Injured Iraq Vets Come Home to Poverty

[wade]

Injured Iraq Vets Come Home to Poverty
Injured Soldiers Returning from Iraq Struggle for Medical Benefits, Financial Survival
By BRIAN ROSS, DAVID SCOTT and MADDY SAUER

Oct. 14, 2004 -- Oct. 14, 2004 - Following inquiries by ABC News, the Pentagon has dropped plans to force a severely wounded U.S. soldier to repay his enlistment bonus after injuries had forced him out of the service.

Army Spc. Tyson Johnson III of Mobile, Ala., who lost a kidney in a mortar attack last year in Iraq, was still recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center when he received notice from the Pentagon's own collection agency that he owed more than $2,700 because he could not fulfill his full 36-month tour of duty.

Johnson said the Pentagon listed the bonus on his credit report as an unpaid government loan, making it impossible for him to rent an apartment or obtain credit cards.

"Oh man, I felt betrayed," Johnson said. "I felt, like, oh, my heart dropped."

Pentagon officials said they were unaware of the case until it was brought to their attention by ABC News. "Some faceless bureaucrat" was responsible for Johnson's predicament, said Gen. Franklin "Buster" Hagenbeck, a three-star general and the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel.

"It's absolutely unacceptable. It's intolerable," said Hagenbeck. "I mean, I'm incredulous when I hear those kinds of things. I just can't believe that we allow that to happen. And we're not going to let it happen."

The Department of Defense and the Army intervened to have the collection action against Johnson stopped, said Hagenbeck.

"I was told today he's not going to have a nickel taken from him," he said. "And I will tell you that we'll keep a microscope on this one to see the outcome."

'Not So Good'

Hagenbeck also pledged to look into the cases of the other soldiers ABC News brought to the military's attention, including men who lost limbs and their former livelihoods after serving in Iraq.
"When you're in the military, they take good care of you," said the 23-year-old Johnson. "But now that I'm a vet, and, you know, I'm out of the military -- not so good. Not so good."

Johnson had been flying high last September, after being promoted from Army private first class to specialist in a field ceremony in Iraq. Inspired by his father's naval background to join the military after high school, Tyson planned a career in the military and the promotion was just the first step. But only a week after the ceremony took place, a mortar round exploding outside his tent brought him quickly back to Earth.

"It was like warm water running down my arms," he said. "But it was warm blood."

In addition to the lost kidney, shrapnel damaged Johnson's lung and heart, and entered the back of his head. Field medical reports said he was not expected to live more than 72 hours.

With the help of exceptional Army surgeons, Johnson survived. As he recuperated, however, Johnson faced perhaps an even greater obstacle than physical pain or injuries -- the military bureaucracy.

Part of the warrior ethos, the soldier's creed of the U.S. Army, is to "never leave a fallen comrade."

"And it doesn't just pertain to the battlefield," Hagenbeck said. "It means, when we get them home they're a part of the Army family forever."

But Johnson now lives in his car. It is where he spends most of his days, all of his nights, in constant pain from his injuries and unwilling to burden his family.


Better Off Dead?

Stories like Tyson Johnson's are not unique.

Many of the severely wounded soldiers returning from Iraq face the prospect of poverty and what they describe as official indifference and incompetence.

"Guys I've met, talking to people, they'd be better off financially for their families if they had died as opposed to coming back maimed," said Staff Sgt. Ryan Kelly, who served as a civil affairs specialist for the Army while in Iraq.

On July 14, 2003, the Abilene, Texas, native had been on his way to a meeting about rebuilding schools in Iraq when his unarmored Humvee was blown up. A piece of shrapnel the size of a TV remote took his right leg off, below the knee, almost completely, Kelly said.

Kelly attests to receiving excellent medical care at Ward 57, the amputee section of Walter Reed, but said he quickly realized that the military had no real plan for the injured soldiers. Many had to borrow money or depend on charities just to have relatives visit at Walter Reed, Kelly said.

"It's not what I expected to see when I got here," he said. "These guys having to, you know, basically panhandle for money to afford things."


