Families protest DoD personal effects policy - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

Families protest DoD personal effects policy

Elaine Farren was given the American flag draped over her Marine son’s coffin.

She was handed his Purple Heart. And as Lance Cpl. Roger Hager’s primary beneficiary, she’s getting his life insurance payout, too, worth about $400,000.

But Farren did not receive what she wants most: her son’s personal effects.

Hager, a small arms repairman assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., was killed July 8 along with Master Sgt. John Hayes when a roadside bomb blast ripped through their Humvee in southern Afghanistan. He did not have a will — and he did not identify Farren as his primary next of kin before he deployed in April — so the Defense Department sent the 20-year-old’s clothing and other belongings to his father, from whom his mother has been estranged for years.

Under the Pentagon’s policy, personal effects go to the oldest parent if the deceased service member has no spouse or children. In Hager’s case, that’s his dad. Further, “any question of title or ownership must be determined by agreement among the interested parties or ... the civil courts in the state” where the service member lived, it states.

Farren was outraged — but not alone. She joins several other parents whose anguish over the loss of their loved ones has been exacerbated by a policy they deem cruel and unfair.

“It destroyed me,” said Farren, of Gibsonville, N.C. “You take my son, now you take my son’s stuff. Money ... can’t replace the stuff he enjoyed.”

Hager’s things now in the possession of his father, Darrell Graves, include a plasma-screen TV, an Xbox, a laptop, letters penned by his mother and sister, and necklaces he bought for them in Ireland during a layover on his way to Afghanistan. Before he deployed, Hager was told he had to list both parents’ names on his Record of Emergency Data, Farren said, which the military uses to notify next-of-kin when a service member is killed, wounded or missing.

Farren and Graves never married, and when Hager was born, Graves’ name was not included on his birth certificate, Farren said. She gained sole custody in 1994.

Graves, who lives in Shelbyville, Tenn., attended Hager’s funeral, but the last time he saw his son was about six years ago, Farren said. Efforts to contact him were unsuccessful.

Farren was appointed the administrator of her son’s estate in August and has begun legal proceedings to retain her son’s belongings. She said she is willing to leave some of her son’s things with his father, but she is determined to get his dress blue uniform, one set of Charlies and cammies, his wallet, the private letters she and Hager’s siblings sent him, and the things he cherished most, including his video games.

She has hired an attorney, who sent a letter to Hager’s father saying he was temporarily given Hager’s things and that “now North Carolina civil law controls their disposition.” Farren said she’s waiting to see if Hager’s father will comply.

“I’m not giving up,” she said. “I can’t give up.”

‘Tough conversations’

Variations of this Defense Department policy have been in place since at least 1991, said Army Lt. Col. Les’ Melnyk, a Pentagon spokesman. Congress has not specified who should receive personal effects when a service member dies, so military officials decided to make age the determining factor, Melnyk said.

Family disputes, he said, are nothing new. In fact, “there have been several cases where one parent disagrees with how the recipient of personal effects was determined.”

There are no plans to change the policy, Melnyk said, but the Pentagon’s casualty advisory board is “discussing other options that could be used in place of ‘age’ being the deciding factor in some cases.” No specific recommendations have been made, he said.

Kelly Hruska, a deputy director at the National Military Family Association, an advocacy group, said her organization encourages families to have “tough conversations” with their service member because, ultimately, it’s that person’s responsibility to tie up loose ends before a deployment.

“Family relationships are very complex today, but because of that, there does need to be some kind of policy in place,” she said.

But Farren, who has appealed to members of Congress and the White House, says the existing policy discriminates against a person’s age and should be changed. Two Republican lawmakers from North Carolina — Sen. Richard Burr and Rep. Howard Coble — are looking into the matter.

Burr’s office does not discuss open investigations involving constituents, a spokeswoman said. Coble’s office is seeking more information from the Marine Corps.

DISCUSS: This story