Replies

Something doesn't add up here...Before garnishment would occur there would be a quick investigation at his former command as to the disposition of the vest. On the DD-200 Survey form, the findings would be documented and he Commanding Officer makes a determination whether to "write off" the lost/damaged equipment or garnish the cost from the servicemember. What CO in his right mind would charge one of his wounded under these circumstances?

"What CO in his right mind would charge one of his wounded under these circumstances?"

None. This was some puke clerk who did this, not a CO. COs don't read every piece of paper and every discharge survey, for pete's sake.

This is a REMF SNAFU. Anyone who has been in the military knows what that is. I didn't get paid for 3 months after my transfer to a base in Turkey. Seems my paperwork was sent to Shemya in the Aleutians. I went in a different direction. The answer from the REMFs in the COs office in Turkey? "Nothing we can do, sergeant."

Keyword: right mind
I've noticed a lot of things in the military are not
reasonable. Their PC policy says that chaplins
are not to say "Jesus". Unfortunately, I'm not a bit
surprised by this article. It is also the case that
soldiers coming back from the battlefield have a hard
time proving they are ill from chemicals used in the
war. It is usually a nightmare for them to get their
medical treatment. While I support the soldiers, I think
the system has failed them many times.

Something doesn't add up here...Before garnishment would occur there would be a quick investigation at his former command as to the disposition of the vest. On the DD-200 Survey form, the findings would be documented and he Commanding Officer makes a determination whether to "write off" the lost/damaged equipment or garnish the cost from the servicemember. What CO in his right mind would charge one of his wounded under these circumstances?

You would be surprised at some of the assinine things I had to deal with while on active duty. Some CO's only have a focus on what's above them and care nothing about what's below them. The sad thing is that their attitude forms an identical culture of brown-nosing and ass-covering in the suboordinate officers as well.

What CO in his right mind would charge one of his wounded under these circumstances?

It's not the CO, it's the weenies over at CIF (Central Issuing Facility) that pull this crapola.

Something doesn't add up here...Before garnishment would occur there would be a quick investigation at his former command as to the disposition of the vest. On the DD-200 Survey form, the findings would be documented and he Commanding Officer makes a determination whether to "write off" the lost/damaged equipment or garnish the cost from the servicemember. What CO in his right mind would charge one of his wounded under these circumstances?

I'm with you here. I'm a former infantry officer and I've done dozens of reports of survey, and had God-only-knows how many done on soldiers under my command. Generally speaking, the soldier is given the option of Report of Survey or signing a Statement of Charges. Assuming the soldier is telling the complete truth, he should have demanded a report of survey. A survey officer (usually a platoon leader, but not HIS platoon leader) from his battalion would be appointed to do a quick investigation as to the cause of the loss. Surveys have a 30 day limit, if I recall correctly, so at most, the soldier would only be in the Army for another thirty days. Combat loss surveys are usually pretty simple, so I can't imagine why this soldier didn't refuse the statement of charges. Generally speaking, signing a statement of charges is considered an admission that yeah, you lost it, and you don't have a good reason.