From the Los Angeles Times
Injured veterans engaged in new combat
In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of
combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wounded veterans
thousands of dollars in lost benefits.
By David Zucchino

November 25, 2008

Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb
and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a
dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder.

Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees
while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone
a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more
surgeries.

In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not
combat-related.

In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's
definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some
injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering
outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.

The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when
it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the
combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special
distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the
risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J.
Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the
1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.

The group, which has called the policy revision a "shocking level of
disrespect for those who stood in harm's way," is lobbying to have the
change rescinded.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
said the Pentagon's "more conservative definition" limited benefits for
some veterans. "That was not our intent," Levin said in a statement.

He added: "When the disability is the same, the impact on the service
member should be the same no matter whether the disability was incurred
while training for combat at Ft. Hood or participating in actual combat
in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Pentagon officials argue that benefits should be greater for veterans
wounded in combat than for "members with disabilities incurred in other
situations (e.g., simulation of war, instrumentality of war, or
participation in hazardous duties, not related to combat)," Carr wrote.

But veterans like Dixon and Meshell said their disabilities were a
direct result of wounds suffered in combat.

Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought
the Pentagon and won a reversal of his noncombat-related designation.

"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?"
Dixon said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."

Meshell, who is appealing her status, estimates she is losing at least
$1,200 a month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone
during an enemy mortar attack, she said, her wounds would be considered
combat-related only if she had been struck by shrapnel.

Meshell said the military had suggested that at least some of her
disability was caused by preexisting joint deterioration. "Before I went
over there, I was fine -- I was perfectly healthy," Meshell said. "This
whole thing is causing me a lot of heartache."

Kerry Baker, associate legislative director of Disabled American
Veterans, has accused the Pentagon of narrowing the definition of
combat-related disabilities to save money. He said the change would
reduce payments for tens of thousands of veterans -- those already
wounded and those injured in the future.

"This is going to hurt a lot of people," Baker said. "It's one of those
things that when you first look at it, you think: 'Wow. How can this be?' "

In a letter to members of Congress, the Disabled American Veterans
accused the Pentagon of "mutilating" the statutory definitions of
combat-related disabilities as part of a "deliberate manipulation of the
law."

The January legislation was aimed at allowing troops wounded in combat
and combat-related operations to collect disability severance from the
military and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans
Affairs.

Disability severance is based on past service. Disability compensation
is based on future loss of earning potential. Previously, veterans with
combat-related disabilities received reduced monthly VA compensation
until their severance money was recouped. That is still the case for
those whose injuries are not deemed combat-related.

Years ago, Congress adopted a detailed definition of combat-related
disabilities. It included such criteria as hazardous service, conditions
simulating war and disability caused by an "instrumentality of war."
Those criteria were not altered in the January legislation.

The Pentagon, in establishing an internal policy based on the
legislation, in March unlawfully stripped those criteria from the
legislation, the Disabled American Veterans said.

"We do not view this as an oversight," Baker testified before Congress
in June. "We view this as an intentional effort to conserve monetary
resources at the expense of disabled veterans."

The Pentagon changes focused on "tip of the spear" fighters, or those
"in the line of duty in a combat zone," said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon
spokeswoman. They comprise "a very special, yet limited, subset of those
who matriculate through the Disability Evaluation System," Lainez wrote
in an e-mail response to a request for comment.

In many cases, veterans say, they are not told why their disabilities
are not considered combat-related.

Dixon said he did not realize he had been put in a noncombat-related
category until he began questioning his disability payments. It took
more than six months of phone calls, letters and appeals -- plus help
from the Disabled American Veterans and a member of Congress -- to
overturn his designation.

Navigating the Pentagon's bureaucracy was made more difficult because
Dixon's brain injury resulted in short-term memory loss. He had to write
everything down in notebooks and calendars.

"It was a nightmare," Dixon said. "Most veterans don't know how the
system works, or how to fight it. They don't realize all the obstacles
they put in your way to keep you from getting what you deserve."

