New GI Bill a Boon for (Most) Veterans
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a vast improvement over its predecessor, though not entirely flawless.
A new educational benefit for veterans kicked in at the beginning of this month, marking the first time since 1984’s revamping of the Montgomery GI Bill that Congress has acted to improve education opportunities for servicemen and women after separation.
This new program, known as the Post-9/11 GI Bill, is exclusively available to military veterans (and the dependents of veterans) who served on or after September 11, 2001. Sponsored in the Senate last year by former Navy Secretary and current Virginia Democrat Jim Webb, the “Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act” (S.22) rewrote and rebuilt the entire veterans’ educational benefit structure.
Under the Post-9/11 program, the buy-in formerly required of enlistees, who had to pay $1,200 over the course of their first 12 months in service in order to be eligible for up to $36,000 in monetary benefits, is eliminated. A $1,200 annual allowance for books and supplies has been added to the program, as has a generous housing allowance that is based on the Basic Allowance for Housing earned by an active duty E-5 (with dependents) and can reach up to $3,000 a month in tax-free cash.
Further, the Post-9/11 program moves veterans’ education benefits away from the Montgomery GI Bill modus operandi of shoehorning every student-veteran into a one-size-fits-all monthly benefit payment plan. Under the previous GI Bill, which is being phased out with the debut of the Post-9/11 benefit, a student was paid a set dollar amount per month depending on the number of credit hours taken in that month, with the maximum amount being received if the servicemember was considered a “full-time student” (enrolled in 12 or more semester hours).
This inflexibility created difficulty for many students. For example, those who took courses in the summer (when, due to the compressed schedule, a full course load is considered six hours by institutions, rather than 12) were only given credit for half-time enrollment and paid accordingly during those months. This resulted in beneficiaries’ real income being slashed, as enrolling in a full course load in the summer meant that months of benefit (which was capped at 36) were used at a less than full-time rate, resulting in overall benefit money being left on the table.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill changes this entirely, altering the program to entirely cover tuition and fees at any college or university at a level up to that state’s highest undergraduate public school rate. Under this program, payments will be made directly to the institution by the Department of Veterans Affairs, rather than monthly checks being sent to the beneficiary for deposit and use.
This will make life easier for veterans in most states — especially those states which have not worked to keep tuition or fees down at their most expensive public schools. In Texas, for example, veterans of the post-9/11 military are eligible to enroll at schools that charge up to $1,471 per credit hour at no additional charge to themselves, meaning veterans going back to school in the Lone Star State will not have as much trouble paying for private school education as they would in states whose public colleges have kept costs down. In Wisconsin, that number is capped at $663.00 per hour, but out-of-control fees are no object for student-veterans, as the GI Bill will cover those up to $30,979 per term.
Veterans returning to school in states whose colleges and universities have kept costs under control, on the other hand, are by and large limited to public schools for continuing education, even if they have the aptitude to be accepted by a private college. Massachusetts, for example, boasts four prestigious private institutions of higher learning in the Boston area alone, but with the public schools around Harvard, MIT, et al having kept tuition rates low, the maximum rate per credit hour that the Post-9/11 GI Bill will pay for Massachusetts veterans is $71.50. In Harvard square, that’s about enough money to get you a cup of coffee and a Harvard Crimson baseball cap — not to continue or complete a higher education.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a columnist, a Pulitzer-nominated combat journalist, and a director emeritus of conservative weblog RedState.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
15 Comments
1. Don:The GI bill needed improving, but still it’s not up to the standard that the pre 77′ GI bill set. An unintended consequence of the new bill is it’s lack of focus on the vocational side of post military education. For some college is the path, for others . . . they aspire to be the best electronics technicians, best mechanics, best truck drivers . . . etc. The new bill makes it more difficult to use these funds for vocational training. Bottom line is we are obligated to set up all of our own for success; success in combat, success in transition. This bill rewarded institutions focused strictly on academia, and adversely affected institutions focused on career training. Those of us committed to getting as many of these obligated people as possible squared away as they transition will find a way to make the new bill do the most for the most, as written it does not.
Improvise, adapt and overcome
Aug 19, 2009 - 5:18 am 2. SGT Ted:The biggest flaw in this new GI Bill is that it does not cover trade schools. Yea, we’ll pay for you to get a degree that may require you to say “would you like Biggy Fries with that?” after graduation, but pay to become a mechanic or HVAC repairman? no way!
Aug 19, 2009 - 5:38 am 3. MarkD:The pre 1977 bill was good. Not so good that I could have afforded to be a married, full time student at a private university, but good enough to let me work full time and finish at night without forcing me to borrow the money.
I figure I earned for that benefit, since I was paid a princely $128.50 a month as an E-1. That wasn’t even half of the minimum wage at the time.
Aug 19, 2009 - 6:29 am 4. sassenach:You are making a very big assumption by equating the cost of a particular college with the quality of the education it delivers.
Our post-9/11 veterans are America’s next “greatest generation.” If the cost of a Harvard education is out of reach, that is Harvard’s loss, not the veteran’s.