No Answer

Perhaps as a sign of the grim outlook facing many of these wounded soldiers, Staff Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Brockton, Mass., said he is grateful for being a double amputee.

"Well, in a way, I'm kind of lucky losing both arms because I've been told I'll probably get 100 percent disability," he said.

Damon, a mechanic and electrician, lost both arms in an explosion as he was repairing a helicopter in Iraq. He initially woke up in the hospital worried and anxious to learn that both forms of livelihood were taken away from him.

"Now what am I doing to do?" Damon said, faced with the prospect of supporting his wife, Jennifer, and two children. "I can't do either, none of those, with no hands."

The military fails to provide a lump sum payment for such catastrophic injuries. And Damon still has not heard from the military about what they plan to give in terms of monthly disability payments.

The last time Damon asked about the payments, he was told by the military that his paperwork had been lost.

"And then when I went to go back to inquire about it again, just to ask a question, I just wanted to see if they had found my paperwork, I was told I had to make an appointment and to come back five days later," he said.

A thick book of federal regulations specifies the disability rate based on how many limbs were amputated and precisely where.

The percentage rates were set during World War II.

Jennifer Damon said the shock of her husband returning with no arms has been replaced by the fear of destitution, as well as a frustration over her husband's final discharge. Like his disability benefits, Peter's release is being held up by the lost paperwork and unanswered phone calls.

"It's hard to understand," she said. "I mean, I need him more than they need him right now. It's been a long time. You've had him for a long time. I want him back."

A Failing System?

Staff Sgt. Larry Gill, a National Guardsman from Semmes, Ala., wonders whether his 20 dutiful years of military service have been adequately rewarded.

Last October, Gill injured his left leg when on patrol during a protest outside a mosque in Baghdad. A protester threw a hand grenade which left Gill, a former policeman, with leg intact, though useless. He received a Purple Heart from the military, but no program, plan or proposal of how to make a living in civilian life.

"It's not fair, and I'm not complaining," Gill said. "I'm not whining about it. You know, I just, I just don't think people really understand what we're being faced with.

Gill expects he will have to sell his home, the dream house he and his wife, Leah, designed and built, where they raised their children.

"I've never questioned my orders," he said. "I've slept with rats and stood in the rain and wondered why I was standing in the rain, and, you know, for my children to have to do without based on a lack of income from me, it's frustrating."

Leah Gill agreed. "I just don't feel we should have to uproot because of an injury that he received while he was serving the country," she said. "It shouldn't come down to that."

Gill and the others in Ward 57 have had their pictures taken frequently with visiting politicians. [including Pres. Bush - they showed these photos when the story aired last thursday]

"Where are the politicians? Where are the generals?" he asked. "Where are the people that are supposed to take care of me?"

Help and care will be forthcoming, promised Hagenbeck.

"There in fact was a plan," he said. "But again, it was not integrated in a seamless fashion that it needed to be. And that was not even, really, to be honest with you, recognized probably until sometime about a year ago. And these soldiers actually brought it to our attention about the transition problems."

The military would do a better job of taking care of their own, Hagenbeck said, though the system in place was often unwieldy, outdated and inadequate.

"Oh, there absolutely has been problems in the past," Hagenbeck said. "And they're in -- even with some of our soldiers today. Some missteps have been made. And they have not been taken care of the way they should have been taken care of."

Loyal Soldiers

To help these neglected soldiers, Hagenbeck said, the military created an advocacy program this past April called Disabled Soldier Support System, or DS3. The network is set up to fight for a soldier's benefits and entitlements, ease transition to civilian life, and deal with any other problems facing a disabled soldier, according to Hagenbeck.

But still there are soldiers like Johnson who fall through the cracks.

His mother, Willie Jean Johnson, worries her son may hurt himself.

"He's not going to say anything bad about the Army," she said. "I have never heard him say anything bad about it. But you can see the hurt in his eyes. You can see the hurt from his heart in his eyes."

Johnson said he usually keeps to himself, preferring to protect his son from seeing him in his current state. "I'd rather be to myself than to flare at somebody else and, you know, and hurt someone that I know I really love," he said.

