This article is a bit long. And it\u2019s probably going to p!ss off a few folks.<\/p>\n
However, I don\u2019t much care if it does. I\u2019m fed up with a particular problem, and I\u2019m going to vent.<\/p>\n
And I\u2019m also going to identify a way to fix the problem.<\/p>\n
Introduction: Stolen Valor (and More) at VSOs<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t think that anyone would dispute the fact that there is a serious problem in Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs). If anyone doubts this I invite them to take a look at this short list of \u201cstellar individuals\u201d \u2013 which only scratches the surface of this type of sh!tbaggery:<\/p>\n All were frauds in one respect or another. Many claimed honors they simply didn\u2019t rate or experience\/service they simply didn\u2019t have. Some didn\u2019t qualify for VSO membership at all. At least two of them turned out to be thieves of more than valor – one stole from fellow vets, while the other apparently stole from his own family.<\/p>\n (Note: I\u2019m not singling out VFW or the American Legion here. I\u2019m certain there are sh!tbags in other VSOs who are just as fraudulent as the above Nasty Nine. But as far as I can tell, we haven\u2019t busted any of those here at TAH.)<\/em><\/p>\n As I said:\u00a0 this list only scratches the surface. And don\u2019t even get me started about the fakes we’ve seen in Motorcycle Clubs<\/a> or other organizations<\/a>.<\/p>\n The common factor for all of these walking anal orifices? Besides the fact that they\u2019re all sh!tbags of the first order, they managed to join their VSO and\/or make their claims because either (1) they were never asked to provide proof, or (2) they provided fake docs. Except in the case of Boyer, I rather doubt their local post\/chapter members knew they were \u201crockin\u2019 the lie\u201d and gave them a pass. And as longtime TAH readers know, Boyer\u2019s case is somewhat different from most. (smile)<\/p>\n In short, the situation is SNAFU – but not FUBAR.\u00a0 What I\u2019m going to do is tell our VSOs (and any other organization that needs to verify military service) how they can un-f**k the current situation and fix the problem. The solution is simple, affordable, and is implementable within two to three years.<\/p>\n It can happen. But it won\u2019t happen unless the VSO membership at large demands it.<\/p>\n The Source of the Problem<\/span><\/p>\n The source of the problem, IMO, is simple: the VSOs trust applicants. They accept documentation provided by applicants as Gospel truth, without any form of independent verification.<\/p>\n Years ago, that worked. First, there really was no choice. Independent verification really wasn\u2019t possible right after World War II or the Korean War. And even during Vietnam, the process wasn\u2019t all that readily available or well-known.<\/p>\n Moreover, fake documents were easier to spot. Photocopiers were just not that common until after Vietnam, nor were they as good as they are today. Also, the documentation issued as proof of having served in the military (the DD 214) was until fairly recently produced on multipart forms. More people had served, so there were many who knew what \u201cright looked like\u201d.<\/p>\n The situation today is different. DD 214s are printed on plain paper, on a laser printer. They no longer have physical signatures. And there are reputedly numerous ways to produce or acquire fake documents.<\/p>\n In short:\u00a0 accepting documents today directly from an applicant is now a crapshoot. A knowledgeable faker can produce or acquire passable fake docs – legality be damned. And at the same time, because fewer serve today fewer folks are around who know what \u201cright looks like\u201d when it comes to military separation documents.<\/p>\n A Possible Fix<\/span><\/p>\n The fix is simple. VSOs must quit freaking accepting documentation provided directly by individuals as documentation of eligibility<\/em> \u2013 now. It\u2019s simply too easy for unscrupulous individuals to fabricate or otherwise acquire passable fake documents regarding service, awards, qualifications, and the like.<\/p>\n This brings up a legitimate question: how in the world will VSOs verify eligibility for membership?<\/p>\n Fair question. However, there\u2019s a simple way to do that. Require the documents proving eligibility to be sent directly to the VSO post\/chapter from official sources. That greatly reduces the opportunity for fraud.