FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Updated September 30, 2008
Lawrence Kapp, Coordinator
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
David F. Burrelli and Charles A. Henning
Specialists in Military Manpower Policy
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Richard A. Best, Jr.
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division



FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues
Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many
Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan in support of what the Bush Administration terms the Global War on
Terror, along with the emerging operational role of the Reserve Components, further
heighten interest and support for a wide range of military personnel policies and
issues.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) selected a number of the military
personnel issues that Congress considered as it deliberated the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2009. In each case, this report provides a brief synopsis of
sections that pertain to personnel policy. It includes background information and a
discussion of the issue, along with a table that contains a comparison of the bill (H.R.
5658) passed by the House on May 22, 2008, the bill (S. 3001) passed by the Senate
on September 17, 2008, and the final version (S. 3001) passed by the House on
September 24, 2008 and by the Senate on September 27, 2008. Where appropriate,
other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information
and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact
information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in the FY2008 National
Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL34169 concerning that
legislation. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS Report RL34169
are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It
does not include appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices
or any discussion of separately introduced legislation.
This report will be updated as needed.



Contents
Tricare Fee Increases...............................................2
Tricare Reserve Select Fees..........................................4
Active Duty End Strengths ..........................................5
*Military Pay Raise................................................6
Use of Reserve Component Personnel to Respond to Certain Domestic
Di s orders ....................................................7
Use of Reserve Component Personnel to Respond to Certain Disasters or
Em ergenci es .................................................8
*Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Education Agencies that Benefit
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees............................................9
Authority for Educating and Training for Military Spouses Pursuing Portable
C areers ....................................................10
Career Intermission Pilot Program ...................................11
Incentives for Foreign Language Proficiency and Foreign Cultural Studies....12
Travel Allowances for Family of Service Members with Serious Psychiatric
C ondi t i ons ..................................................14
Limitation on Simultaneous Deployments to Combat Zones of Dual-Military
Couples who have Minor Dependents............................15
Sole Surviving Sons and Daughters...................................16
Revised Disability Pay Computation Formula for Reserve Component
Personnel Wounded in Action..................................17
Searchable Military Decorations Database.............................18
Award of the Vietnam Service Medal To Veterans Who Participated in the
Mayaguez Rescue Operation....................................19
Protective Orders.................................................20
*Implementation of Information Database on Sexual Assault Incidents in the
Armed Forces...............................................21
Paternity Leave for Members of the Armed Forces.......................22



Presentation of Burial Flag to the Surviving Spouse and Children of Members
of the Armed Forces who Die in Service..........................23
Secretary of Defense Review of the Deferment from Deployment Policy
following the Birth of a Child...................................24
Effect of Termination of Subsequent Marriage on Payment of Survivor Benefit
Plan Annuity to Surviving Spouse or Former Spouse who Previously
Transferred Annuity to Dependent Children........................25
*Extension to Survivors of Certain Members who Die on Active Duty of
Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance for Persons Affected by Required
Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation......................................26
Enhanced Enforcement of Prohibition on Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit
Material on Military Installations................................27
Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC).......................28



FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Each year, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees report their
respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These bills
contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees and their family
members. Provisions in one version are often not included in another; are treated
differently; or, in certain cases, are identical. Following passage of each by the
respective legislative body, a Conference Committee is typically convened to resolve
the various differences between the House and Senate versions. This year, however,
a formal Conference Committee was not appointed. Rather, a final bill was drafted
by leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee, who also published
a “joint explanatory statement” which was essentially the equivalent of a conference
report. The House amended this final version into the Senate-passed version of S.
3001, and adopted it on September 24, 2008. The Senate then approved the bill on
September 27th, clearing it for Presidential consideration.
In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many
constituent requests for information on provisions contained in the annual NDAA.
This report highlights those personnel-related issues that seem to generate the most
intense congressional and constituent interest, and tracks their status in the FY2009
House and Senate versions of the NDAA. The Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, H.R. 5658, was introduced on March 31,
2008, reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 16, 2008
(H.Rept. 110-652), and passed by the House on May 22, 2008. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, S. 3001, was introduced on May 12, 2008,
reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services on that same day (S.Rept. 110-
335), and passed the Senate on September 17, 2008. The entries under the headings
“Original House-passed version (H.R. 5658)” and “Original Senate-passed version
(S. 3001)” in the following pages are based on language in these bills, unless
otherwise indicated. The entries under the heading “Final version (S. 3001)” are
based on the language of the bill negotiated by leaders of the House and Senate
Armed Services Committee and amended into S. 3001, as discussed above.
Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed
background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is
identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in
the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report
RL34169 concerning that legislation. Those issues that were previously considered
in CRS Report RL34169 are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this
report.



