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.
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.