I have read the National Commander's Message for 11 years as a member of The American Legion. This is the first message that really moved me. Maybe having just lost my dad, a Korean combat Veteran that the message rang so true. I had to re-post. Please take the time to read it!

Theimportance of remembrance

National Commander James E Koutz

I remember Lonnie Weisheit like I saw himyesterday. He’d be about my age now, probably with grandchildren. Yet he livesin my memory as the smiling, dark-haired 20-year-old who went through Armybasic training with me at Fort Knox, Ky., and advanced infantry training atFort Ord, Calif. We both went to Vietnam. I came home. Lonnie didn’t.

Every time I’m in Washington, D.C., I go tothe Wall to honor the 58,282 Americans killed in the war and the thousands moreinjured or still missing. On Panel 9W, Row 77, is Lonnie’s name. The letters,etched in granite, are a lasting tribute. But I can’t help but see beyond themto the young corporal who grew up in Lynnville, Ind., 10 miles from myhometown, and was killed by enemy fire at Hua Nghia. He was someone’s son, andhe was my friend.

In one more generation, most of us who knewLonnie and all the others we lost in Vietnam will be gone. Even now, we’reholding fast to the few who have firsthand memories of those who died in WorldWar II and Korea. On a day not too far off, our last living connections tothese wars will be severed, and their dead will forever belong to history.

The responsibility of remembrance falls toall of us – not just The American Legion and other veterans organizations, notjust those serving in uniform, but every man, woman and child who woke up thismorning in the land of the free. It’s a fading priority, though, in this busy,fast-changing world where the meaning of Memorial Day is drowned out bymattress sales and barbecues.

More than ever, our elected leaders mustset the example by making sure our military is able to render proper honors tothe nation’s fallen. Instead, sequestration threatens to encroach on thissacred obligation. At home and around the world, U.S. forces are still fightingon our behalf and protecting us at home, but with far less. That means hardchoices about where the money goes, so we can expect diminished representationin this year’s Memorial Day observances. No flyovers. Limited troop formations.Fewer bands playing the national anthem.

In Europe, where some 101,000 Americansoldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are buried, this is embarrassing. ManyU.S. cemeteries will have only a color guard and one military officer as guestspeaker. The largest of these, the Meuse-Argonne, is the site of the U.S.Army’s deadliest battle, with 26,277 killed and 95,786 wounded. For the firsttime, the Army won’t have a presence at the ceremony there.

Some may see these as unnecessary expenses,but consider that during the Great Depression, the United States built eightfederal monuments on foreign soil commemorating Americans who fought in WorldWar I. Congress paid for Gold Star Mothers to make a pilgrimage to their sons’graves overseas. What message do we send to other nations when giving fullhonor to our war dead is suddenly subject to the budget axe? What does it sayto the men and women serving today?

Remembering the fallen in a mannerbefitting their sacrifice is not a luxury. It is our solemn duty. These aren'tthe kind of budget cuts Americans want.

New Push to Make ‘Veterans’ of 200,000 Reserve Retirees

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, Colo., 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 John Boozman (R) and Mark Pryor (D), 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 (N.C.), 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.

So there is no “nose under the tent” benefit issue that should worry Burr, say coalition representatives leading the fight for the bill. These 'veterans,' for example, would still not enjoy preference points in competing for federal jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office is persuaded, scoring the bill as “cost neutral.”  Yet the coalition is working with sponsors to add more phrasing that would allay any remaining concerns Burr might have.

“To call yourself a veteran is one of the highest honors you can have after you leave the military. It’s an acknowledgement of one’s service,” said Anthony A. Wallis, with the Association of the United States Navy.

Most of the retirees targeted by the bill served in an era when it was commonplace to complete Reserve and Guard careers without active service. That’s almost unfathomable today given Guard and Reserve operations since 9/11.

“The population we are fighting for in this legislation is diminishing over time,” said Bob Norton, deputy director of government relations for Military Officers Association of America (MOAA). “These are mostly Cold War-era folks, people who served in Reserve and Guard units but before first Gulf War, and were never called up during their careers.”

But Norton noted there still are reserve component careerists serving today, including National Guard technicians, who prepare others for call up but are not mobilized themselves for overseas contingencies or national emergencies. So these members too would be honored as veterans if they reach Guard or Reserve retirement for serving at least 20 years.

Another reason Burr should not fear a benefit expansion, Norton said, is that every benefit provided to veterans is governed by its own restrictive language specifying who is eligible. None simply goes to “any veteran.”