Tricare Fee Increases
Background: For several years the Administration has proposed increases in co-
payments and enrollment fees for retirees and their dependents who are not
Medicare-eligible. The Administration argues that the growing costs of Defense
health care, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the defense budget, require
efforts to seek greater contributions by users. It argues that inasmuch as Tricare
Prime enrollment fees were set in 1995 and have not been raised since, it is
reasonable that they should be increased. Congress has thus far refused to give DOD
the requested authority to raise the fees.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 701 & 702Provides an additionalSection 701extends for
preclude DOD from$1.2 billion over theone year the prohibition of
altering co-payment levelsAdministration request toincreases in premiums,
and enrollment feescover rejection of thedeductibles, and
through the end ofAdministration’s plans tocopayments under Tricare.
FY2009.raise Tricare feesSection 702 prohibits for
(according to SASC Pressone year increases in
Release 5/1/2008).copayments for
pharmaceuticals in the
Tricare retail pharmacy
program.
Discussion: The health care portion of the Defense budget has grown from $19
billion in FY2001 to over $42 billion in FY2008. Since 2006 DOD has been
attempting to raise co-payment and enrollment fees for retired military personnel and
their dependents who are not eligible for Medicare. (Medicare-eligible retirees can
use the Tricare for Life program which would not be affected by the proposed fee
increases.) DOD asserts that retirees using Tricare Prime paid approximately 27
percent of their health care costs in 1995 but now pay only 12 percent. Consistent
with recommendations of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Future of
Military Health Care, the proposed DOD budget for FY2009 would have gradually
raised enrollment fees for those using Tricare Prime, the HMO-like option, from the
current $460 (self+dependents) to 2011 rates as high as $1,750 for retirees making
over $40,000 annually. DOD also proposed creating an enrollment fee for retirees
who use Tricare Standard, the fee-for-service option, of $120 per year. In addition,
DOD maintains that retail prescription usage and costs have contributed significantly
to the growth in health care spending and recommended increases in pharmacy co-
payments (along with eliminating co-payments for pharmaceuticals provided by the
DOD Mail Order Pharmacy). According to DOD, these fee increases would save
some $1.2 billion in FY2009. Opposition from beneficiary organizations has been
strong and the Government Accountability Office concluded in May 2007 that
DOD’s estimates of cost savings were over-estimated. Congress has twice denied
DOD authority to increase Tricare fees in FY2007 and FY2008, and has encouraged
DOD to find other approaches to restraining the growth of the health care budget.



Reference(s): CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Costs: Background and
Options for Congress. Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care, Final
Report, December 2007 [http://www.dodfuturehealthcare.net/images/103-06-2-
Home-Task_Force_FINAL_REPORT_122007.pdf]. Government Accountability
Office, Military Health Care: TRICARE Cost-Sharing Proposals Would Help Offset
Increasing Health Care Spending, but Projected Savings are Likely Overestimated,
May 2007 [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07647.pdf].
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Dick Best, x7-7607.



Tricare Reserve Select Fees
Background: The FY2005 Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 108-375) established the Tricare Reserve Select program which permitted some
drilling reserve personnel to utilize Tricare but required that they pay enrollment fees
interpreted to be equivalent to the 28 percent charged to Federal civil servants under
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The FY2007 John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-364) extended the benefit to
all drilling reservists. In December 2007 the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) found that the premiums DOD established had actually exceeded the costs of
providing the Tricare benefit.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001) (S. 3001)
Section 705 requires DODSection 701 requires DODSection 704 requires that
to recalculate premiumsto base fees on reportedfor 2009 calculations for
for Tricare Reserve Select. costs in the previous yearTricare Reserve Select
rather than using Bluepremiums be based on the
Cross/Blue Shieldactual cost of the coverage
benchmarks. during 2006 and 2007.
Discussion: Tricare Reserve Select (TRS) provides a health care benefit to reservists
who are in drilling status and not on active duty. (Reservists called to active duty
have regular Tricare benefits that have no enrollment fees.) Current monthly
premiums are $81/self or $253/self+family. Enrollment in TRS has been lower than
estimated, suggesting that premium rates discourage selection or that reservists have
access to more affordable civilian health care options. A GAO report published in
December 2007 concluded that the premiums DOD established exceeded the reported
average cost of providing care through TRS. This situation resulted, according to
GAO, from DOD having used FEHBP Blue Cross/Blue Shield rates as benchmarks
that in practice proved to be higher than necessary to cover DOD’s costs. GAO
recommended that DOD base premiums on actual costs and DOD has indicated its
support for that approach consistent with available cost data.
Reference(s): GAO Report Military Health Care: Cost Data Indicate that TRICARE
Reserve Select Premiums Exceeded the Costs of Providing Program Benefits, GAO-

08-104, December 2007 [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08104.pdf].


CRS Point of Contact (POC): Dick Best, x7-7607.



Active Duty End Strengths
Background: Continuing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed
the nation’s armed forces, especially the Army and Marine Corps. The FY2008
NDAA supported increasing the Army end strength by 65,000 to 547,400 by FY2012
and increasing the Marine Corps end strength by 27,000 to 202,000, also by FY2012.
While the Army and Marine Corps grow, the Navy remains stable and the Air Force
continues manpower reductions that began in 2005 to support the recapitalization of
modernized aircraft. The Air Force is projected to reduce from 359,700 in FY2005
to approximately 300,000 in FY2009.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 401 authorizes aSection 401 authorizes aSection 401 authorizes a
FY2009 end strength ofFY2009 end strength ofFY2009 end strength of

