Mailing Property During Your Deployment

From souvenirs to additional equipment, it is surprising just how much “stuff” service members acquire during their deployment. Most service members, after spending a year in a deployed environment, will accumulate a tremendous amount of property. I was surprised at how much “stuff” I had acquired after only being in Kuwait for 1 year. It should then come as no surprise that after spending two years in the desert, I pretty much amassed a small museum of artifacts and items that I had picked up along my travels throughout the Middle East.

The question that comes up often among service members deals with shipping personnel property back home. The answer is not as simple as one might think. Making a hasty decision could cost you hundred dollars in unnecessary packaging and shipping expenses at the post office. All too often service members will pay hundreds of dollars to ship their items home. However, there is an avenue of shipping your personnel property home that cost nothing.

The Central Receiving and Shipping Point or “CRSP Yard” as it has come to be known in some circles is a great opportunity for service members to ship large amounts of personnel property home at no cost. Well actually the items are not sent to your home but to a military center closet to your home. From there, you must retrieve the items.

You may ask yourself why do this when all you may want to do is put everything in your unit designated “conex”? That may be an option; however, most unit conexs have to be packed for shipment as much as 45 days prior to the unit departing from theater. Most importantly not all deployed service members will return to the home station of the unit they deployed with.

As an example, when I was deployed in 2006, I was considered an Individual Agmentee (IA). My Reserve Unit was a unit in Michigan but my deploying unit, with whom I had no previously relationship with, was in South Carolina. Sending my personnel items in the Unit conex of the South Carolina unit would make no sense as I live in Michigan and that is were I would return. Also, the unit I deployed with left a year prior to my redeployment in 2008.

Shipping my property through the Central Shipping and Receiving Point or “CRSP Yard” was the perfect choice for me. However, it is important to point out that you will still have the restriction on items sent in the mail in much the same way as you would at the post office. For example you will not be able to mail back hazardous material, weapons, or classified material in most cases.

Arrangements may have to be made for customs agents to inspect your shipment prior to mailing. However, if you are willing to undergo a few minor inconvenaces, the “CRSP Yard” may be the way to go when shipping personnel property home.

Selecting a "Deployment Friendly" bank

One of the most important decision a service member can make prior to deployment is the selection of a financial institution. Selecting a good financial institution is very important as there are many things to consider relating to financial transaction during your deployment. Some things to consider include, ease of use, the ability to make wire transfer and accessing your bank account online just to name a few things.

It is important that you shop around for a financial institution that knows how the military functions and if possible provides benefits for servicemembers at reduced cost. There are quite a few such financial institutions out there. In my book I give examples of what to look for in selecting a financial institution to handle not only your financial matters and transactions but other money matters as well. These may include personal and property insurance as well as investing and setting up a brokerage account.

You will be certain to find ways to save money after reading the section of my book titled Selecting a Financial Institution. I will also give you my top pick!

What happens when you receive your deployment orders...

The sequence of events on September 11, 2001 changed America forever. On this day, The United States of America lost its innocence. The land of the free was no longer as free as it once was. Open and free travel no longer seemed as open and free following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Subsequently, America soon found itself at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of service members needed to adequately fight this war was tremendous. The number of service members on active duty was not enough to engage in effective combat. As such, the burden to pick up the slack fell upon the Reserve and National Guard forces of our military. Not in recent memory has there been a greater number of service members deployed conus or oconus. From a military development standpoint, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provoked the number of deployments to grow substantially. Since September 11, 2001, over 1.7 million service members have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Operation Enduring Freedom’s military focus is on securing the nation of Afghanistan, while as its name suggest, Operation Iraqi Freedom is concerned with securing the nation of Iraq. In addition to the service members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service members were deployed to Kuwait and Qatar in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, tens of thousands service members were deployed in support of contingency operations around the world.

So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.

There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.

Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.

Over the next several post, I will attempt to share some insights for service members and their families as to of what to expect during the time of deployment and the best way to minimize many difficulties sure to occur...

Interview with Captian Thomas A. Mengesha about deploying to the Iraq combat zone

Obama to unveil strategy for slimmed-down military

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Obama is putting his personal stamp on a rejiggered Pentagon strategy for absorbing hundreds of billions of dollars in defense budget cuts, marking a turning point in U.S. security policy after a decade of war.

