/11/01. I can guess you were working some sort of "Homeland Defense" type role, and if there were an invasion or another terrorist attack, you would be one of our first lines of defense. You could try suggesting that these people who are making the same commitment and taking the same risk are being called to serve as well and should be rewarded with similar benefits to those working overseas.

 

[Armitage]

Best bet is to write to your congresscritters. Don't bother with email ... real paper is what counts.

On the disability bit ... when I was getting out of the AF, after 4 years of being a desk-jockey, part of the process is a meeting with a VA rep. This guy basically did everything but outright tell us to make something up to claim disability. Any health problem you had while in the service, they wanted you to claim it. They had you come in with your full military medical records, and they go through them for you to find "claimable" issues.

I had broken an eardrum in a volleyball game in an AF sponsored league ... he wanted me to claim disability for it, despite having no issues with it for 3 years. Wanted me to make a claim on some bad tendonitis in my knee which resulted from non-AF activities, and had been symptom free for 2 years. It was pretty disgusting, but some folks jumped at the opportunity.

In my mind, it was a grave insult to the people out there who really get hurt in the service of our country.

 

[Rogue]

Here's a draft of my letter that I've written so far. I'll add more on how it can be changed as suggested.
----------------------------
Honorable Ryun,

I have an issue that I strongly feel needs addressed by you and your office with regards to the Veterans Readjustment Appointment (VRA) process. I was recently in a position to be selected for a government related Information Technology Security job and was summarily disqualified from appointment in the position because of the way the law is written with regards to eligibility.

The requirements are as follows:

Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible for a VRA a veteran must:

o have served in the Armed Forces on active duty (not active duty for training or inactive duty as a Reservist) for more than 180 days, any part of which occured after August 4, 1964, (or February 28, 1961, for those who actually served in the Republic of Vietnam) and received other than a dishonorable discharge.

If the component block at the top of DD form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates enlistment in the Reserves, the person does not have active duty qualifying for VRA appointment;

o The 180 day requirement does not apply to veterans who were honorably or generally discharged or released from active duty because of a service-connected disability, or members of the Reserve or National Guard ordered to active duty under 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 12301(a), (d), or (g), 12302, or 12304 for service during a period of war as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101 (11) or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge is authorized. "Period of war" includes World War II, the Korean conflict, Vietnam era, the Persian Gulf War, or the period beginning on the date of any future declaration of war by the Congress and ending on the date prescribed by Presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the Congress;

I am an Army Reservist and have been my entire 8+ years of service. After the attacks of September 11th, as a Military Policeman, I jumped at the chance to perform my duties to my nation and was given the opportunity on the 28th of September, 2001. I was mobilized under Operation Noble Eagle to Fort Riley, KS to protect the citizens, military members and property of the US Army on a daily basis. I did so until December 2002 when our services were deemed no longer necessary. In January 2003, I volunteered to be mobilized again under Operation Enduring Freedom to serve my nation at Fort Riley until August of 2003. By all accounts, I served well over the ?180 day requirement? on Active Duty for my country, but this does not qualify me for VRA eligibility the way the law is currently written. By proxy, this also disqualifies nearly every other of the thousands or hundreds of thousands of Reserve and National Guard members called to serve their country in the War on Terror. The portion of the law that excludes Reserve and National Guard Active Duty service should be removed or the law written to include such service in light of our role in today's world climate.

My other concern with this issue is that it absolves me of eligibility based on not having been issued a campaign badge or expeditionary medal of any kind, however, it has always been stipulated by my command and our Commander-in-Chief that the War on Terror knows no boundaries. As a Military Policeman I also worked every day of my active duty period wearing body armor and carrying a loaded weapon, just like my brothers-in-arms in some foreign nation. I will attest to suffering far fewer hardships than my fellow Reserve and National Guard members, however, I feel like I speak on all their behalf when I say that our active duty time in the War on Terror should be considered no less relevant or important or be classified any differently than our ?Active Duty? counterparts. If nothing else, we?ve shown that we?re ready and able to do anything necessary to serve our country up to and including losing our life, livelihoods and families in the service of our nation. The Army of One campaign seems to fly in the face of reality.

Finally, it?s been my suspicion for a very long time that veterans with disabilities carry too much weight in the government hiring practice and in my current situation; it?s been proven all too true. In a sense I feel the victim of reverse discrimination, a system gone awry catering to the needs of disabled persons over the qualifications of the healthy. The sad part is, I?ve seen it all too often where perfectly qualified applicants for government jobs are more or less turned away by persons claiming disability, even the minutest disabilities. The person I interviewed with all but expressed his dissatisfaction with more or less being forced to hire a disabled veteran over someone with fewer eligibility points but far more qualified for the job. I?ve applied for several government positions over the years and always suspected that I never had a chance because someone with an often obscure or subjective injury is reported to the VA as service connected knowing full well that they will be eligible for so much more where government employment is concerned. Meanwhile, I all but refuse to falsely report the admittedly ?normal? pains and problems associated with physical activity that others report as the physical hardships of serving. I can attest to the fact that I?ve been present in many briefings and discussions where people actually encourage reporting, sometimes even falsely reporting, pains and injuries supposedly incurred just so they will have one up on their competition, namely me. This is not to say that there are many out there with very real and legitimate life-long injuries that are service connected, only that in my personal experience as an Army Reservist, former child of an Army Retiree who served 20+ years and as a member of a military community for nearly my entire life, I know far too many people who claim disability who probably should not and only serve to take advantage of the system.

The effect of these laws in today?s medical climate, where nearly everything can be managed by medication or surgery only serves to further divide and classify people as being different or inferior. Its Affirmative Action sponsored by and for the government in the worst way. It pains me even more to think that someone with less training and technical know how will be responsible for the security of a military network during this time in our history. Speaking financially, hiring someone less technically qualified and disabled only means they will end up costing the government even more money in the long run. Again, it seems I am being discriminated against for always making safe, sound decisions that have limited my chances of injury or disability while I?ve served.

Veteran's preferance should be changed to being only a qualifier for the job, regardless of disability or foreign service. It seems to me that the current practice is a remnant from Vietnam era politics and is damaging to the available work force that would otherwise be available. I suggest that VA eligibility be made simply a baseline requirement and that disability and foreign service (unless relevant to the position being applied for) be set equal to simply being a veteran. Giving greater preferance to someone with a claimed disability flies in the face of Equal Opportunity Employment. The civilian sector doesn't give more weight to someone with a disability when applying for a job, all things equal, why should the government?

I understand that Reserve and National Guard benefits and equality issues are a very hot topic in our nation?s capital right now and I sincerely hope that this issue sees the same vigorous devotion to it?s correction as all of the others currently before you and your peers. I also hope that we can see a change in VA Eligibility standards that level the playing field for those Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who take good care of the most important piece of military equipment we have, ourselves.

 

[Armitage]

I'd try to break it down a bit. Good information, and looks to be well written. But remember that these guys likely get hundreds of letters a day, which get filtered through by staffers. You need to make your point quickly without making em wade through alot of text.