532,400 for the Army,532,400 for the Army,532,400 for the Army,


326,323 for the Navy,325,300 for the Navy,326,323 for the Navy,


194,000 for the Marine194,000 for the Marine194,000 for the Marine
Corps and 317,050 for theCorps and 316,771 for theCorps, and 317,050 for the
Air Force. Air Force. Air Force.
Section 402 establishesNo similar provision. Section 402 authorizes
new minimum endnew minimum end
strengths of 532,400 forstrengths of 532,400 for
the Army, 326,323 for thethe Army, 325,300 for the
Navy, 194,000 for theNavy, 194,000 for the
Marine Corps and 317,050Marine Corps and 317,050
for the Air Force. for the Air Force.
Discussion: The Army and Marine Corps have been successful, so far, in growing
to meet the congressional goals. The Army plans to meet its ultimate goal of 547,400
by 2010, two years earlier than the congressional benchmark. The Secretary of
Defense recently recommended that the Air Force end strength not fall below
330,000, a strength that has not yet been integrated into the FY2009 NDAA. The
House version authorized 1,023 more Navy personnel and 450 more Air Force
personnel above the budget request to restore military positions in the military
medical community. The Senate committee version authorized 171 more Air Force
personnel above the budget request to support the operation and maintenance on 76
B-52 aircraft.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom,
and Iraqi Freedom: Questions and Answers About U.S. Military Personnel,
Compensation, and Force Structure, by Lawrence Kapp and Charles Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.



*Military Pay Raise
Background: Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with
end strength increases and recruiting challenges, continue to highlight the military
pay issue. Title 37 U.S.C. 1009 provides a permanent formula for annual military pay
raises that indexes the raise to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index
(ECI). The FY2009 President’s Budget request for a 3.4 percent military pay raise
was consistent with this formula. Congress, in FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, and
FY2008 approved the raise as the ECI increase plus 0.5 percent. The FY2007 pay
raise was equal to the ECI.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 601 supports a 3.9In Section 601, the Senate Section 601 authorizes a
percent (0.5 percent abovealso supports a 3.9 percent3.9 percent across-the-
the President’s Budget)pay raise to be effective onboard pay increase
across-the-board pay raiseJanuary 1, 2009. effective January 1, 2009.
that would be effective
January 1, 2009.
Section 608 requires aNo similar provision.
guaranteed pay raise of
0.5 percent above the ECI
for FY2010 through
FY2013.
Discussion: A military pay raise larger than the permanent formula is not
uncommon. Mid-year, targeted pay raises (targeted at specific grades and longevity)
have also been authorized over the past several years. This year’s proposed
legislation includes no mention of targeted pay raises.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and
Answers, by Charles Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-8866.



Use of Reserve Component Personnel to Respond
to Certain Domestic Disorders
Background: Chapter 15 of Title 10, sometimes referred to as the Insurrection Act,
provides the President with the authority to call the militia into federal service and
to use “the armed forces” to respond to certain domestic disorders, including aiding
state governments in suppressing insurrection (10 USC 331), enforcing the laws of
the United States and suppressing rebellion (10 USC 332), and preventing domestic
violence which interferes with the execution of federal and state laws (10 USC 333).
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 591 would amendNo similar provision.No language was included.
10 USC 331-333 to
specify that the
President’s use of the
“armed forces” under
these provisions includes
“units and members of the
Army Reserve, Navy
Reserve, Air Force
Reserve, Marine Corps
Reserve and Coast Guard
Reserve ordered to active
duty for this purpose.”
Discussion: The amendments contained in Section 591 of the H.R. 5658 would
specify that the President’s authority to use the armed forces to respond to these
domestic disorders includes the ability to activate members of the federal reserve
components (Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine Corps
Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve) and use them as part of the response effort.
Activation of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard is already provided
for under the original language authorizing the President to order the militia into
federal service (the militia includes, but is not limited to, the National Guard).1
Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues:
Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.


1 10 USC 311(a) defines the militia as follows: “The militia of the United States consists of
all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title

32, under 45 years of age, who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become,


citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members
of the National Guard.” 10 USC 311(b) divides the militia into the organized militia
(members of the National Guard and Naval Militia) and the unorganized militia (those
members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia).

Use of Reserve Component Personnel to Respond
to Certain Disasters or Emergencies
Background: Section 12304 of Title 10 allows the President to activate certain
reservists for a period of up to 365 days for specified purposes. This authority is
commonly referred to as Presidential Reserve Call-up (PRC) authority. A
subparagraph of section 12304 prohibits the President from using this authority for
“providing assistance to either the Federal Government or a State in time of a serious
natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe,” unless responding to an
certain emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction or terrorist attacks.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 594 would amendNo similar provision.No language was included.
10 USC 12304 to allow
the President to order
Selected Reserve units
from the Army Reserve,
Navy Reserve, Air Force
Reserve, Marine Corps
Reserve, or Coast Guard
Reserve to active duty to
assist in the response to
certain disasters or
emergencies.
Discussion: Section 594 of H.R. 5658 would allow the President to use PRC
authority to activate Selected Reserve units from the purely federal reserve
components (but not the National Guard) to respond to disasters or emergencies
which met the definitions of the Stafford Act.2 A somewhat similar provision was
passed as part of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007
(P.L. 109-364, section 1076); however, among other differences, it applied to the
National Guard as well as the federal reserves and was opposed by many state
governors. It was later repealed by section 1068 of P.L. 110-181.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues:
Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.


