Posted on 02/07/2006 11:44:45 AM PST by iPod Shuffle
In the past, the Army allowed to soldiers to write memos, explaining the loss and destruction of gear, Rebrook said.
But a new policy required a “report of survey” from the field that documented the loss.
Rebrook said he tried to get a battalion commander to sign a waiver on the battle armor, but the officer declined. Rebrook was told he’d have to supply statements from witnesses to verify the body armor was taken from him and burned.
In other words, they told the kid that he needed to request a report of survey. The kid chose not to. He also chose not to get statements from *anyone* in his unit who could verify that the armor was taken and burned. Sounds like the Army gave the kid a decent shot at *not* paying, but for whatever reason, he chose not to do that.
No, they didn't. It was never the Lt's job, or responsibility to handle any of this. It is not his responsibility to handle it one year later, at the time of discharge either. What you have here is a lazy slug battalion commander that doesn't give a damn about wounded soldiers.
The vest in question was involved in an explosion that wrecked the soldier's arm, was it not? The vest is now trash due to shrapnel. Damaged vests are not reusable. Did the battalion commanded think the soldier faked the blast to steal a vest? It sure looks like it!
"He also chose not to get statements from *anyone* in his unit who could verify that the armor was taken and burned."
Yes indeed, the whole wounded in a roadside bomb story is BS. It was a gd show to steal a friggin' vest.
It still seems strange that the ROS wasn't automatically generated by his TF, and cleared before that unit left Iraq. There is something we are not hearing about this. Really, this isn't rocket science! ;)
Regards,
Actually, yeah, it was the soldier's responsibility. It was his assigned equipment, and he is required, injured or not, to account for it. The Army gave him an opportunity to account for it in such a way that he wouldn't have to pay for it, but he chose not to do that. No one disputes that the officer in question was injured by an IED, and we all feel badly about that. However, the responsibility DOES lie on the soldier to show that he was wearing the vest at the time of the injury. A simple statement (which would be taken as a matter of course in a report of survey) would establish that fact.
The vest in question was involved in an explosion that wrecked the soldier's arm, was it not?
I would assume so. Again, a simple written statement by the officer saying that he was wearing the vest when he was wounded, and the vest was taken from him at that point, would be enough for a survey officer to write the vest off as a combat loss. The officer apparently chose not to make such a statement in writing, and instead agreed to pay $700 via statement of charges.
What you have here is a lazy slug battalion commander that doesn't give a damn about wounded soldiers.
Is there any indication that the Bn Cdr in the story was the soldier's commander in Iraq? You can't expect anyone to sign a statement that something was destroyed in combat if they weren't there. If the commander IS the same guy, I imagine he'd beat the sh*t out of you, me, or anyone else who claims he doesn't care about his wounded soldiers.
Yes indeed, the whole wounded in a roadside bomb story is BS. It was a gd show to steal a friggin' vest.
No one has said any such thing. What we have found odd is that the soldier refused to accept a simple, open-and-shut report of survey that would've taken all of an afternoon to complete.
I agree. You'd think that would've been completed in the pre-redeployment inventory process.
Not with people of his circumstances.
Hehe... I just noticed your post. I told the Army to go "f" itself all the time -- just never officially, on paper. :)
Oh please. You would be the perfect REMF. There is so little appplication of common sense within the military machine. I was deployed to Kuwait for nine months. I saw the Army waste more money on more b.s. than I thought possible. But this guy loses his body armor when he gets wounded and you think he should get his money back after he proves the circumstances that it was lost under?
Some sh-tbird supply schmuck didn't check with the guys in his company before they put this too him. Plain and simple.
What happens if the body armor failed them? Would they still have to pay for it? [/sarc]
You do realize that this IS the Army right?
It appears that writing such a statement and signing it was not enough.
"The officer apparently chose not to make such a statement in writing, and instead agreed to pay $700 via statement of charges."
I don't believe anyone in their right mind would do such a thing. I do believe that very unreasonable demands and conditions were made at the time of discharge when the Lt was to leave for home.
"Is there any indication that the Bn Cdr in the story was the soldier's commander in Iraq?"
It doesn't matter and probably not. The commander at Hood had the authority to facilitate the soldier's departure and fix the apparent problem. He refused to do so.
"What we have found odd is that the soldier refused to accept a simple, open-and-shut report of survey that would've taken all of an afternoon to complete."
More was apparently demanded than filling out a simple doc. He apparently would have to hunt down and obtain letters from others. I do not believe a West Point grad would not fill out a simple form, or write a simple letter stating that the vest was worn at the time of the explosion. I do believe he would walk away in disgust when unreasonable demands were made by a pencil dick.
At the risk of sounding callous, people get sick all the time for a myriad of reasons.
There are some veterans, many of whom never spent a day in combat, who seem to think that any illness they suffer for the rest of their lives must have been service-connected.
I wouldn't necessarily call them malingerers or frauds, because they may truly be sick or at least sincerely believe they are sick. However, when I worked in a VA hospital, I personally saw some of these guys spending an astounding amount of time and effort gaming the system to get the service-connected designation, regardless of the lack of evidence therefor.
If they worked so hard at a regular job, they'd be so successful that there would be no need of the paltry VA benefits.
-ccm
And when the CIF comes up short of equipment during its inventory then the NCOIC has to pay for it out of his pocket unless the Lt filled out the proper form. Why should the NCOIC of the CIF take the $700 hit when the Lt wouldn't sign off on the DD-200 form? The Lt chose to pay rather than wait for the form to be processed. It was his decision that he would rather pay than wait.
You are so wrong. The army will not discharge or release you if you owe them money. They will find some duty that you can do even if you are crippled or in the hospital and continue to pay you until you pay your debt. If you tell them to 'f' themselves and leave you are AWOL. They will come and get you,and after trial, put you in the stockade and when you get out they will give you some duty you can perform until you pay your debt. You will also owe them more money and will be fined for the time you spent telling them to 'f' themselves. Then they will decide what kind of discharge you get.
What doesn't add up is the story. I think its bogus. 1st Lt. William “Eddie” Rebrook IV is a West Point officer and has served at least 2 years to obtain his rank and makes good money. In Iraq he would be making tax free $80,000 plus a year and if not married little to spend it on. Wounded he would continue to receive his regular pay and discharged he would receive his disability pay. The article says that he was so destitute that he had to take up a collection from friends. I served during Vietnam and received disability and was recalled and had to reprove the disability. They did not recall me to serve in Vietnam but to train recruits in hand to hand combat. My son is a 1st Lt. serving in Iraq now so I speak from experience.
When I returned from Kuwait, the Navy overpaid me by almost $1000. They (and I) discovered their mistake almost 9 months later. They wanted to charge me penalties and interest for THEIR mistake. I told them that I'd repay them the money but refused to pay any penalties and interest and they backed down pretty quickly.
I meant told them to 'f' themselves in a metaphoric sense.
Even if the guy made 80gs in Iraq he still has a crippled arm and this still is one of those stupid military snafus.
I was in the ADA (PATRIOT), and I don't believe I ever did a report of survey. Of course, we didn't see much shooting action in Desert Storm, though.
Thanks for the info.
Puh-leeze. The REMFs responsible for this snafu wouldn't lift a finger to fix it unless bad publicity spurred somebody higher up the food chain to light a fire under their sorry butts.
What you are saying in fact is the other side of the story, as you understand it. However the problem is it came from the soldier and not the military command involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.