One year after nearly being killed in combat, the Pentagon has yet to send Johnson his Purple Heart medal.

The Pentagon collection notices, however, arrive without fail.

As to Kelly's discovery that he and his wounded comrades had to beg and borrow to pay for their loved ones to visit while they recuperate, Hagenbeck said a new policy went into effect this weekend to alleviate part of the problem.

"There was no system in place to support them in their needs. And I'll be honest with you, until it came to our attention, to people that were paying attention, and then those that wanted to help, that obstacle was there," Hagenbeck said.

Incredibly, these soldiers remain dedicated to the military despite all they have endured.

"Even though the way I'm being treated, you know, as a vet, I'd still go back in," Johnson said. "I would."

"I love being a soldier," Kelly said. "I don't regret what happened. If I had to go back to Iraq knowing that there was that chance of losing my leg, I'd do it. Because that's what the nation asked me to do."

Jessica Wang contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2004 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/IraqCoverage/story?id=163109&page=2

It is tragic that it requires the News to do an expose on this kind of thing to make the government step in and do the right thing in the name of spin control. But what about the wounded soldier's whose stories are not being presented?

Bush had plenty of time for a photo op with these very wounded soldiers when they were in the hospital, displaying his supposed compassion and concern - but as soon as he was out the door they were forgotten!

This is a travesty and more than a case-by-case intervention by a General needs to be done to make sure our maimed soldiers are not driven into lives of poverty and despair. These are the true heroes of this war; they are the ones doing the "hard" in Bush's "hard decisions", and they will do so for the rest of their lives. They need to be treated better and they need to be treated better right now! And there is no excuse for delay. We are only talking a few thousand seriously wounded soldiers - every one should have an advocate assigned to them to make sure they are treated right! The arguments of a tedious bureaucracy being at fault are totally bogus - the pentagon bureaucracy sure doesn't have a problem in billing these soldiers for their "unearned" bonuses in a prompt manner!

There was pleanty of money to help the victims of the WTC, why is there so little to help our wounded vets? If anything, they deserve more, not less, than the WTC victims.

A website needs to be setup where wounded soldiers can expose their situations and get public support to make sure they are treated right!

Wade.

 

[supermarine]

You know, somehow you liberal scum always try to find a way to blame bush. the president isnt supposed to micromanage. Yes i think that things should change within the military, but will you shut the fuck up about how everything is bush's fault. If i dropped down to your level i could go rambling on about your idol, clinton.

 

[wade]

You know, somehow you liberal scum always try to find a way to blame bush. the president isnt supposed to micromanage. Yes i think that things should change within the military, but will you shut the fuck up about how everything is bush's fault. If i dropped down to your level i could go rambling on about your idol, clinton.

When Bush takes the time to pose for photos with an injured vet in the hospital, he has an obligation to make sure that vet is well treated.

I'd say the same thing if Clinton were doing this. I don't care what party they are in, when a politician takes advantage of such a situation and then turns his back on it, I'm outraged.

Bush had time for the photo op, he should make time to make sure these guys are well cared taken care of, or at the very least assign this duty to one of his staff. The cost of that photo op by Bush (given all the security and other expenses involved in the trip) would probably have set these guys for life.

In this case, its not about not liking Bush, it's about not liking two-faced politicians (and aren't they all that way?)!

 

[Flying Duck]

Hmmm... I think the number of wounded vets is now somewhere around 7,000, right? And your assertion is that the President is supposed to manage each case for eahc vet? I suppose if he had any time left over, then he could devote that time to running the country. Another glaring example of liberal "logic."

 

[wade]

Hmmm... I think the number of wounded vets is now somewhere around 7,000, right? And your assertion is that the President is supposed to manage each case for eahc vet? I suppose if he had any time left over, then he could devote that time to running the country. Another glaring example of liberal "logic."

The number badly maimed is a small fraction of the total wounded - perhaps 1500? Probably less - such serious wounds on the battlefield usually result in death. Yes, I think the president can arrainge for staff or military attache's to follow these cases and make sure they are well taken care of. One person could easily follow 50+ wounded vets and issue a report, I would think the president can arrainge 20-30 people to handle it.