2 See 42 USC 5122 for these definitions.

*Continuation of Authority to Assist Local
Education Agencies that Benefit Dependents of
Members of the Armed Forces and Department of
Defense Civilian Employees
Background: Last year Congress authorized $30 million for continuation of
assistance to eligible local agencies impacted by enrollment of DOD military and
civilian employee dependents, and $10 million for assistance to agencies with
significant changes due to base closures, force structure changes, or force relocations.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 571 of the HouseSection 561 of the SenateSection 551 authorizes
bill asks for ‘impact aid’bill calls for $30 million$35 million in ‘impact aid’
of $50 million for localfor local agencies to befor local agencies and $15
educational agencies andauthorized in ‘impact aid’million to local
$15 million to those withand $10 million for thoseeducational agencies
significant changes due towith significant changeswhere significant changes
base closures, forcedue to base closures, forcein enrollment are expected
structure changes, or forcestructure changes, or forcedue to base closures, force
relocations.relocations. structure changes or force
relocations.
Section 562 would
authorize $5 million inSection 552 is identical to
‘impact aid’ forthe Senate provision.
educational agencies that
benefit children with
severe disabilities.
Discussion: The language contained in the final version of S. 3001 is similar to last
year’s efforts regarding impact aid.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL34169, The FY2008 National Defense Authorization
Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, p. 7-8.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli at x7-8033.



Authority for Educating and Training for Military
Spouses Pursuing Portable Careers
Background: Military families are relocated quite frequently during a military
career. Non-military spouses seeking employment at a new duty location are often
frustrated because many of the skills they have may not be portable to a new location.
Often, work skills must be learned anew. It has been reported that local employers
prefer a more stable workforce with less turnover and less training needed.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
The House bill contained aSection 571 amends 10Section 582 “includes the
provision (Sec. 582) thatUSC 1784 (“EmploymentHouse provision with an
would authorize theopportunities for militaryamendment that would
Secretary of Defense tospouses”) by addingclarify that these programs
establish programs tolanguage allowing themay be used to enable a
assist the spouse of anSecretary of Defense tospouse to pursue a
active duty servicecarry out programs toportable career, and would
member to receiveprovide or make availableclarify the definition of
education/training orto eligible spousesportable career.” (Joint
credit required for aeducation and training toExplanatory Statement, p.
degree, credential, orfacilitate the pursuit of a68)
licensing. The provisionportable career.
would also authorize
tuition assistance.
Discussion: Although this language is permissive in nature, if implemented, spouses
may be more likely to continue a career following relocation to a new duty station.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli at x7-8033.



Career Intermission Pilot Program
Background: Each service supports educational programs that permit selected
members to temporarily attend civilian educational institutions and then return to the
parent service without interrupting their normal career pattern. However, there is
currently no program that allows an extended break in service for personal or
professional reasons.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 532 wouldSection 585 wouldSection 533 authorizes a
authorize a pilot programauthorize a similar“Career Flexibility” pilot
that allows a Serviceprogram. Interim reportsprogram. Participation is
Secretary to releasewould be required in 2010limited to 20 enlisted
selected personnel fromand 2012 with a finalpersonnel and 20 officers
active duty for a maximumreport in 2015. per service per year.
period of three years toService members will
pursue personal andleave active duty for a
professional goals. Up toperiod up to three years
20 officer and 20 enlisted and return in the same
members annually fromgrade and years of service
each armed force underthat they held when
the Secretaries jurisdictioninactivated. Time in the
could participate in thisprogram does not count
program during the periodfor retirement eligibility,
January 1, 2009 throughretired pay or years of
December 31, 2014.service. Pilot program
Members would incur abegins on January 1, 2009
service obligation of twoand ends on December 31,
months for every month of2014. Interim reports are
program participation.required in 2010 and 2012
Participants and theirwith a final report on
families would remainMarch 1, 2015.
eligible for medical and
dental care and access to
military facilities.
Discussion: These programs, called “Career Intermission” in the House report and
“Career Flexibility” in the Senate committee version, are aimed at enhancing
retention by allowing personnel an opportunity to pursue other personal or
professional goals. The House and Senate programs would be capped at 40 service
members per year for each armed force and require a service obligation of two
months for every month of program participation.
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.