 

Obama planned to make a rare appearance in the Pentagon press briefing room Thursday to announce results of a strategy review that he ordered last spring. The aim was twofold: Streamline the military in an era of tighter budgets and reassess defense priorities in light of China's rise and other global changes.

Obama's decision to announce the results himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense savings. The administration says smaller Pentagon budgets are a must but will not come at the cost of sapping the strength of a military in transition, even as it gets smaller.

In a presidential election year, the strategy gives Obama a rhetorical tool to defend his Pentagon budget-cutting choices. Republican contenders for the White House already have criticized Obama on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defense, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.

Obama also wants the new strategy to represent a pivot point in his stewardship of defense policy, which has been burdened throughout his presidency by the wars he inherited and their drag on resources.

The revamped strategy, to be outlined at a news conference also attended by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs chairman, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, is not expected to radically alter defense priorities. It may set the stage, however, for expected cutbacks in Europe and big weapons programs.

It also will move the U.S. further from its longstanding goal of being able to successfully fight two major regional wars — like the 1991 Gulf War to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait or a prospective ground war in Korea — at the same time. This takes into account a bigger focus on immediate threats like cyber warfare and terrorism.

The administration and Congress already are trimming defense spending to reflect the closeout of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The massive $662 billion defense budget planned for next year is $27 billion less than Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Wednesday that Obama was closely involved in the defense strategy review, meeting six times since September with top defense officials, including Panetta and Dempsey. Vietor said the review established priorities to ensure that defense spending cuts are "surgical."

As for Obama's decision to make a personal appearance at the Pentagon, Vietor said, "It's a sign of how personally engaged he is in this process and the level of importance he puts in shaping our priorities for the next decade."

Factors guiding the Obama administration's approach to reducing the defense budget are not limited to war-fighting strategy. They also include judgments about how to contain the growing cost of military health care, pay and retirement benefits. The administration is expected to form a commission to study the issue of retirement benefits, possibly led by a prominent retired military officer.

The administration is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which Obama will submit to Congress next month. The strategy to be announced by Panetta and Dempsey is meant to accommodate about $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming 10 years, as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. An additional $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013.

A prominent theme of the Pentagon's new strategy is expected to be what Panetta has called a renewed commitment to security in the Asia-Pacific region.

On a trip to Asia last fall, Panetta made clear that the region will be central to American security strategy.

"Today we are at a turning point after a decade of war," Panetta said in Japan. Al-Qaeda is among a range of concerns that will keep the military busy, but as a traditional Pacific power the United States needs to build a wider and deeper network of alliances and partnerships in that region, he said.

"Most importantly, we have the opportunity to strengthen our presence in the Pacific — and we will," he said.

The administration is not anticipating military conflict in Asia, but Panetta believes the U.S. got so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 that it missed chances to improve its position in other regions.

China is a particular worry because of its economic dynamism and rapid defense buildup. A more immediate concern is Iran, not only for its threats to disrupt the flow of international oil but also for its nuclear ambitions.

Looming large over the defense budget debate is the prospect of reducing spending on nuclear weapons.

Thomas Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, believes the U.S. nuclear program can cut $45 billion over the coming decade without weakening the force. He estimates that reducing the U.S. strategic nuclear submarine force from 12 subs to eight could save $27 billion over 10 years. A further $18 billion could be saved by delaying the building of a new fleet of nuclear-capable bomber aircraft, he says.

Taken from Usatoday

Scientists say Pentagon misleads on dust study

The Pentagon is falsely claiming its research shows that airborne dust in Iraq and Afghanistan poses no health risk to U.S. troops, say three scientists whose review of that research found it riddled with mistakes. 

Military officials then falsely said the review of their research backed their conclusion that the dust in the two war zones is no different from that in California, scientists Philip Hopke, Mark Utell and Anthony Wexler say.

The scientists, who issued their report last year for the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences, were part of a team that reviewed a 2008 study at the request of the Pentagon.   The earlier report, which was conducted for the military by the Nevada-based Desert Research Institute, made a series of incorrect conclusions and used faulty research methods, the 2010 study showed.

It is simply not true that research supports the Pentagon's claim that Middle Eastern dust is similar to that in the United States or that it poses no health risks, says Hopke, a Clarkson University scientist who conducted the National Research Council study.