I'm saying is that if he can take the time to have a private (there were maybe 3 injured vets in the room) photo op with an injured vet (the ex-sheriff with no arms in this case) he can damn well have someone on his staff follow up and make sure that person is well taken care of. He's the president, he has a staff, and he can tell them "follow this guy and make sure he is well treated", or he can shake the guys hook and tell him how much he appreciates his sacrifice and have the photo taken and then walk out the door and never think of that man again.

That people are tools to be used and disregaurded when no longer useful is wrong. Another glaring example of Conservative logic.

 

[NATO AIR]

vets need to start fighting for the rights and benefits they deserve and start holding politicians of all parties responsible. the system is a sham, and no one will care until vets raise enough hell about it.

 

[wade]

And you think that this is all Bush? this has been an ongoing problem for vets forever not just during the recent administrations reign.
I can agree that vets should have better treatment but I wont say that this is to fall squarely on the Bush administration. What about the Vietnam vets and all the BS they go through to get any treatment?

The only need to point out logic here is when one thinks that this is some sort of new crisis that our military vets face, then the logic is truly flawed!

I'm only commenting in general that this needs to be fixed, and in specific that Bush is two-faced for going to the hospital for a photo op and then turning his back on the vets he visited.

I agree the VN vets have been ill treated, and the Gulf War I vets as well. But the point is that Bush specifically visited this former sheriff who lost both hands, and after having done that and having his photo taken with the guy, I think he owes it to that guy to make sure he is properly treated. There are probably other politicians who have done the same thing, and I'd say the same thing about them if the circumstances were similar, but the only photo's I saw on last thursday nights "Primetime" airing of this story were those of Bush with these maimed ex-soldiers.

 

[wade]

vets need to start fighting for the rights and benefits they deserve and start holding politicians of all parties responsible. the system is a sham, and no one will care until vets raise enough hell about it.

What needs to happen is the active duty military need to speak up and support these vets and the need for them to be treated right. Only when active duty military moral is threatened by poor treatment of wounded vets will anything be done about it. Active duty military personel need to stand up for their wounded brothers!

 

[YoungChristian]

I actually agree with wade on the point that government should help out veteran's families that give their all in battle. But, this problem is all of government's fault, not just President Bush's. After all John Kerry is in the Senate, he could have arranged for those vets to be taken care of too.

 

[Mainframe]

I actually agree with wade on the point that government should help out veteran's families that give their all in battle. But, this problem is all of government's fault, not just President Bush's. After all John Kerry is in the Senate, he could have arranged for those vets to be taken care of too.

hahah i saw that coming a mile away with the last comment. but lets not focus on one guy, they ALL need to get off their asses and help. rep/dem/ind/green/etc.

 

[sagegirl]

vets need to start fighting for the rights and benefits they deserve and start holding politicians of all parties responsible. the system is a sham, and no one will care until vets raise enough hell about it.

Unfortunately some of these vets cant speak for themselves.....there is now a condition affecting the brain (body armor protects the torso but the brain suffers from shelll shock) I saw a special on tv that showed a young vet that couldnt even sit up when he was sent home, no obvious injury. He was recovering but was getting alot of therapy, he just had a hard time making any sense out of what was going on......sort of like alhzheimers only if you reminded him....hey you were in Iraq and suffered a head injury... every morning he knew what it meant. His problem was common and undiagnosed for alot of vets and often just considered an adjustment problem. Families of vets were advised to watch for certain behaviors.

 

[dmp]

Why don't some of you read this for what it is - a 'good news' story. It's about a Wouned vet - who was likely Medically Retired (50%? of base pay, for life), who was wrongfully billed...until somebody figured out what was going on. There are hardships - true...but anyone wanna dig up a story on how WELL the Military can take care of it's vets? No? That's because there's no Drama in the 90% who are taken care of appropriately, only the 10% who may have slipped thru the proverbial cracks.