Incentives for Foreign Language Proficiency and
Foreign Cultural Studies
Background: In recent years, both Congress and the Department of Defense have
shown significant interest in increasing the ability of military personnel to operate in
foreign countries by enhancing their cultural knowledge and foreign language
proficiency. However, building these language and cultural skills has proven
challenging due to the intensive study required for mastery and the competing
demands of other training and operational requirements for currently serving
personnel. There is currently statutory authority to provide bonuses to those who are
already proficient in designated foreign languages (37 USC 316), but not for those
who are seeking to become proficient.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 619 would amendSection 619 would addSection 619 incorporates
37 USC 353 to allow thesection 316a to Title 37. Itthe language of both the
Service Secretaries to paywould authorize theHouse and Senate
a proficiency bonus of upSecretary of Defense toprovisions.
to $12,000 per year toprovide up to $3,000 per
regular or reserveyear to participants in the
personnel, and to thoseSenior Reserve Officers
enrolled in an officerTraining Corps and the
training program, who areMarine Corps Platoon
“in training to acquireLeaders Class who
proficiency in a criticalparticipate “in a language
foreign language orimmersion program
expertise in foreignapproved for purposes of
cultural studies or athe Senior Reserve
related skill designated asOfficer’s Training Corps,
critical by the Secretaryor in study abroad, or is
concerned.” It also allowsenrolled in an academic
the Service Secretaries tocourse that involves
provide those in officerinstruction in a foreign
training programs wholanguage of strategic
pursue such studies withinterest to the Department
up to $1,000 per month inof Defense....” This
incentive pay. It mandatessection also contains a
that the Secretary ofprovision to recoup such
Defense establish a pilotpayments if the individual
program through 2013 todoes not complete
offer bonuses to reservistsparticipation in the
who pursue such studies. language program or the
pre-commi ssioning
program.
Discussion: Section 619 of the original House-passed and Senate-passed bills both
sought to improve the language skills of new officer accessions by giving them a
financial incentive to study foreign languages and cultures before they begin active
service. The original House provision would have also required the Secretary of



Defense to establish a pilot program for currently serving reserve personnel who
undertake such studies, and it permits the Service Secretaries to use such financial
incentives for currently serving active and reserve personnel who pursue such studies.
The original House-passed language also had a higher maximum payment cap. The
final version of S. 3001 combines both of these provisions, resulting in three distinct
options (one bonus authority and two incentive pay authorities) for compensating
individuals who seek to acquire foreign language proficiency or cultural skills.
Existing provisions of law (37 USC 353(b) and 371(b)) would prevent an individual
from receiving more than one proficiency bonus or incentive pay at a time for the
same period of service and skill.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.



Travel Allowances for Family of Service Members
with Serious Psychiatric Conditions
Background: Section 411h of Title 37, U.S.C., authorizes the military departments
to pay travel and transportation allowances for family members of service members
who are seriously injured, seriously ill, or in a situation of imminent death when the
appropriate authority (physician, commander of the military medical facility
concerned, for example), determines that the family’s presence may contribute to the
service member’s health or welfare.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
No similar language. The committee report (p.No language was included.
346-7) notes: “The
committee strongly
believes that service
members who suffer from
serious psychiatric
conditions meet the
seriously injured or
seriously ill threshold
under section 411h of title

37, United States Code,


and that family members
should be afforded travel
and transportation
allowances in accordance
with that section. The
committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to
report to the congressional
defense committees by
June 1, 2008 on the
Department of Defense
policies regarding the
eligibility of family
members of such service
members to receive travel
and transportation
allowances under that
section.”
Discussion: This Senate report language makes no change in law but suggests that
the Secretary of Defense broaden the current travel and transportation policy for
family members of those with serious psychiatric conditions.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.



Limitation on Simultaneous Deployments to
Combat Zones of Dual-Military Couples who have
Minor Dependents
Background: Section 586 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (P.L. 110-181) contains the following provision: “The Secretary of Defense
shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure that an adequate family care plan is
in place for a member of the Armed Forces with minor dependents who is a single
parent or whose spouse is also a member of the Armed Forces when the member may
be deployed in an area for which imminent danger pay is authorized under section
310 of title 37, United States Code. Such procedures should allow the member to
request a deferment of deployment due to unforeseen circumstances, and the request
for such a deferment should be considered and responded to promptly.”
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 596 would removeNo similar provision. No language was included.
the second sentence of the
above cited legislation,
and specify that “In the
case of a member of the
Armed Forces with minor
dependents who has a
spouse who is also a
member of the Armed
Forces, and the spouse is
deployed in an area for
which imminent danger
pay is authorized under
section 310 of title 37,
United States Code, the
member may request a
deferment of a deployment
to such an area until the
spouse returns from such
deployme nt.”
Discussion: Under the change proposed in H.R. 5658, a military member with minor
children who has a spouse already serving in an imminent danger pay area and facing
simultaneous deployment may request a deferment to such an area until the spouse
returns from such a deployment, regardless of the existence, or lack thereof, of
“unforeseen circumstances.”
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.



Sole Surviving Sons and Daughters
Background: The Department of Defense defines sole survivors as the only
remaining son or daughter in a family where the father or mother, or one or more
sons or daughters, while serving in the Armed Forces, was killed, died as a result of
wounds, is captured or missing, or is permanently 100% disabled. Sole survivors may
voluntarily enlist if they waive their right to separation as a sole surviving son or
daughter but may apply for a protective assignment which precludes their assignment
to an overseas area designated as a hostile-fire or imminent danger area. Enlisted
service members who become sole survivors after entering the service may apply for
separation.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
No similar provision.Section 651 authorizesNo language was included,
separation pay, transitionalas similar language was
health care, commissary,included in the Hubbard
and exchange privilegesAct (P.L. 110-317) which
for service membersas enacted on August 29,
voluntarily separated as2008.
surviving sons and
daughters.
Discussion: The administrative discharge of a sole survivor is considered a
voluntary separation. Under current policy, if the separation occurs prior to the
completion of the initial enlistment, there are no benefits associated with the
discharge. Section 651 of the Senate bill would authorize certain benefits, typically
associated with involuntary separations, for sole surviving sons and daughters who
elect to separate.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom,
and Iraqi Freedom: Questions and Answere About U.S. Military Personnel,
Compensation, and Force Structure, by Lawrence Kapp and Charles Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.