Meshell said the military disability system was so complex that few
veterans were equipped to navigate it.

"I'm a college graduate. I'm not a dumb person. But honestly, I can't
begin to explain some of this stuff," she said.

After five years of active duty, a combat tour in Iraq and 12 years in
the National Guard and Reserves, she thinks she deserves the full
disability benefits authorized by Congress for veterans injured in combat.

"I earned them," she said. "I went to Iraq. I was in combat. I got injured."

- - -

Bushed.

On Nov 25, 4:24*pm, Boater wrote:


The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when
it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January.

That would be the Democratically-controlled Congress, right? Uh-huh.

Liberal trash.

wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:24 pm, Boater wrote:

The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when
it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January.

That would be the Democratically-controlled Congress, right? Uh-huh.

Liberal trash.

No, that would mean the REpublican controlled pentagon interpreted the
regulations in a way to screw the vets.

Nice try.

Sheet suit back from the laundry?

Boater wrote:
From the Los Angeles Times
Injured veterans engaged in new combat
In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of
combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wounded veterans
thousands of dollars in lost benefits.
By David Zucchino

November 25, 2008

Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb
and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a
dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder.

Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees
while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone
a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more
surgeries.

In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not
combat-related.

In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's
definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some
injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering
outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.

The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when
it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the
combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special
distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the
risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J.
Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the
1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.

The group, which has called the policy revision a "shocking level of
disrespect for those who stood in harm's way," is lobbying to have the
change rescinded.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
said the Pentagon's "more conservative definition" limited benefits for
some veterans. "That was not our intent," Levin said in a statement.

He added: "When the disability is the same, the impact on the service
member should be the same no matter whether the disability was incurred
while training for combat at Ft. Hood or participating in actual combat
in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Pentagon officials argue that benefits should be greater for veterans
wounded in combat than for "members with disabilities incurred in other
situations (e.g., simulation of war, instrumentality of war, or
participation in hazardous duties, not related to combat)," Carr wrote.

But veterans like Dixon and Meshell said their disabilities were a
direct result of wounds suffered in combat.

Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought
the Pentagon and won a reversal of his noncombat-related designation.

"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?"
Dixon said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."

Meshell, who is appealing her status, estimates she is losing at least
$1,200 a month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone
during an enemy mortar attack, she said, her wounds would be considered
combat-related only if she had been struck by shrapnel.

Meshell said the military had suggested that at least some of her
disability was caused by preexisting joint deterioration. "Before I went
over there, I was fine -- I was perfectly healthy," Meshell said. "This
whole thing is causing me a lot of heartache."

Kerry Baker, associate legislative director of Disabled American
Veterans, has accused the Pentagon of narrowing the definition of
combat-related disabilities to save money. He said the change would
reduce payments for tens of thousands of veterans -- those already
wounded and those injured in the future.

"This is going to hurt a lot of people," Baker said. "It's one of those
things that when you first look at it, you think: 'Wow. How can this be?' "

In a letter to members of Congress, the Disabled American Veterans
accused the Pentagon of "mutilating" the statutory definitions of
combat-related disabilities as part of a "deliberate manipulation of the
law."

The January legislation was aimed at allowing troops wounded in combat
and combat-related operations to collect disability severance from the
military and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans
Affairs.

Disability severance is based on past service. Disability compensation
is based on future loss of earning potential. Previously, veterans with
combat-related disabilities received reduced monthly VA compensation
until their severance money was recouped. That is still the case for
those whose injuries are not deemed combat-related.

Years ago, Congress adopted a detailed definition of combat-related
disabilities. It included such criteria as hazardous service, conditions
simulating war and disability caused by an "instrumentality of war."
Those criteria were not altered in the January legislation.

The Pentagon, in establishing an internal policy based on the
legislation, in March unlawfully stripped those criteria from the
legislation, the Disabled American Veterans said.

