KO - Sole Surviving Brother Loses Military Aid

[Muttocracy]

Maybe I missed an earlier post on this - if so let me know and I'll delete.

Did anyone else hear this story on Countdown? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

Wow.

[BattyDem]

1. Saw it earlier this evening.

It's so unfair. Hasn't this guy been through enough? He lost two brothers ... give him his damn benefits! :grr:

The other guy's story infuriated me, too. How the hell can they send a disabled vet back to Iraq?! :wtf:

[Muttocracy]

2. yes, should have mentioned that too

gee, think we have a recruitment problem? forcing officially disabled vets to go back? and how must that make the other troops in Iraq feel??

Back to the first story, did I understand it that the military sent him home, a la Saving Private Ryan, and THEN took his benefits? Hope the bill gets passed.

[BattyDem]

3. That's how I understood it.

They sent him home because he was the sole surviving brother ... but then they took his benefits. :grr: His congressman got them to reinstate his pregnant wife's health insurance, but she has to drive 45 miles to the air force base to get care!

[lapfog_1]

5. They also wanted him to repay the signing bonus

for his re-enlistment ($6,000), which his congressman DID finally get re-instated.

I think we owe him and his family a bit more than that.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. Didn't you hear Betrayus tell (lie to) the Congress that lots of troops were signing up

again and that there wasn't a troop level problem???

[Muttocracy]

7. I trust more in the retired generals the prevous week who said the opposite! nt

[Muttocracy]

4. video up in that forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x120480

[tcfrogs]

8. It appears that the problem is being rectified

On Wednesday, lawmakers introduced new legislation forcing defense and veterans affairs officials to prevent separation penalties and award full benefits to troops who leave the service under the sole survivor rule, calling it an issue of fairness and recognition of their loss.

“This policy was well-intended … but it is also deeply flawed,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “It cuts off sole survivors from benefits they would have otherwise received. If they leave the military early, they are denied health care, the GI Bill, and veterans home loans.”

Since 2001, according to Department of Defense statistics, 51 servicemembers have qualified for discharge from service or exemption from combat zone deployments under the rule, which applies to any servicemember who is the only remaining son or daughter in a family that has suffered another combat death.

Hubbard joined the Army in 2005 after his brother Jared was killed in a roadside bomb attack. He said he considered remaining in even after his brother Nathan was killed in a helicopter crash last August, but he chose to leave after speaking with his family.

After learning about the benefits problems, Army officials told him they could change his duty codes to get health care for him and his pregnant wife, but his sole survivor status would be taken off his file. “I didn’t want to change my status just to accommodate the bureaucracy,” he said.

Lawmakers behind the new legislation said they didn’t believe Army officials were acting maliciously — Army Secretary Pete Geren worked with Hubbard to get him transitional health care — and blamed outdated policies for the problems.

“It’s a 60-year-old rule,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. “The Army is just carrying out policies that have been in place. So it’s time to update it.”

House sponsors Reps. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and Jim Costa, D-Calif., said they have already had preliminary discussions with chamber leaders about the issue and hope to pass the legislation quickly. The bill would be retroactive to 2001.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=54129

[Muttocracy]

9. great! thanks for that info. nt