September 20, 2008

Mr. Gordon Burke

Director

Office of Grants and Transition Programs

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-1312

Washington, DC 20210

#### Re: RIN 1293--AA15

**Priority of Service for Covered Persons**

Dear Mr. Burke,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to
comment on the proposed rule that seeks to determine the "Priority of
Service for Covered Persons" as it relates to employment programs
offered under the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA). The extended time frame
in which our troops have been asked to serve has created significant
strain upon them and their families. As a veteran of the United States
Marine Corps and a current civil servant, it is with great pleasure that
I offer my support and applaud the Department of Labor on their efforts
to improve the quality of life for our veterans by assisting them in
their transition to the civilian workforce.

However, I would like to comment on one element of the proposal, the
ramifications of which I believe could inadvertently harm those that
this proposal was promulgated to help the most. My concern involves the
strict definition of "veteran" and the manner in which it could be
interpreted. According to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a "veteran"
is defined as "a person who served in the active military, naval, or air
service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions
other than dishonorable."

There are several classifications under which a member of the military
can be separated but they fall within two general categories: punitive
discharges and administrative separations. Punitive discharges consist
of either a Dishonorable Discharge (DD) or a Bad Conduct Discharge
(BCD), which can only be imposed by a general or special court-martial
respectively, for significant violations of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). In essence, these discharges are awarded pursuant to a
serious criminal conviction or in the most extreme cases of military
misconduct.

Administrative separations fall into three categories: Honorable,
General (Under Honorable Conditions), and Under Other Than Honorable
Conditions (OTH). Veterans awarded an Honorable Discharge are deemed to
have fulfilled their commitment to military service in a meritorious
manner based on acceptable levels of performance and conduct. Those
veterans separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge
are considered to have served in a faithful manner but significant
negative aspects of their service tend to outweigh the positive aspects,
thereby making a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge more
appropriate than an Honorable Discharge. Finally, a veteran who receives
an OTH Discharge is considered to have deviated significantly from the
conduct expected from a member of the military. For instance, Army
Regulation 635-- 200 states that the following types of behavior would
serve as examples of conduct that could to warrant an OTH discharge:

(a) The use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or
    death.

(b) Abuse of a position of trust.

(c) Disregard by a superior of customary superior-subordinate
    relationships.

(d) Acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States or
    the health and welfare of other soldiers of the Army.

(e) Deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and
    safety of other persons.

Based on the definition of a "veteran" as applied in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the services provided through the JVA programs
would be offered equally to anyone who has been separated from military
service "...under conditions other than dishonorable." Therefore, given
the analysis provided above, it appears that these benefits would be
afforded to all military veterans unless they received a "Dishonorable
Discharge," which is the only separation that rises to the threshold
provided by the definition. I believe there is a fundamental problem
with the possibility that someone separated from the military pursuant
to a BCD or an OTH Discharge would receive the same priority as those
who have served honorably or were released due to a medical conditions,
especially when that medical condition was sustained on the battlefield
while serving their country.

According to statistics provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), there are approximately 23.8 million veterans in the United
States. Of those, about 2.9 million veterans receive some type of VA
disability compensation including over 257,000 that are considered to be
100% disabled. These figures represent a significant population that
could benefit from the services provided under this proposal. In fact,
these statistics indicate there is even the potential to have more
participants than the programs can accommodate. Therefore, it seems
contrary to the spirit of the law to place veterans separated for
punitive reasons or based on their unacceptable behavior into the same
category as the millions of Americans that have served our nation while
upholding the high moral standards expected from the commissioned and
enlisted members of the United States Armed Forces.

However, given the high number of combat veterans, I would be reluctant
to exclude veterans who received a BCD or an OTH discharge since there
is a possibility that some of their unacceptable behavior could be
attributed to psychological issues related to their military service.
While I do not seek to excuse such behavior and believe everyone should
be held accountable for their own actions, I do not think this is a
reality we cannot overlook and must also realize that some of those
veterans could benefit greatly from the services provided.

Given the fact that the definition of a "veteran" is codified pursuant
to 38 USC §101(2), it is assumed that there is no discretion to change
the meaning of the term. Therefore, I would ask the Veterans' Employment
and Training Service of the Department of Labor to consider including a
tiered priority system that places those veterans who have served our
nation with honor and integrity at the top of the eligibility list
whenever there is limited space available in one of the qualified
programs. Also included in this group should be those brave men and
women who have received disabling injuries in the line of duty resulting
in their separation from military service as well as all "eligible
spouses" of military personnel who qualify for priority of services
based on the conditions enumerated in the proposed rule. Unfortunately,
anything less than some form of a tiered priority system subjects this
program to the possibility for abuse and could potentially undermine the
true purpose of this legislation, which is clearly to reward our "heroes
at home" for the sacrifices they made during their ***honorable***
service to our country. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Respectfully,

Douglas McGeachy

Riverside, CA