Question 5. Federal assistance to civilians who served in Vietnam. As you know, Public Law 95-202 provides for an administrative determination respecting whether the service of any non-military group of individuals was equivalent to, or tantamount to, active military service. This law has been implemented by the Department of Defense as the Defense/Civilian Review Board. A finding that service was tantamount to military service confers veteran status. What is the view of your members regarding the Defense/Civilian Military Review Board and what is your view toward providing federal benefits for those whose service is not deemed to be tantamount to military service? Answer 5. The Department of Defense/Civilian Military Review Board appears to serve as an appropriate mechanism to determine if civilian employment or contractual service rendered by groups to the Armed Forces may be considered active military service, for the purposes of all laws administered by the Veterans Administration. Providing any type of federal benefits to individuals who did not derive such entitlement or eligibility from the performance of active military service is not a responsibility vested in the Veterans Administration. We could not support the expenditure of VA funds for such a purpose nor for the purpose of determining what, if any, type of federal assistance may be provided to individuals who are not veterans of the Vietnam Era. If VA guidance or input is deemed vital and mandatory to the resolution of such a question, then it should be accomplished at no expense to the agency. RESPONSE OF THE DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED AFFAIRS Question 1. I would appreciate it if you would provide for the record more detail on your organization's views on the various legislative issues mentioned on page 9 of your statement as to which you indicated no opposition to their enactment. Answer 1. The redefinition of the beginning date of the Vietnam Era, as proposed by Section 2 of S. 2269, "...in the case of a veteran who served in the Republic of South Vietnam during the period beginning on July 8, 1959 and ending on May 7, 1975..." was addressed by the DAV in hearings held before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs on March 10, 1983. Then, as now, we have no official position on this provision. However, enactment of this measure would have no impact on Vietnam veterans nor would there be any additional benefits that would accrue to service-connected veterans from this legislation. Additionally, it remains our feeling that, if enacted, all veterans who served from the date specified should be accorded the same status and type of be nefits as are currently provided to veterans who served during other wartime periods. Section 3 of S. 2269 would permit the VA to continue to provide counseling services to family members at the time of the death of a veteran for a period not to exceed six months. Bereavement counseling may be described as an integral portion of the total care to be provided to the terminally ill veteran. This is so due to the nature of the treatment employed in preparing the veteran and family for death from a physical, social, spiritual and emotional standpoint. Therefore, we have no objection to the enactment of this measure so long as funding for that portion of the program expended for nonservice-connected veterans does not adversely impact upon the programs and services that would otherwise be provided to service-connected veterans. Section 4 of S. 2269 would, in essence, expand eligibility for certain veterans to receive readjustment counseling, as well as establish eligibility for active duty personnel to receive such counseling. The DAV has no objection to expanding eligibility for readjustment counseling to those veterans who served on active duty after May 7, 1975 and were subjected to danger from armed conflict comparable to the danger experienced by military personnel in battle with the enemy during a period of war. However, we do not favor extending these types of counseling services to active duty personnel. If a need exists for active duty personnel to receive readjustment counseling services, it is certainly feasible and within the realm and responsibility of DOD to establish these types of services. We favor Section 5 of S. 2269 which would make permanent the VA's authority for furnishing care in the treatment and rehabilitation for alcohol, drug dependence or abuse disabilities in community based treatment facilities. Although the intent is understood, we question the provision of Section 3 of S. 2514 that would statutorily dictate the medical management of dependence or abuse disabilities. Treatment of these cases is best left to the judgement of the medical profession and should not be prescribed in regulatory or in statutory form. Both S. 2269 and Amendment No. 2850 to that measure contain provisions to clarify and improve the function of the VA protective services personnel. We would make two suggestions regarding this measure as currently constructed. First, should this measure be favorably reported, language specifically requiring that all VA police officers receive specialized training and instruction in the management and handling of veterans in a hospital environment, especially with respect to the emotionally disturbed veteran, should be included. Second, as it is the policy of the United States to promote maximum employment and job advancement opportunities within the federal government for qualified disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam Era, we suggest that this policy be made a part of any accompanying report language to this measure. Section 7 of S. 2269 would clarify the time frame for submission of the Comptroller General's Report required by Section 5010, Title 38, United States Code. Although the DAV has no official position on this measure, it appears to place an additional degree of accountability upon the Office of Management and Budget and, therefore, we would favor its enactment. Section 8 of S. 2269 would, if enacted, require that the Administrator of the VA assign a priority to each application received from a state seeking a grant for construction, expansion, remodeling or altering existing buildings of state home facilities for furnishing domiciliary or nursing home care to veterans, if funds appropriated for any fiscal year are not sufficient to make all the grants requested of the VA for that fiscal year. Although we have no official position on this