Marine Corps News, news from Iraq - Marine Corps Times

Brief war zone visits come under scrutiny

Sensing possible fraud but not knowing how to stop it, the House Armed Services Committee is demanding that the Pentagon come up with new rules to prevent people from receiving fringe benefits from short visits to a combat zone.

In its report accompanying the 2008 defense authorization bill, the committee says it is “concerned” that some service members are making short trips into the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones just for the benefits — which include danger pay and federal tax exemption on their monthly income.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, the lawmaker behind the order, said he hopes to separately launch a congressional investigation into what he views as cheating that makes a “mockery of the people who are really in a war zone and really facing danger.”

“There are people out there being shot at every day,” Abercrombie said. “I am talking here about honor. How much is your honor worth? If you went in a combat zone just for the pay on a made-up mission, it is not the same as being in a combat zone.”

The committee report agrees. “The committee believes that this practice should be curtailed and the entitlement to imminent danger pay be restructured to provide for payment on a day-to-day basis or after a minimum period of service at an authorized location,” the report says.

Abercrombie hopes the change would stop abuse of the system. “We have got to get this straightened out,” he said.

A report with recommendations on how to change the law would be required by March 31, 2008, which would be in time for inclusion in the 2009 defense bill.

Demand for action extends only to the $225 per month in danger pay, which may not discourage visits to a combat zone for the potentially lucrative tax breaks. But Abercrombie said he wants to tackle one thing at a time.

Danger pay, also called combat pay or hostile fire pay, was created in 1952 during the Korean War. From the beginning, the full monthly payment was available to anyone who spent any part of the month — even just seconds — in a designated danger zone, whether on the ground, in the water or in the airspace over the designated zone.

Over the years, there has been talk of shifting to a daily instead of monthly rate, but full monthly payments have remained because military officials decided that someone in a danger zone for even a brief period still faces a risk. They also worried that a daily rate might encourage units to stretch out operations just to make more money.

A Government Accountability Office report on this issue last October said the Defense Department has been reluctant to restrict travel to a war zone because of difficulties in setting a concise standard for when travel is warranted.

Combatant commands are responsible for controlling travel into their areas, and have policies to prevent unjustified travel, defense officials said in a written response to the report.

Two reasons for asking

House lawmakers had two reasons for asking for the Pentagon’s recommendations before acting, said sources involved in the discussions.

One is a concern that changing the policy on danger pay in the midst of war is politically risky, as lawmakers want to be careful not to inadvertently reduce pay for anyone who truly faces a risk of danger. Some lawmakers on the committee also believe paying an extra $225 in danger pay and providing tax breaks is a good way to boost morale.

The value of combat-zone federal tax exclusions vary, depending on the individual. Enlisted members and warrant officers pay no federal income tax on their military pay if they have been in a combat zone. Officers receive a tax exemption on basic pay up to $6,867.60 a month for 2007, and pay taxes on anything above that amount, according to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

The GAO report last October tried to get a handle on the number of questionable trips into the combat zone by looking at short visits that spanned two months, qualifying the service member for two months of tax exclusions and danger pay.

Investigators could not find any outright fraud, but in reviewing three years of travel vouchers, they found about 1,576 short trips spanning over two months, most for less than two weeks and some for only two days.

Most of the questionable trips were made by Army and Air Force members, auditors said. Congressional sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the review did not cover Navy ships making brief travels through combat-zone waters because ships’ crews do not file travel vouchers. Only a review of ships’ logs would show when and for how long a ship sailed through a combat zone, and could reveal if there has been abuse.

Abercrombie has asked Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the House Armed Services Committee chairman, to assign the oversight and investigation subcommittee to look at fraudulent trips into a combat zone. It will likely ask GAO for help, he said.

Abercrombie said he knows there is a problem, but not how large it might be. “Clearly, there is a culture thing here where some people don’t see this as wrong, but it is wrong. I know what is cheating and what isn’t. This is cheating.”