"We do not view this as an oversight," Baker testified before Congress
in June. "We view this as an intentional effort to conserve monetary
resources at the expense of disabled veterans."

The Pentagon changes focused on "tip of the spear" fighters, or those
"in the line of duty in a combat zone," said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon
spokeswoman. They comprise "a very special, yet limited, subset of those
who matriculate through the Disability Evaluation System," Lainez wrote
in an e-mail response to a request for comment.

In many cases, veterans say, they are not told why their disabilities
are not considered combat-related.

Dixon said he did not realize he had been put in a noncombat-related
category until he began questioning his disability payments. It took
more than six months of phone calls, letters and appeals -- plus help
from the Disabled American Veterans and a member of Congress -- to
overturn his designation.

Navigating the Pentagon's bureaucracy was made more difficult because
Dixon's brain injury resulted in short-term memory loss. He had to write
everything down in notebooks and calendars.

"It was a nightmare," Dixon said. "Most veterans don't know how the
system works, or how to fight it. They don't realize all the obstacles
they put in your way to keep you from getting what you deserve."

Meshell said the military disability system was so complex that few
veterans were equipped to navigate it.

"I'm a college graduate. I'm not a dumb person. But honestly, I can't
begin to explain some of this stuff," she said.

After five years of active duty, a combat tour in Iraq and 12 years in
the National Guard and Reserves, she thinks she deserves the full
disability benefits authorized by Congress for veterans injured in combat.

"I earned them," she said. "I went to Iraq. I was in combat. I got
injured."

- - -

Bushed.
gotta control the budget so they can have money for bailing out Wall
Street and Bankers, doncha u no.

On Nov 25, 5:18*pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:24 pm, Boater wrote:

The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when
it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January.

That would be the Democratically-controlled Congress, right? *Uh-huh.

Liberal trash.

No, that would mean the REpublican controlled pentagon interpreted the
regulations in a way to screw the vets.

Nice try.

Sheet suit back from the laundry?

How simple of you to think that GW has somehow forced the military
leaders to do this. GW is the boogy-man under your bed, isn't he?The
Joint Chiefs and Sec of Defense would have something to say about
this, especially during a lame duck period. Besides, BO must not have
a problem with it, since he's keeping the same Sec of Defense, huh?
Besides, the Dims can fix this if they want to. Let's see what they
do.

Sheet suit? Post a pic of yours so we can all see what one looks like.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:18:39 -0500, Boater wrote:

wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:24 pm, Boater wrote:

The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when
it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January.

That would be the Democratically-controlled Congress, right? Uh-huh.

Liberal trash.

No, that would mean the REpublican controlled pentagon interpreted the
regulations in a way to screw the vets.

Nice try.

Sheet suit back from the laundry?

You should know the Pentagon answers to Congress. Do you think all those
Generals traipsing to 'the Hill' every day are doing it just for their
exercise?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:24 pm, Boater wrote:

The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when
it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January.

That would be the Democratically-controlled Congress, right? Uh-huh.

Liberal trash.

No, that would mean the REpublican controlled pentagon interpreted the
regulations in a way to screw the vets.

Nice try.

Sheet suit back from the laundry?

Why did the Democrat controlled Congress pass a law that would let the
Pentagon mis-interpret their intent?

Weak try Harry!

On Nov 25, 4:24*pm, Boater wrote:
*From the Los Angeles Times
Injured veterans engaged in new combat
In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of
combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wounded veterans
thousands of dollars in lost benefits.
By David Zucchino

November 25, 2008

Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb
and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a
dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder.

Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees
while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone
a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more
surgeries.

In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not
combat-related.

In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's
definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some
injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering
outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.

The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when
it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the
combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special
distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the
risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J.
Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the
1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.

The group, which has called the policy revision a "shocking level of
disrespect for those who stood in harm's way," is lobbying to have the
change rescinded.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
said the Pentagon's "more conservative definition" limited benefits for
some veterans. "That was not our intent," Levin said in a statement.