<\/p>\n How to Verify – With Trust<\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s the procedure a VSO would need to use to accomplish the above.<\/p>\n Step 1<\/em>: at your next National Convention, adopt changes to your constitution requiring the following:<\/p>\n a. All members must provide proof of eligibility for membership.<\/p>\n b. Documents verifying membership eligibility will not be accepted directly from individuals. They must be received from official sources.<\/p>\n c. Membership shall be provisional until such time as documentation is received from official sources verifying the applicant\u2019s eligibility.<\/p>\n d. Items a-c above apply to current members as well. Current members shall be retained as full members until such time as their proof of eligibility is received from official sources. On receipt, it will be reviewed. If they are found to be ineligible, their membership shall be immediately revoked.<\/p>\n e. All membership revocations will be immediately reported to the VSOs national headquarters.<\/p>\n f. Items a-c will be implemented immediately. Items d. and e. shall be completed within two years.<\/p>\n g. Any posts\/chapters not complying with a-f shall have their post\/chapter charter revoked.<\/p>\n Step 2<\/em>: Implement the following at post\/chapter level.<\/p>\n a. Require all current members to sign a SF180 allowing release of unredacted copies of all their DD 214s and DD 215s (or, for World War II veterans, the equivalent documents) to the VSO post\/chapter. (The unredacted documents are required to guard against the possibility of error due to a name collision and for those VSOs requiring service characterized as honorable.)\u00a0 For those currently still serving, require a memo from their military personnel office verifying eligibility to be sent directly to the VSO.<\/p>\n b. Require the same of new applicants.<\/p>\n c. Establish a suspense tracking file for both current members and new applicants.<\/p>\n d. New applicants applying are provisional members until such time as their proof of eligibility is received from official sources.<\/p>\n e. Existing members are retained if documentation received shows they are eligible. If it does not, they are dismissed from the organization.<\/p>\n Appropriate appeals and\/or “reclama” processes will also need to be developed, as on rare occasion NPRC \u201cscrews the pooch\u201d. But that\u2019s frankly the easy part. Getting the above implemented is the \u201cbiggie\u201d.<\/p>\n Funding Verification<\/span><\/p>\n Funding this initiative would be very simple. A records request \u2013 whether a FOIA or a limited authorized release \u2013 typically costs the sender less than a dollar. The cost is for a first-class stamp; an envelope; a sheet or two of paper; and the cost of printing that sheet or two of paper.<\/p>\n There\u2019s really little additional cost. The only ones I can possibly think of is the additional time needed to (1) mail the request, and (2) maintaining the suspense file for members in probationary status while they are awaiting a reply from NPRC.\u00a0 And most if not all of that is unpaid volunteer time, since I’m relatively certain that most VSO post\/chapter officers serve as volunteers.<\/p>\n There is no additional cost for reviewing the documents received from official sources. The VSO would presumably do that anyway, whether the documents were received from the individual or via mail.<\/p>\n On rare occasions, a follow-up request might need to be submitted. That would also be covered by the funding method I describe.<\/p>\n Bottom line: for most posts, annual monetary costs for verification should be the cost of (1) a roll of stamps, (2) a box of 100 envelopes, (3) a ream of paper, and (4) some printer ink\/toner. Let\u2019s say $75 per year to be generous.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s how to fund the verification. There are two options.<\/p>\n Option 1:<\/em> raise the local post portion of the VSO post\u2019s dues by $1 annually.\u00a0 Put the extra $1 per member into a separate fund earmarked to fund verification activities. Any surplus above $75 at the end of the year would go to the post\u2019s general fund.