Revised Disability Pay Computation Formula for
Reserve Component Personnel Wounded in Action
Background: National Guard and Reserve personnel who qualify for disability
retirement or placement on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) have their
disability retired pay calculated using a formula that factors in “years of service” or
disability rating, whichever is more favorable to the service member. However,
unlike regular component personnel – who are on duty every day of the year and
receive a year of service for each year of duty -- reserve component personnel, who
normally serve part-time, have their years of service calculated using a more complex
formula based on their level of participation. This method sums up a reservist’s3
participation “points” and divides by 360 to produce the number of equivalent years
of active-duty service. Given the less-than-full-time nature of reserve service, this
means that an individual who has been serving in the reserves for 20 years may only
have four or five years of service for retired pay computation purposes.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 641 would amendNo similar provision.No language was included.
10 USC 1208 so that
reserve component
personnel who qualify for
disability retirement or
placement on the TDRL
due to an disability for
which a Purple Heart was
awarded, shall have their
years of service calculated
under 10 USC 12732
rather than 10 USC 12733.
Discussion: Section 641 of H.R. 5658 would have modified the method of
calculating “years of service” for reservists who become eligible for disability
retirement or are placed on the TDRL based on a combat-related injury. Rather than
using the reservist’s participation points to calculate active-duty equivalent years of
service, as is currently done, this provision would have awarded a year of service for
each year in which a reservist met the minimum participation standard of 50 points.
Hence, under this provision, a reservists with 20 qualifying years of reserve service
would have been awarded 20 years of service for his disability retired pay
computation. It would have benefitted some combat-injured reservists, particularly
those with a modest disability rating (30-40%) but many years of reserve service.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues:
Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609.


3 For more information on reserve retirement points, see CRS Report RL30802, p. 14-15.

Searchable Military Decorations Database
Background: The House Committee notes that there have been a number of recent
incidents in which individuals have fraudulently claimed to have been awarded the
Congressional Medal of Honor or other decorations of valor. The committee
believes that false claims reduce the prestige of these decorations and that the valor
of these decorations could be preserved if the general public had access to a
searchable database listing individuals and the decorations for valor they have been
awarded.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
This report languageNo similar provision.No language was included.
directs the Secretary of
Defense to study the
potential for establishing a
searchable database listing
individuals who have been
awarded medals for valor.
Topics considered should
include cost,
administrative challenges,
options of public access,
as well as issues
concerning the privacy of
those listed. The study
should consider the
feasibility of listing
recipients of multiple
valor decorations, but at a
minimum, report the
feasibility of a database
listing only Medal of
Honor recipients. The
Secretary of Defense is
directed to report the
findings and
recommendations to
HASC and SASC by
March 31, 2009.
Discussion: The House bill’s report language is exploratory in nature. It is expected
that this would discourage false claims as such a list would allow for easy
verification of their validity. Such a database may raise privacy issues.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.



Award of the Vietnam Service Medal To Veterans
Who Participated in the Mayaguez Rescue
Operation
Background: On May 12, 1975, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War (approximately
two weeks after the fall of Saigon), a U.S. merchant ship, S.S. Mayaguez, was seized
by the Khmer Rouge Navy. Thirty-nine sailors were captured and taken to the island
of Koh Tang. A rescue operation was mounted and the battle began on May 15. By
most accounts, the result was a failure with four U.S. helicopters shot down or
disabled and 41 Marines killed. Ironically, the number killed outnumbered the
number of sailors captured by the Khmer Rouge. Shortly thereafter, all 39 sailors
were released.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 565 states “TheNo similar provision. No language was included.
Secretary of the military
department concerned
shall, upon application of
an individual who is an
eligible veteran [as
defined], award that
individual the Vietnam
Service Medal,
notwithstanding any
otherwise application
requirements for the award
of that medal. Any such
award shall be made in
lieu of any Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal
awarded the individual for
the individual’s
participation in the
Mayaguez rescue
operation.”
Discussion: This language in H.R. 5658 would authorize the Vietnam Service
Medal for participants in the Mayaguez rescue. It is not clear what other benefits, if
any, would accrue from recognizing these individuals in this manner.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.



