Veterans excluded by Obama Justice Department

OPINION:

As The Washington Times reported earlier this month, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a government watchdog, found that the Obama Justice Department had discriminated against veterans by canceling job announcements and then rewriting position descriptions to exclude veterans, presumably to hire the candidate they originally wanted.

Justice’s behavior was no surprise to anyone with long experience in the federal bureaucracy. Excluding veterans is more common than admitted, and has been going on for decades. “Veterans preference,” Title 5 of the U.S. Code, as well as the public policy enunciated in 38 USC 42, the government’s obligation to hire and promote veterans, is routinely ignored. Short announcement windows, canceling the announcement only to have it reappear at a later date, or declaring a veteran applicant not qualified or ignoring him altogether are all ploys to get the person the hiring authority wants into the position. Even assistance from the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service is no guarantee of justice as agencies may ignore its inquiries.

From where did this animosity toward veterans arise? Does not the country celebrate veterans? Yes, but more in the breech, than in reality. Historically, as the following examples will illustrate, antipathy toward veterans goes back to the Vietnam War. Successive administrations filled with anti-Vietnam zealots of the Sixties, and their confederates in the bureaucracy, carried on a crusade against those who put their country first. In their “politically correct” view, those who served in Vietnam (“minorities” and women as well) were part of an evil crusade against communist purity and must be punished. Affirmative action and its “diversity” offspring are the revenge of the leftist elite on American patriots. Sadly, even those on the right have often been indifferent to veterans’ rights.

As far back as 1992 the GAO’s “Federal Hiring: Does Veterans Preference Need Updating?” reported a significant difference in position cancellations between veteran and non-veteran applicants when a veteran was at the top of the selection list. Judging from the latest Times story, the problem persists.

A few years ago the Smithsonian even went so far as to tell a Vietnam-era veteran that his veterans’ status no longer counted. When I served on Sen. Robb’s Veterans Advisory Panel a veteran who was hired by the Smithsonian had his acceptance revoked on the grounds that Vietnam veterans were no longer considered veterans, only Desert Storm vets counted.

Upon inquiry from the senator’s office a personnel specialist confirmed that statement and was promptly informed that veteran status was for life. When the case was elevated to OPM another personal specialist supported the Smithsonian position and had to be read the law on veterans’ rights. Fortunately a more alert staffer got involved and in the course of his investigation found that the Smithsonian had repeatedly violated the law. The upshot was that the vet was hired, but had it not been for Mr. Robb it would not have happened.

The Clinton administration’s Defense Department was notorious. Under Secretary for Personnel Edwin Dorn declared (September 1994) that anyone seeking to promote or hire a white male for GS 13 and above had to submit the nomination for his personal review (Mike Causey, The Washington Post). Defense later denied that Mr. Dorn’s scheme was an official ruling, however, the department instituted special management opportunities at the GS 13 level and above for women and approved minorities only. Veterans were not considered, nor were there any Vietnam veterans in the top Defense slots, a blatant ignoring of the intent of Title 38 and public policy. Mr. Dorn’s actions went unquestioned and unchallenged.

Issues with the State Department went back even further, to the Carter administration. Insisting that State needed more women and minorities, the administration decreed that a resume would suffice; they did not have to take the rigorous three part examination. State then decided that veterans’ points would only be added when “the selection process is completed,” .i.e.. after the subjective oral assessment, not for the initial written examination as intended by the 1944 Veterans Preference Act (as amended). What State did was legal, but subversive of the law’s intent.

Other agencies weren’t much different, some even denied keeping statistics on veterans hiring, a record they were supposed to maintain, or refused to compile them without charge to the requestor.

With the OSC decision one hopes the Trump administration is a new dawn for veterans. By exposing anti-veteran bigotry for what it is — the punishment of those who placed country before self — OSC has unmasked an assault on the principles of the Republic by a “progressive” elite to whom patriotism is a malignancy and statism a salve.

• William Layer is a historian who covered Air Force presidential operations during the early years of the Reagan administration.