Has military improperly used other than honorable discharges to rid the services of wounded troops who commit minor offenses?

COL Ted Mc — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:45:05 -0500

Military's use of other than honorable discharges to get heavy scrutiny

[An article from the Colorado Springs Gazette]

http://gazette.com/militarys-use-of-other-than-honorable-discharges-to-get-heavy-scrutiny/article/1543126

President Barack Obama is expected to soon sign a bill ordering an investigation of whether the military has improperly used other than honorable discharges to rid the services of wounded troops who commit minor offenses.

The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act passed both chambers of Congress and is on Obama's desk. The amendment, written by U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., follows a Pulitzer Prize-winning 2013 Gazette investigation that found the Army used disciplinary discharges to part with soldiers who were later denied health care benefits that might help them recover from combat wounds and mental illness.

"We have heard from veterans in Colorado who believe that some service members are receiving less than honorable discharges for behavior that could be related to mental trauma from combat," Bennet said Monday in a statement. "Clearly, we can't have a system that punishes service members for injuries sustained in service and this bill will help us understand whether this is happening and what we need to do to change it."

[EDITORIAL COMMENT - If the allegations are substantiated, my suggestion is that those found to have done this be required to listen to Tammy Wynette singing "Stand By Your Man" 24/7/52 - in addition to actually being punished.]

Military's use of other than honorable discharges to get heavy scrutiny

President Barack Obama is expected to soon sign a bill ordering an investigation of whether the military has improperly used other than honorable discharges to rid the services of wounded troops who commit minor offenses. The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act passed both chambers of Congress and is on Obama's desk. The amendment, written by U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., follows a Pulitzer Prize-winning 2013 Gazette...

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Feb 21 at 2015 4:22 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:22:40 -0500

I don't appreciate having to answer a survey to read the article. Do you have another source?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2015 6:14 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:14:53 -0500

As hard as it seems to be to give a soldier an OTH discharge, I have a hard time believing this

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Feb 22 at 2015 4:52 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:52:16 -0500

SGT J Brainard - I can tell you from experience sitting on ADSEP boards, it is very easy to give someone an OTH.

Here is why this happens far too often. DOD, and especially ARMY are not willing/able to openly acknowledge PTSD in the ranks. WHY??? If they did, many soldiers(all A/D) would claim PTSD and be pulled from Deployability.

Statistics report 25% of soldiers have PTSD. I suspect that number is higher. Let's say for argument's sake it is 25% though. If you pulled those 25% off the roster because of their illness, what happens??? Every unit loses deployability.

Now, add all the Goldbrickers - those who don't want to be bothered with things like duty and responsibility. They see the others getting out of going, so they say "ME TOO". Now you're up to say 40%. This is untenable for readiness.

Now add the second factor. If those 25% legitimately have PTSD and are not deployable, now you have to give them Medical Retirements. This puts a huge hit on the personnel budget - a hit that isn't planned for. It's got to come from somewhere, so this means that maintenance goes undone, supplies aren't ordered, etc.

Now what has happened to readiness? A ready unit is down to less than 40% ready when you add it all up - they can't deploy!

So, what does DOD do? Wherever they can get away with it, they accuse the soldier of Fraudulent Enlistment, based on pre-existing Personality Disorder. Give them an OTH, and they're out the door with no benefits - no fuss, no muss.

EXCEPT... they were accepted at the MEPS... "You broke it, you bought it." Once the contract is signed, DOD owns them.

Service Connected Conditions are, by definition, those conditions EITHER CAUSED OR AGGRAVATED BY Military Service. It doesn't matter if the soldier had a behavioral issue. Once he's in, he's in. Then, if he gets PTSD from serving in combat, his issues are made worse - he should be compensated.

Instead, his life is destroyed. He went downrange, served, saw and did terrible things, and now what? No benefits; no medical treatment; no treatment for the PTSD. So? Drugs, crime, etc, and off jail. Great solution, no?

Please note, by soldier, I mean any active duty service member, and he is for simplicity - this applies to men and women alike.

Response by SSG Paul Lanciault made Feb 22 at 2015 8:36 PM

SSG Paul Lanciault — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 20:36:16 -0500

I have no problem believing this. I have seen it. A soldier asking for help must tread very carefully, consider where you are, how willing the command is to help, if the military is downsizing etc.