Aug 19, 2009 - 7:08 am 5. CPO Mack:I can’t stress enough the benefit of the new provision to transfer to a spouse or child(ren). I earned my BS from active duty tuition assistance and a state veteran’s grant, leaving much of my MGIB money on the table. With this new era, I can transfer that to my wife, who has also served supporting my career and multiple moves. Now, she can go to graduate school while I’m away on another deployment, increasing her earning potential for both of us.
Another scenario is when a service member puts in their 20 years, and either already earned their degree or experience in a trade, and can now use their MGIB for children.
Aug 19, 2009 - 10:44 am 6. jimpres:My only problem with the pre 1977 bill was they excluded the time I spent in the service. No wars were started
Aug 19, 2009 - 10:51 am 7. myth buster:I think the reason they don’t cover trade schools is because Congress is under the impression that they would be redundant- that MOS training takes the place of trade schools, so a vet should already be qualified in a trade related to their MOS. As for the McJobs bit, I doubt most veterans would have to worry about that. Vets tend to have enough sense to choose majors that are practical. I know two guys in my major-nuclear engineering- are on GI bill scholarships. The entire department is only about 120 undergrads. Besides, employers have common sense, too. The military throws a lot of responsibility at you really fast, so an honorably discharged vet has proven himself to be an effective leader and someone who can work under pressure. Employers like that.
Aug 19, 2009 - 11:23 am 8. Larry J:I think the reason they don’t cover trade schools is because Congress is under the impression that they would be redundant- that MOS training takes the place of trade schools, so a vet should already be qualified in a trade related to their MOS.
That’s fine if a servicemember’s military job has a civilian equivalent. However, there are a lot of military jobs that don’t exist in the civilian sector. Jobs like infantryman, artillery, and tank driver quickly come to mind. Military personnel might also find they want to do something different after leaving the service. They should have the option to go for vocational training if they wish. They’ve certainly earned that right.
Aug 19, 2009 - 4:03 pm 9. tommyd:I think allowing trade schools is needed. That is just a fact in todays world.
I also believe that there should be a benefit that if any service person is killed in the line of duty that his children should be given a college education in the service members home state at a State University.
Aug 19, 2009 - 6:50 pm 10. JR Janaburg:Used my Viet Nam Era GI Bill back in the 70’s. Returned to the army, did Just Cause, Desert Storm, OEF, Joint Forge and OIF. VA says the new bill will only cover the six months of unused portion of my former entitlement. Grad school may just be a dream. Make sure you read the fine print.
Luck in Battle
Aug 19, 2009 - 9:01 pm 11. SGT Ted:Most MOS training in tech fields does NOT credential you for immediate transition to civilian work. I’ve served 26 years as Military Police and I would have to go thru an entry level civilian police academy to get a job as a cop; and, get this, IF I went thru a police academy today, the new GI BIll would not cover the expense, because academies do NOT produce a diploma bearing degree.
Most ground vehicle mechanics are NOT ASE certified. Trade school access is a MUST for the new GI Bill or there will be large numbers of people not able to use their benefits unless they go to a college. Now, not long ago, many JCs offered trade programs. Most of those programs are gone, due to the money being in transfer students taking thier gen ed.
Aug 20, 2009 - 5:49 am 12. Ken:For the record, “full time” for summer is five credits. I just finished two summer coursed and got paid the full rate under the pre-existing GI Bill. So there is no change in income during the summer.
The BAH provision ends up being a real bone job for those of us who are on Active Duty. We don’t get paid the BAH twice, which makes sense. However, that stipend is a major part of the compensation package that was budgeted and on which all the calculations were made. When it’s removed, the new bill pays significantly less than the former GI Bill, especially since we lose the top-up that we paid for. Also, if we’re in a commissioning program, we lose Tuition Assistance, so that doesn’t offset the drop in compensation.
For my final year at Virginia Tech, I’m sticking with the old-school GI Bill. The new one just makes no sense for me. If the new bill paid the same to every veteran going to a certain school (based, of course, on time served), it would be a great program. But, as it is, when I get about 40% cut out because I chose to return to the service, it doesn’t cut it.
Aug 21, 2009 - 7:38 am 13. Dave K.:So socialism is OK as long as it’s for veterans?
Aug 21, 2009 - 8:23 pm 14. Peter Montbriand:Nice disconnect there.
Dave, I agree. We should simply pay active duty men and women a great deal more and eliminate post service bennies, save for health care for wounded vets. Let the vets save for post service items with a larger paycheck.
Aug 22, 2009 - 1:33 am 15. Ken:It’s not socialism. It’s part of our compensation package. You know, for services rendered? Peter’s option isn’t a bad alternative (actually, probably better for the serviceman, since it lets them decide how to structure their finances). But, in the end, it accomplishes the same thing. Thus it’s not a question of socialism vs. liberty, but how we attract, retain, and compensate those who fight for their country.
Aug 22, 2009 - 9:10 am