"It's a bit disappointing when they know that, realistically, the data does not support that conclusion," he says.

Both studies were conducted to better understand risks as the number of U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and developed mysterious and severe respiratory conditions skyrocketed after their service. Since the start of the wars in 2003 and 2001, neurological disorders per 10,000 active-duty servicemembers have risen by 251%, while respiratory issues jumped by 47%, according to a USA TODAY analysis of military morbidity records from 2001 to 2010.

In a series of interviews and written memos in recent months, Pentagon health officials have claimed that the 2008 study found nothing wrong with the dust from the Middle East. "It is not noticeably different from samples collected in the Sahara Desert and desert regions in the U.S. and China," Craig Postlewaite, head of the Pentagon Force Protection and Readiness Office, told USA TODAY for a May story.

That USA TODAY report, Postlewaite and other Pentagon officials later said, "attempts to form a 'cause and effect' relationship" but there is "no evidence on which to base such a relationship."

In a blog on the Defense Department's website, Navy Capt. Patrick Laraby cited the NRC study directly: "After an exhaustive review, the NRC was unable to identify any health risks and indicated that they would need more data to determine whether there were any risks," Laraby wrote.

Utell, a professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine who headed the National Research Council study, said it's incorrect for the Pentagon to claim the council's research found "no adverse health effects."

Instead, he said, the 2010 study found there could be negative health effects from the dust and that the 2008 research was so flawed "that they wouldn't be able to determine that with their study."

Utell, Hopke and Wexler, of the University of California-Davis, say their study found that the military's research in the 2008 report was flawed from the beginning, and the council made no statement that the dust is safe or similar to that back home.

In fact, they said the Army's research was so "ill-founded" that it couldn't be used to determine anything other than that the fine particulate matter levels in the Middle East far exceeded recommended World Health Organization levels.

Postlewaite did not respond directly to questions about how he and others represented the two studies. Instead, he said the council praises the military's "ability to carry out such a large-scale exposure-monitoring study in the midst of a military operation."

Utell agreed that the military took on a big task that could lead to better surveillance, but he and Wexler said military medical command were told even before they began the 2008 study that it was faulty.

"It is troubling that they did not take the scientists' recommendations to heart," Utell said.

Wexler said these kinds of studies have been performed before, so researchers should have known that the sampling equipment they used would be overwhelmed by sandstorms, that samples should not be kept in plastic containers in a hot environment because they could become contaminated, and that samples should be taken every third day - as has been the EPA standard since 1997 - rather than every sixth day.

"It's not like it's rocket science," Wexler said.

He said the researchers used "inappropriate" methods to test for metals, and that when they did perform analyses correctly, they did not release the results.

"It was just weird," Wexler said. "Were there people in the military trying to cover up and get away with something? Who knows. It could also be the best they could do with the resources they have."

Johann Engelbrecht, the Desert Research Institute scientist who led the 2008 study, called the council report "probably a fair judgment" and said he planned to use its recommendations for his upcoming report. That report is being paid for by a $1.2 million earmark put in the defense budget by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

DRI, Engelbrecht said, is independent and was not pressured by the military.

Reuniting with family after a combat deployment

It has been said that it can take anywhere between 6 and 18 months to fully recover back to "normalcy" after a combat deployment. I can tell you that the relationships you maintained and possibly improved upon will shorten that time. For many the first emotion felt after coming home from a combat deployment may be surprising to some. Things to look for upon a service member's return from a combat deployment and how to react are as follows.

1. The returning Service Member may have moments of isolation.
2. They may also have high emotions.
3. You as the family member should listen but do not react to the service member's possible expressions of anger.
4. However, you should never accept emotional or physical abuse.

It has been said that war is hell! However with proper planning you as well as your family and other relationships will survive. It is very important to take your time and expect a readjustment period. You have been gone away from home for a very long time. This absence is only compounded if you have small children. When I left home my son was 9 months old and upon my return he was nearly 3 years old. I saw a tremendous growth. There was an adjustment that we both made. Even though you may not notice, you as well as your loved ones have changed in many ways. Take it slow and seek help if needed from your local family support center or religious/spiritual advisor. Do not let your marriage become a casualty of war.