<\/p>\n Option 2<\/em>: create a separate fund for verification activities. Assess each applicant a $1 non-refundable fee to fund those verification activities. Any surplus above $75 at the end of the year would go to the post\u2019s general fund.<\/p>\n One-time verification of existing members would be funded by a special, one-time verification fee of $1, assessed to each member. The proceeds from this collection would go into the verification fund noted above. (This would IMO probably also give an \u201cearly warning\u201d of who might be \u201cdirty\u201d, as I\u2019m relatively certain they\u2019ll be among those complaining loudly and publicly about having to cough up $1 for independent verification of their qualifications.)<\/p>\n Possible Objections and Their Counters<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, this isn’t an exhaustive list.\u00a0 But I think these will be the most common objections.\u00a0 So I’ve presented them here, along with suggested (and in some cases, somewhat smartassed) answers for each.<\/p>\n Objection 1<\/em>: \u201cWhat, don\u2019t you trust me?\u201d<\/p>\n Answer (to new applicants): \u201cWe don\u2019t know you from Adam (or Eve, depending on the applicant\u2019s gender). Why the hell should we trust you, given the number of fakes out there?\u201d<\/p>\n Answer (to existing members): \u201cSadly, we can\u2019t. We\u2019ve found too many fakes, some of whom were in leadership positions and\/or who scammed their posts\/chapters. Sorry, but we need to do a one-time mass verification to root out fakers.\u201d<\/p>\n Objection 2<\/em>: \u201cThat violates my privacy! You can\u2019t ask me to do that – it\u2019s against the law!\u201d<\/p>\n Answer: \u201cUm, no it doesn\u2019t, and it isn’t. Membership in (whatever VSO) is voluntary. The Privacy Act\u2019s restrictions don\u2019t in general apply to private organizations, anyway. Besides, this is no different than applying for a loan. Try doing that without answering their<\/em> questions and see how far that gets you.\u201d<\/p>\n Objection 3<\/em>: \u201cThis is a solution to a problem that doesn\u2019t exist!\u201d or \u201cThis isn\u2019t necessary!\u201d<\/p>\n Answer: \u201cNice to meet you, Pollyanna. Now, welcome to the real world. Yeah, the problem exists and this is indeed necessary. See TAH for literally dozens of examples. Now, do you want to be a member or not?\u201d<\/p>\n Objection 4<\/em>: \u201cHow do I know you\u2019ll keep my info private?\u201d<\/p>\n Answer: \u201cWell, you were willing to give us a copy of your DD 214 before, which contains the same info. The NPRC already has your info on file. Why are you objecting to asking for the same info from official sources that you were willing to give us yourself a few minutes ago?\u201d<\/p>\n Objection 5<\/em>: \u201cThis is an outrage!\u201d<\/p>\n Answer: \u201cSo is Stolen Valor. Which you wanna be: part of the solution, or part of the problem?\u201d<\/p>\n Objection 6<\/em>: \u201cI\u2019m calling my Congressman!\u201d<\/p>\n Answer: \u201cWant his address and phone number? I kinda doubt he\u2019s going on the record as favoring helping someone commit Stolen Valor. But maybe I\u2019m wrong. Knock yourself out.\u201d<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/span><\/p>\n The above isn’t perfect; it will doubtless need a few tweaks.\u00a0 As I noted above, some kind of appeals process will almost certainly be necessary, if for not other reason than to account for potential government error.\u00a0 And a second similar piece will be needed for VSOs (like DAV) that require proof of disability – though a simple letter from the individual requesting the standard VA disability letter be mailed directly to the VSO requiring same should be all that’s required in such cases.<\/p>\n But there’s also no doubt in my mind that this – with possibly a few mods – will<\/em> work. And while it won\u2019t completely fix the problem, it will reduce it by multiple orders of magnitude.<\/p>\n But I\u2019m still not holding my breath.<\/p>\n Why? Because as the old saying goes \u2013 \u201cMoney talks; BS walks\u201d. And maybe I\u2019m just getting old and cynical, but I doubt any of the VSOs want to chance seeing a big chunk of their membership walk.<\/p>\n Because if that chunk walks, not only does their BS walk. So does their dues money.<\/p>\n . . . <\/strong><\/p>\n OK, I\u2019m getting down off the soapbox now. Fire away!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n