Is it really veteran-owned?

July 29, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Too many small-business owners are claiming status as veterans or disabled vets, the Army Times reports, so the Veterans Affairs Department is investigating.

The problem is big. More than three-quarters of businesses claiming the status were problematic, the government said, with an initial check suggesting at least 1,400 businesses falsely received more than $500 million in contracts set aside for vets.

The main problem is contracts subbed out to non-veterans. But other issues were uncovered, like a “disabled” vet who was discharged from the Marines after being injured in a football game. He served for a mere five weeks.

New verification systems might be helping, but the department won’t know more until it digs deeper.

How do you feel about set-aside policies like veteran-owned companies, or minority- and women-owned companies? Are fraud or even simply misunderstandings as rampant as the Veteran Affairs probe suggests?

  • Indiana is NOT Veteran Friendly
    I don't doubt that there's a problem - especially with so many Federal contracts in the works. However, we don't have legislation in Indiana that builds a preference to Veteran-owned businesses. It's so bad, in fact, that Vetrepreneur magazine has called Indiana 'totally vetrepreneur-unfriendly'. I would encourage businesses to verify the business through NaVOBA ( And I'd encourage IBJ to do a story on how Indiana doesn't give any preference to Veteran-owned small businesses.
    • Gov't contract for DAVs
      Can you tell me where to sign up for small business DAV contracts for services I offer.

      Thank you,
    • an actual vet
      I am a vet currently in Iraq I have been looking for jobs that are vet friendly in Indianapolis for weeks now and I can't find one. I feel ashamed that the city I love can't even help me get a job in the country myself and my wife protected in war torn counrties more then once.
    • Wife of veteran-business owner
      As a wife of a veteran who owns his own security company here in Indianapolis, it saddens me that people would actually claim their business was veteran-owned when that is not necessarily case. My husband was in the US Marines for 8 years, and once his contract was up he was honorably discharged with one Iraq tour under his belt. Since he was trained in electronics and had experience overseas, he felt a calling to continue protecting his fellow America’s on the home front, which lead to starting Morrison Fire & Security. In his third year of business providing residential and commercial security systems, camera systems, etc to all of greater Indiana- he finds his main competition being the larger national companies. To hear that his competition becomes even more difficult because some people are falsely claiming their business is vet-owned, is shameful. I say this not only because of the dishonesty, but more because it’s a disgrace to those who have nobly served years in the military and put themselves in harm’s way while overseas. I hope that a system is created to rectify this situation of falsely listed businesses because I know that my husband is one of those veteran’s whose businesses is affected by those committing fraud by falsely listing their business as veteran-owned.

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

    2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

    3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

    4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

    5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!