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,
It's a year later ~ was his unit still in Iraq?