Protective Orders
Background: Chapter 80 of Title 10 United States code is concerned with
“Miscellaneous Investigation Requirements and Other Duties.” It includes
provisions concerning complaints of sexual harassment, civilian orders of protection
and domestic violence data.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 552 amendsNo similar provision. Section 561amends
Chapter 80 of Title 10 toChapter 80 of Title 10 to
specify that a protectivespecify that “A military
order issued by a militaryprotective order issued by
commander remains aa military commander
standing order until theshall remain in effect until
incident has been resolvedsuch time as the military
by investigation, courtscommander terminates the
martial or other commandorder or issues a
determined adjudication,replacement order.”
or a new order is issued.
Section 553 amendsNo similar provision.Section 562 amends
Chapter 80 of Title 10 toChapter 80 of Title 10 to
state that if a militarystate that if a military
protective order is issuedprotective order is issued
against a military memberagainst a military member
and any individualand any individual
involved in the order doesinvolved in the order does
not reside on a militarynot reside on a military
installation, theinstallation, the
commander of the militarycommander of the military
installation must notifyinstallation must notify
appropriate civilianappropriate civilian
authorities of the issuanceauthorities of the issuance
of the order, the durationof the order, the
of the order, and theindividuals involved, any
individuals involved.changes to the order, and
termination of the order.
Discussion: The intent of these provisions is to maintain a protective order until it
has been officially resolved and to ensure that civilian authorities are aware of such
orders when the individual(s) involved do not reside on a military installation.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.



*Implementation of Information Database on Sexual
Assault Incidents in the Armed Forces
Background: Over the years reports of sexual assault involving military personnel
have brought about a number of reforms, including changes in the Uniformed Code
of Military Justice, training, and creation of the Defense Incident Based Reporting
System which tracks criminal acts, especially sex crimes, and reports these data to
the Justice Department.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 554 of the HouseNo similar provision. Section 563 adopted the
bill contains languageHouse language with an
requiring the Secretary ofamendment requiring the
Defense to implement aSecretary of Defense to
centralized, case-levelsubmit a report which
database of informationcontains “a description of
regarding sexual assaults. the current status of the
This database builds onDefense Incident-Based
earlier congressionallyReporting System” and an
mandated reportingexplanation of how the
requirements.Defense Incident-Based
Reporting System will
relate to the new sexual
assault database required
by this section.
Discussion: This language would provide more centralized, more detailed and
arguably better reporting of sexual assault incidents in the Armed Forces.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli at x7-8033.



Paternity Leave for Members of the Armed Forces
Background: At present, when a member of the armed forces becomes the father of
a child and wishes to take time off for paternity purposes, he uses his regular leave.
Such leave accumulates at the rate of 2 ½ days per month of active service.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
No similar provision.Section 583 of the SenateSection 532 amends
bill modifies Chapter 40section 701 of Title 10 to
(“Leave”) section 701provide that “Under
(“Entitlement andregulations prescribed by
accumulation”) of Title 10 the Secretary concerned, a
to afford a member of themarried member of the
armed forces who is thearmed forces on active
husband of a woman whoduty whose wife gives
gives birth to a child up tobirth to a child shall
21 days of leave to be usedreceive 10 days of leave to
in connection with thebe used in connection with
birth of the child.the birth of the child.”
Discussion: The language in the final version would provide a new type of leave for
paternity purposes, which would be in addition to the service member’s regular leave.
It would apply only to children born on or after the date of enactment.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033



Presentation of Burial Flag to the Surviving Spouse
and Children of Members of the Armed Forces who
Die in Service
Background: Under 10 USC 1482(a), when a member of the armed forces dies in
service, a burial flag is presented to the person designated to direct disposition of the
remains and to the parents of the service member.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Sec 581 of the HouseSection 641 of the SenateSection 581 amends 10
report would amend 10bill would amend 10 USCUSC 1482 to authorize the
USC 1482 to allow the1482 to allow the ServiceSecretary concerned to pay
Service Secretary to paySecretary to pay thethe expenses necessary to
the expenses necessary toexpenses necessary toprovide a flag to the
provide a ceremonialprovide a ceremonialsurviving spouse of a
burial flag to a survivingburial flag to thedeceased servicemember
spouse (including asurviving spouse(including a remarried
remarried surviving(including a remarriedsurviving spouse), if the
spouse), if the personsurviving spouse), if theperson authorized to direct
authorized to direct theperson authorized to directthe disposition of remains
disposition of remains isthe disposition of remainsis other than the spouse,
other than a spouse. is other than the spouse,and to each surviving
and to each survivingchild.
child.
Discussion: The House and Senate-passed bills both proposed authorizing the
provision of a burial flag to a surviving spouse if someone else is authorized to direct
the disposition of remains; the Senate-passed bill also allowed for providing a flag
to the surviving children of the decedent. The final version of the bill permits a
burial flag to be presented to the surviving spouse and each surviving child.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and Proposals,
by David F. Burrelli and Jennifer Corwell.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.



Secretary of Defense Review of the Deferment from
Deployment Policy following the Birth of a Child
Background: Current DOD policy requires a minimum of four months following
the birth of a child before a military mother can be assigned to a dependent-restricted
or unaccompanied tour. The Secretary of the military department has the authority
to extend that time. The Army and the Air Force provide a minimum of four months,
while the Marine Corps defers for six months and the Navy for up to one year.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
No similar provision.The committee report (p.No language was included.
341) directs the Secretary
of Defense to review the
policies concerning such
deployments. The review
shall take into account
readiness, recruitment and
retention of female service
members, and consider
differing deployment and
manpower needs, family
care plans, psychological
readiness of the member
for deployment, and
personal hardship (such as
a newborn with special
medical needs). The
Secretary is directed to
contact outside experts.
The committee directs the
Secretary to report to
HASC and SASC by May
1, 2009
Discussion: The Senate report directs the Secretary of Defense to describe changes
to DOD or service policies as the result of this review.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli at x7-8033.