 The bill being drafted would only extend veteran status to reserve component retirees, not to many more thousands of Reserve and Guard personnel who left before earning retirement.

Some members of the coalition may see the issue differently, Norton said, but at MOAA “our feeling is that this honor really should be reserved for those who have completed a full career.”

Miller does feel differently. He thinks any length of honorable service should suffice, “whether six years in the Reserve or 24 years.”

“I would still like to be recognized as a veteran, officially by the government, because I did serve 24 years,” Miller added. “And if you have talked to other reservists you know that it wasn't just that one weekend a month you did your duty.”

To comment write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, or email milupdate@aol.com or twitter: Tom Philpott @Military_Update

http://archive.legion.org/discover?order=DESC&rpp=10&sort_by=score&page=1&query=2012n&group_by=none&etal=0

Here are two I'm particularly interested in:

NINETY-FOURTH NATIONAL CONVENTION

OF

THE AMERICAN LEGION

Indianapolis, Indiana

August 28, 29, 30, 2012

Resolution No. 292: Eliminate the Requirement that a Veteran had to Serve in Vietnam to

be Eligible for Wartime Benefits

Origin: Convention Committee on Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation

Submitted by: Convention Committee on Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation

WHEREAS, The American Legion recognizes February 28, 1961 to May 7, 1975 as the period of the Vietnam War, enabling veterans serving during that period to be eligible for membership in said organization as veterans having served during war time as described in our National Constitution; and,

WHEREAS, Title 38 United States Code §101 (29) (A) designates only veterans serving in Vietnam during the period from February 28, 1961 to May 7, 1975 as being eligible for all veteran benefits and further stating in §101 (29) (B) that veterans serving in areas other than Vietnam will become eligible for similar benefits starting August 5, 1964 thru May 7, 1975; and,

WHEREAS, Not using the period from February 28, 1961 to August 4, 1964 deprives veterans who served honorably, benefits available to all other veterans designated as wartime veterans; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Indianapolis, Indiana, August 28, 29, 30, 2012, That The American Legion urge the Congress of The United States to modify Title 38 United States Code (USC) §101 (29) (A) to eliminate the requirement that a veteran had to serve in Vietnam to be eligible for wartime benefits; and, be it finally

RESOLVED, That Title 38 USC §101 (29) (B) be eliminated and that the time period of the Vietnam War be firmly established as from February 28th, 1961 to May 7th 1975 enabling all veterans serving during that period to be eligible for veterans benefits.

NINETY-FOURTH NATIONAL CONVENTION

OF

THE AMERICAN LEGION

Indianapolis, Indiana

August 28, 29, 30, 2012

Resolution No. 96: Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans

Origin: Maryland

Submitted by: Convention Committee on Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation

WHEREAS, Annually the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) updates the list which includes vessels that operated primarily or exclusively on Vietnam’s waterways; and

WHEREAS, The list includes ships that temporarily operated in these waterways or were moored at the shoreline and ships that operated in close coastal waters of Vietnam for extended periods with evidence that the crewmembers went ashore; and

WHEREAS, It is estimated that more than 500,000 service members served aboard ships off the coast from 1964-1975; and

WHEREAS, Many of these personnel now have health problems commonly associated with herbicide exposure and have endured lengthy legal struggles to prove these problems are service-related; and

WHEREAS, In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies of Science (NAS) released its results of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure Report, which found no consistent evidence to suggest “Blue Water Navy” veterans were at higher or lower risk and were unable to state with certainty that “Blue Water Navy” veterans were or were not exposed to dioxins from Agent Orange; and

WHEREAS, Current legislation is seeking to reverse VA’s decision preventing “Blue Water Navy” military retirees and veterans from claiming presumptive status for the diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Indianapolis, Indiana, August 28, 29, 30, 2012, That The American Legion support legislation that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) include as part of the Republic of Vietnam, for purposes of the presumption of service connection for diseases associated with exposure by veterans to certain herbicide agents while in Vietnam, such Republic's inland waterways, ports, harbors, waters offshore, and airspace; and, be it finally

RESOLVED, That The American Legion urges VA to conduct an epidemiological study of the long-term health outcomes of veterans that were “Blue Water Navy,” compared to their brown water and ground troop counterparts to evaluate “Blue Water Navy” veterans’ current injuries and illnesses, which may be related to Agent Orange and dioxin exposures.