ABCNews.com
Injured Iraq Vets Come Home to Poverty
By BRIAN ROSS, DAVID SCOTT and MADDY SAUER

Oct. 14, 2004 -- Following inquiries by ABC News, the Pentagon has dropped plans to force a severely wounded U.S. soldier to repay his enlistment bonus after injuries had forced him out of the service.
Army Spc. Tyson Johnson III of Mobile, Ala., who lost a kidney in a mortar attack last year in Iraq, was still recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center when he received notice from the Pentagon's own collection agency that he owed more than $2,700 because he could not fulfill his full 36-month tour of duty.

Pentagon officials said they were unaware of the case until it was brought to their attention by ABC News.

Also from the article:
"Guys I've met, talking to people, they'd be better off financially for their families if they had died as opposed to coming back maimed," said Staff Sgt. Ryan Kelly, who served as a civil affairs specialist for the Army while in Iraq.

"It's not what I expected to see when I got here," he said. "These guys having to, you know, basically panhandle for money to afford things."

----------------------------------------------
Johnson now lives in his car, unable to get a job, a loan, or aven his benefits because his paperwork is missing. That returning US service personnel are treated this way by their own government is shameful. It is bad enough that he had to use an unarmored Humvee, but to come home to this is just unbelievable. Whoever made this decision should lose his job and his pension, and if he is military, should be immediately transferred to Iraq to clean camel latrines.
This has nothing to do with anyone's politics; this is about sheer incompetence by someone.

That is sad and outrageous. This is probably happening to lots of them though. I'm sure he really did feel betrayed.

The Army, just like any other government entity, is a huge buracracy ruled by policies. And this is what you get when you depend on policy to make decisions. Policies are always, always written to the lowest common denominator.

I am sure that at every step along the way some low level "rubber stamper" adhered unwaveringly to some written policy that could never possibly take into account this sort of situation. And I'm equally sure that as soon as it got high enough up the chain (even though it took a national news story) it got fixed. The problem is that it doesn't often seem to ever rise to that level. I'm even more sure that there are dozens, if not hundreds, studying and re-writing that policy right now.

I agree with DG. These things just simply shouldn't happen. There should be some sort of review stage very early in the process. Of course, someone will have to write the policy about that.

One wonders what is meant by all the "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers one sees. Does it mean, "raise my taxes so we can spend the amount of money these people need and deserve?" Does it mean "demand that our president not send them into harm's way until the process is fully thought out, with enough troops and hardware to make it as safe a venture as possible?" Does it mean "hold accountable those who use our troops unwisely and carelessly, and who try to cut their combat pay?" I assume it does. I'm sure it must. Otherwise, what is "support?" You don't think it would be "keep your mouth shut no matter how outrageously the president is managing them," do you?

Support Our Troops letter:
Wife of soldier

quote:

Whoever made this decision should lose his job and his pension, and if he is military, should be immediately transferred to Iraq to clean camel latrines.
This has nothing to do with anyone's politics; this is about sheer incompetence by someone.

I certainly agree with everything you said,DG.

Beware! The sky is falling.