He added: "When the disability is the same, the impact on the service
member should be the same no matter whether the disability was incurred
while training for combat at Ft. Hood or participating in actual combat
in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Pentagon officials argue that benefits should be greater for veterans
wounded in combat than for "members with disabilities incurred in other
situations (e.g., simulation of war, instrumentality of war, or
participation in hazardous duties, not related to combat)," Carr wrote.

But veterans like Dixon and Meshell said their disabilities were a
direct result of wounds suffered in combat.

Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought
the Pentagon and won a reversal of his noncombat-related designation.

"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?"
Dixon said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."

Meshell, who is appealing her status, estimates she is losing at least
$1,200 a month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone
during an enemy mortar attack, she said, her wounds would be considered
combat-related only if she had been struck by shrapnel.

Meshell said the military had suggested that at least some of her
disability was caused by preexisting joint deterioration. "Before I went
over there, I was fine -- I was perfectly healthy," Meshell said. "This
whole thing is causing me a lot of heartache."

Kerry Baker, associate legislative director of Disabled American
Veterans, has accused the Pentagon of narrowing the definition of
combat-related disabilities to save money. He said the change would
reduce payments for tens of thousands of veterans -- those already
wounded and those injured in the future.

"This is going to hurt a lot of people," Baker said. "It's one of those
things that when you first look at it, you think: 'Wow. How can this be?' "

In a letter to members of Congress, the Disabled American Veterans
accused the Pentagon of "mutilating" the statutory definitions of
combat-related disabilities as part of a "deliberate manipulation of the
law."

The January legislation was aimed at allowing troops wounded in combat
and combat-related operations to collect disability severance from the
military and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans
Affairs.

Disability severance is based on past service. Disability compensation
is based on future loss of earning potential. Previously, veterans with
combat-related disabilities received reduced monthly VA compensation
until their severance money was recouped. That is still the case for
those whose injuries are not deemed combat-related.

Years ago, Congress adopted a detailed definition of combat-related
disabilities. It included such criteria as hazardous service, conditions
simulating war and disability caused by an "instrumentality of war."
Those criteria were not altered in the January legislation.

The Pentagon, in establishing an internal policy based on the
legislation, in March unlawfully stripped those criteria from the
legislation, the Disabled American Veterans said.

"We do not view this as an oversight," Baker testified before Congress
in June. "We view this as an intentional effort to conserve monetary
resources at the expense of disabled veterans."

The Pentagon changes focused on "tip of the spear" fighters, or those
"in the line of duty in a combat zone," said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon
spokeswoman. They comprise "a very special, yet limited, subset of those
who matriculate through the Disability Evaluation System," Lainez wrote
in an e-mail response to a request for comment.

In many cases, veterans say, they are not told why their disabilities
are not considered combat-related.

Dixon said he did not realize he had been put in a noncombat-related
category until he began questioning his disability payments. It took
more than six months of phone calls, letters and appeals -- plus help
from the Disabled American Veterans and a member of Congress -- to
overturn his designation.

Navigating the Pentagon's bureaucracy was made more difficult because
Dixon's brain injury resulted in short-term memory loss. He had to write
everything down in notebooks and calendars.

"It was a nightmare," Dixon said. "Most veterans don't know how the
system works, or how to fight it. They don't realize all the obstacles
they put in your way to keep you from getting what you deserve."

Meshell said the military disability system was so complex that few
veterans were equipped to navigate it.

"I'm a college graduate. I'm not a dumb person. But honestly, I can't
begin to explain some of this stuff," she said.

After five years of active duty, a combat tour in Iraq and 12 years in
the National Guard and Reserves, she thinks she deserves the full
disability benefits authorized by Congress for veterans injured in combat..

"I earned them," she said. "I went to Iraq. I was in combat. I got injured."

- - -

Bushed.

That looks Photoshopped......