measure, we find no compelling circumstances that would prompt us to support a major change in an established and apparently effective program that has otherwise funded projects in an equitable fashion. Section 9 of S. 2269 would require the joint effort of the Veterans Administration, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to the Congress on alternatives for federal government assistance to individuals who served in Vietnam as civilians. Public Law 95-202 created the Department of Defense/Civilian Military Review Board whose function is to determine if civilian employment or contractual service rendered by groups to the Armed Services may be considered active military service for the purposes of laws admini stered by the Veterans Administration. We feel this Board serves as an appropriate mechanism to resolve such questions. Providing any type of federal benefits to individuals who did not derive such entitlement or eligibility from the performance of active military service is not a responsibility of the Veterans Administration. Additionally, we could not support the expenditure of VA funds for such a purpose, nor for the purpose of determining what, if any, type of federal assistance may be provided by such individuals who are not veterans. If it is felt that VA guidance and input is deemed vital and mandatory to the resolution of such a question, then it should be accomplished at no expense to the agency. In order that veterans residing in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands may continue to receive medical care, on a contract basis, the extension, to September 30, 1984, as contained in Section 10 of S. 2269, seems necessary. While we have no objections to this measure, the VA should be reminded to develop, on an expeditious basis, feasible alternatives to provide such care. DAV support of Section 11 of S. 2269 would be predicated on a similar concession offered to service-connected veterans in receipt of a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability. With the primary emphasis on these programs being the therapeutic value derived, then the service-connected veteran should not be subjected to a possible loss of entitlement to individual unemployability based upon participation in the se activities being perceived as gainful employment. Section 6 of S. 2514 would require the Administration, not later than September 30, 1985, to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs on the VA's programs for terminally ill and certain other veterans. Due to the importance of these type of medical care programs and, in consideration of the aging veteran situation and the DAV's desire to monitor the VA's efforts in these directions, we would concur in the compilation of such a report. Question 2. With respect to automobile adaptive equipment, after reviewing the VA's testimony on S. 2210 and that of all the veterans' organizations, I think a compromise result might well be to permit an eligible veteran to receive two VA equipment adaptations in any three year period as part of which the veteran would also be permitted to maintain a second VA adapted vehicle for backup purposes. Please comment on this approach as an alternative to the approach in S. 2210 limiting assistance to on in three years (subject to case-by-case exceptions) and thus permitting a backup vehicle only after the veteran has had the adapted vehicle for three years. It seems preferable to me to permit more latitude in terms of acquiring a backup vehicle and also more latitude as to a replacement vehicle without establishing a cumbersome administrative mechanism to determine how exceptions are merited. Answer 2. As indicated in DAV testimony of April 11, 1984, we have been mandated by the delegates to our most recent National Convention to seek the enactment of legislation that would permit VA reimbursement of automobile adaptive equipment without regard to the disposition of a previously adapted automobile for which reimbursement has been received. S. 2210 satisfies this mandate by appropriate amendment to Section 1903(c), Title 38, United States Code. The VA has testified that the average utilization of the adaptive equipment program for the last three fiscal years has been approximately one vehicle each 6.4 years. Current VA policy permits an eligible veteran to acquire and gain reimbursement for adaptive equipment on up to three vehicles in a two year period. The VA offers no objection to the removal of the bar of transferability of a previously adapted vehicle, as contained in S. 2210 and strongly recommends a one vehicle in two year restriction. In their written testimony, the Paralyzed Veterans of America apparently agrees with the one vehicle in two year provision. The American Legion and VFW concur in S. 2210 as constructed. Current law contains no statutory limitations on how frequently eligible veterans may purchase a new vehicle and obtain reimbursement for adaptive equipment. The DAV's concern in the adaptive equipment program has always surrounded the issue of disposal/transferability of the previously adapted vehicle and not necessarily the limitation on the number of vehicles that may be acquired and the veteran's entitlement for reimbursement. The VA's estimate of the frequency of utilization rate does not indicate that the one in three year limitation is overly restrictive. They do recognize, however, that a one in two year limitation may be desirable based on the need for severely disabled veterans to possess extremely dependable transportation. The PVA apparently concurs in this assessment in written testimony presented to the Committee, but favored the Cranston compromise in oral remarks. The DAV continues to strongly support the intent of S. 2210 regarding the issue of disposal/transferability. However, the authority for the veteran to retain use of the second vehicle must encompass the fact that the second or older vehicle is reliable and a dependable means of transportation. Each of the proposals offered seems to meet this requirement. Section 1902(c), Title 38, United States Code gives the VA authority to "...provide, repair, replace or reinstall such adaptive equipment for any automobile or other conveyance which an eligible person may previously or subsequently have acquired." Our understanding is that S. 2210 would extend this authority to encompass the previously acquired vehicle retained by a veteran upon the acquisition of a newer vehicle. We presume that the contemplated compromise would also permit this. |