Effect of Termination of Subsequent Marriage on
Payment of Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity to
Surviving Spouse or Former Spouse who
Previously Transferred Annuity to Dependent
Children
Background: The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides annuities to the surviving
spouse, children, former spouse, or spouse/former spouse and children. If a spouse
or former spouse remarries before age 55, SBP annuities cease. Children remain
eligible until age 18 or 22, if a full-time student. An eligible child who marries loses
SBP. If a spouse is eligible to receive benefits under the Veterans Affairs
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), the SBP is offset or reduced on a
dollar- for-dollar basis. A surviving spouse of a service member killed in the line of
duty is eligible to receive both SBP and DIC. To avoid the offset, Congress allowed
survivors in this example to designate their children as SBP beneficiaries, allowing
the surviving spouse to receive VA’s DIC.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 642 would amendNo similar provision. No language was included.
10 USC 1450(b)(3) by
adding this sentence at the
end: “The payment of an
annuity to a surviving
spouse or former spouse
under this paragraph shall
be resumed even though
the surviving spouse or
former spouse previously
transferred the annuity to a
child or children under
section 1448(d)(2)(B) of
this title if, when the
marriage is so terminated,
the child or children, due
to loss of dependent status,
death, or other cause, are
no longer eligible for the
annuity under such
section.’‘
Discussion: Essentially, this House language would return eligibility for SBP to a
surviving spouse or former spouse, who allowed the dependent child or children to
be designated as SBP beneficiaries to avoid the SBP/DIC offset, following the
termination of the remarriage and the end of eligibility for the child or children.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A
Description of Its Provisions, by David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.



*Extension to Survivors of Certain Members who
Die on Active Duty of Special Survivor Indemnity
Allowance for Persons Affected by Required
Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
Background: A Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) eligible spouse who is eligible for
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation will have his or her SBP reduced or offset
on a dollar-for-dollar basis by Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (see
previous page). For certain beneficiaries affected by the offset, section 644 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, created a new survivor
indemnity allowance to be paid to survivors of service members who are entitled to
retired pay, or would be entitled to reserve component retired pay but for the fact they
were not yet 60 years of age. This monthly allowance, effective October 1, 2008,
would be $50, and would increase annually by $10 through FY2013.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 643 would extendNo similar provision.Section 631 adopts the
the special survivor House provision.
indemnity allowance for
offset-effected survivors
of active duty members.
Note: This special
survivor indemnity
allowance is an additional
benefit and does not
represent a repeal of the
SBP/DIC offset.
Discussion: This final version of S. 3001 provides additional benefits to offset-
affected survivors of active duty service members.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A
Description of Its Provisions, by David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.



Enhanced Enforcement of Prohibition on Sale or
Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on Military
Installations
Background: The National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (P.L. 104-201,
September 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2489) contained language that prohibited the sale of
sexually explicit material on military installations. An eight-member board (Resale
Activities Board of Review) was established to review materials for resale. Once the
board determined that an item was ‘sexually explicit,’ it was removed and not
available for resale or rental on military installations. The review board reviewed
473 titles in 1998 and determined 319 to be sexually explicit. In May, 2006, the
board reversed its decision with regard to Playgirl and Penthouse. A Christian group
(Alliance Defense Fund) wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
protesting the sale of these and other items.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 654 would amendNo similar provision. Section 642 adopts the

10 USC 2495b to establishHouse language.


a new nine-member
“Resale Activities Review
Board” not later than 120
days after the enactment of
this act. The Board would
be required to meet within
one year after the date of
appointment and may
consider all materials
previously reviewed.
Discussion: The House language would re-establish the existing review board and
modifies its composition. Its intent grew out of efforts to ban particular items for
rental or resale. This provision was included in the final version.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.



Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC)
Background: JROTC is a federal program sponsored by the Armed Forces in high
schools to instill the values of citizenship, service to the nation, personal
responsibility and a sense of accomplishment. Current law does not establish a
minimum or maximum number of JROTC programs for the Department of Defense
or the Services.4 However, there are approximately 3,300 JROTC units currently
operating in high schools and overseas in the Department of Defense School System.
Original House-passedOriginal Senate-passedFinal version
version (H.R. 5658)version (S. 3001)(S. 3001)
Section 547 supports theNo similar provision.Section 548 authorizes the
expansion of JROTC toexpansion of JROTC to

4,000 units by 2020. It3,700 units by 2020.


also requires DOD toRequires the Secretary of
submit a report to theDefense to submit a report
defense committees byto the defense committees
March 31, 2009 on howby March 31, 2009 on how
the services will achievethe services will achieve
this goal. this goal.
Discussion: JROTC was created in 1916 and the program has been expanded several
times. While generally viewed as a positive influence on high school youth, some
have criticized the program as a military recruiting tool for the Services or a program
that tends to militarize schools.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-8866.


4 In 1992, Congress established the maximum number of JROTC units at 3,500. However,
this statutory limit was rescinded by Section 534 of the FY2001 National Defense
Authorization Act.