Originally published on Forbes.com Dec 26th, 2013
The 172nd Infantry Brigade, the Arctic Wolves, had an extra-long deployment in support of Operation Iraqui Freedom. They were supposed to go for a year, but the year turned into 16 months, with some of the brigade’s soldiers unexpectedly going back to Iraq after arriving home in Alaska. The deployment went from August 2005 to November 2006. The brigade received the Valorous Unit Award for its time in Iraq. There were soldiers killed and wounded and the separation, unexpectedly extended, was surely hard on families.
Perhaps the extra penalty suffered by Richard Heller is not that large a matter. Still it bugged him and it bugs me.
If Richard Heller had spent those 16 months at Fort Wainwright, then the home of the 172th Infantry Brigade, the Alaska Department of Revenue would have sent him a check for $1,106.96. That would be the Permanent Fund Dividend paid in 2007 to eligible Alaska residents. (As far as I know, Alaska is the only state with a division of its Revenue Department dedicated to sending money to all its residents).
Richard Heller arrived in Alaska on June 17, 2005, assigned to the Headquarters Company of the 172nd Stryker Brigade. He promptly registered to vote, obtained an Alaska driver’s license, and changed his military records to indicate Alaska residency.
On August 14, 2005 Heller deployed to Iraq. He did not return to Alaska until December 11, 2006. In 2007, he applied for his permanent fund dividend. He was turned down because he hadn’t been in Alaska for much of 2006. Generally, absence for military service does not affect permanent fund eligibility. You only qualify for “excused absences”, so to speak, after you have been in Alaska for 180 days.
So Heller was turned down. Think about it. If the Brigade had deployed in late December of 2005, he would have qualified. So by spending a longer time in harm’s way, he lost out. Before I discuss the decision I’ll give you what Richard Heller wrote in his informal refund claim, which I find much more eloquent than the legalese of the decision.
I feel I am eligible, because it was not my choice to leave Alaska when I did. I got here in June 05 and was deployed Aug 05 until Dec 06. I would have much rather been in Alaska than in Iraq getting shot at and blown up on a monthly basis. I understand what the regulations say, but the lady, I spoke to in the office in Fairbanks compared a college student coming and leaving as the same as me. I don’t see snipers and people blowing themselves up on the streets of Alaska. Is this how all the vets that are in the same situation treated?
The Supreme Court decision was pretty much an “is what it is” reading of the statute, that brushed aside any constitutional issues. There was a dissent that argued that the statute was an unconstitutional “durational residency requirement” since it treats new residents differently than established residents. I don’t know. I was persuaded by Richard Heller’s statement of the case. What do you think?
You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.