quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:
The crux of your question seems to boil down to a difference in what the military and Veterans Administration considers "disabled" from a military service standpoint, and what civilians, insurance, industry, and the civilian side of the government consider it.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
...
I'd be grateful if you could explain this to me.

tac, I am no expert, but this article popped up in a feed I read and it seemed timely.

The crux of your question seems to boil down to a difference in what the military and Veterans Administration considers "disabled" from a military service standpoint, and what civilians, insurance, industry, and the civilian side of the government consider it.

Serving with a VA disability rating

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:
The crux of your question seems to boil down to a difference in what the military and Veterans Administration considers "disabled" from a military service standpoint, and what civilians, insurance, industry, and the civilian side of the government consider it.

I agree.

In my experience “disabilities” granted by the U.S. Veterans Administration have to do more with the type of care available and the payments the agency makes rather than purely physical handicaps. It’s possible to have a VA disability for such things as high blood pressure or hearing loss that don’t seem to manifest themselves as the inability to live a normal life. And yes, at this point it’s time to say, “Well, that doesn’t make any sense,” and there will be many who agree. It is, however, the way it is.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I dunno, I’ll play devil’s advocate here.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
...
I'd be grateful if you could explain this to me.

tac, I am no expert, but this article popped up in a feed I read and it seemed timely.

The crux of your question seems to boil down to a difference in what the military and Veterans Administration considers "disabled" from a military service standpoint, and what civilians, insurance, industry, and the civilian side of the government consider it.

Serving with a VA disability rating

Thanks. Here in UK there are VERY few serving personnel with a disability of any kind, especially what your system terms a 100% disability. You have to have all your eyes, hands and arms AND legs, although if you can prove to a board - like your amazing Navy diver did in that movie that made me cry - that you CAN carry out your duties with just ONE artificial leg- you MIGHT be allowed to continue in the Army/Royal Marines, but at a somewhat reduced level, depending on the level of disability. You must, however, pass all the physical fitness test required of an able-bodied soldier or Royal Marine to even be considered.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
...
I'd be grateful if you could explain this to me.

tac, I am no expert, but this article popped up in a feed I read and it seemed timely.

The crux of your question seems to boil down to a difference in what the military and Veterans Administration considers "disabled" from a military service standpoint, and what civilians, insurance, industry, and the civilian side of the government consider it.

Serving with a VA disability rating

Thanks. Here in UK there are VERY few serving personnel with a disability of any kind, especially what your system terms a 100% disability. You have to have all your eyes, hands and arms AND legs, although if you can prove to a board - like your amazing Navy diver did in that movie that made me cry - that you CAN carry out your duties with just ONE artificial leg- you MIGHT be allowed to continue in the Army/Royal Marines, but at a somewhat reduced level, depending on the level of disability. You must, however, pass all the physical fitness test required of an able-bodied soldier or Royal Marine to even be considered.

This chap seemed to do rather well in WW II despite the lack of both his legs. As a young man learning to fly he was one of my heroes.

Group Captain Sir Douglas Bader

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I dunno, I’ll play devil’s advocate here.

I always hesitate to post my thoughts like those above because they can always be misinterpreted.

The “why” question isn’t one I ask because I’m one of the beneficiaries of the current system for the reasons I cited as examples. If there were a complete reform of the various welfare systems in this country I would probably not object if I lost what I get now, but that’s not going to happen and call it what one likes, but I believe that I and other veterans like me are just as deserving as countless other recipients.

And then I admit that that would be in large part due to the fact that my VA benefits reduce my retired Army pay by an equal amount. I enjoy a small tax break because the VA payments aren’t taxed like my pension, but it’s not much.

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
I will second that optempo and an over abundance of operational burden on special ops soldiers ( the size of the special operations force- massive compared to pre 9/11 levels- with the associated emphasis on recruiting and retention of these troops) has greatly contributed to these issues.
Politically it is an effort to minimize the conventional force footprint.
With some troops seeing so many multiple deployments ( I know traditional national guard soldiers in conventional units that have 5 plus deployments in the last 10 years)
The stress and fatigue gets to everyone.
After my second deployment I was in pretty rough shape, and can’t imagine if I had not retired and been subjected to more.
highlighting discipline failures in special operations is a symptom of a much larger serious disease in our military