 

[wade]

I actually agree with wade on the point that government should help out veteran's families that give their all in battle. But, this problem is all of government's fault, not just President Bush's. After all John Kerry is in the Senate, he could have arranged for those vets to be taken care of too.

I agree. But my point is that those politicians who visit these vets, espeically for photo op's, encure an obligation to see they are well cared for. I saw photo's of Bush with them, I didn't see photo's of Kerry.

Furthermore, Bush, being the commander in chief and the one who sent them to war, has more responsibility to make sure they are properly cared for than anyone else.

 

[wade]

Why don't some of you read this for what it is - a 'good news' story. It's about a Wouned vet - who was likely Medically Retired (50%? of base pay, for life), who was wrongfully billed...until somebody figured out what was going on. There are hardships - true...but anyone wanna dig up a story on how WELL the Military can take care of it's vets? No? That's because there's no Drama in the 90% who are taken care of appropriately, only the 10% who may have slipped thru the proverbial cracks.

This is not what was reported. The young solidier with the kidney injury was getting nothing, except bills from the pentagon for return of his unearned bonus. He was living out of his car because, with the upaid debt and late payment history on that "loan" he could not get an apt.

And 50% for life? The national gaurd pay for the Sheriff was less than his Sheriff pay to start with, and now he will get 50% of that for life? Is that right or fair? He has no fucking hands! How can he earn enough to support his family?

It's not right!

 

[MissileMan]

I agree. But my point is that those politicians who visit these vets, espeically for photo op's, encure an obligation to see they are well cared for. I saw photo's of Bush with them, I didn't see photo's of Kerry.

Furthermore, Bush, being the commander in chief and the one who sent them to war, has more responsibility to make sure they are properly cared for than anyone else.

That's the same kind of fucked-up logic that Kerry is using to blame Bush for the ban on assault weapons running out. The president doesn't make the laws, he enforces them. It was up to the congress to send a bill forward for the president to sign. If Kerry is so hot on it, why didn't he sponsor a bill?

There is a system in place to make sure that Vets are properly cared for. It is not a perfect system, but to expect the president to drop everything else to micro-manage the healthcare of our wounded soldiers is just plain stupid.

 

[dmp]

This is not what was reported. The young solidier with the kidney injury was getting nothing, except bills from the pentagon for return of his unearned bonus. He was living out of his car because, with the upaid debt and late payment history on that "loan" he could not get an apt.

That's bullshit. If he was injured in the military, at least 40%, he will and can get a medical retirement...and having ONE bad mark on one's credit would NOT prevent anyone from getting an appartment. If he wasn't retired, he was still in, thus, didn't need an appartment.

 

[drowe]

And on the other end of the spectrum….

My wife’s uncle, who was in Nam, shot a wild pig that broke into their perimeter, it was the only combat the loser saw in his tour.

He is now claiming PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and he cannot function normally. He appealed twice to the VA and he now proudly gets 75% disability for the “traumatic experience”.

If you see a guy driving a white F-150 with the “veterans for kerry sticker” in Glassboro, NJ…feel free to give him the finger.

 

[Merlin1047]

This is not what was reported. The young solidier with the kidney injury was getting nothing, except bills from the pentagon for return of his unearned bonus. He was living out of his car because, with the upaid debt and late payment history on that "loan" he could not get an apt.

And 50% for life? The national gaurd pay for the Sheriff was less than his Sheriff pay to start with, and now he will get 50% of that for life? Is that right or fair? He has no fucking hands! How can he earn enough to support his family?

It's not right!

I don't see this as a Democrat/Republican or a liberal/conservative issue. ABC's motives for reporting these stories may well be suspect, but that doesn't change the fact that we seem to have soldiers returning from Iraq with serious injuries who need to be treated better.

It is ridiculous to hold Pres Bush personally responsible for every soldier. But it is fair to demand that Pres Bush place emphasis on efforts to assure that soldiers are treated fairly. Their physical and financial needs should be met and the armed services should have a better system in place to do just that.

Unfortunately, it has been true throughout our history that we view soldiers as disposable. We glorify them while they are on the battlefield, but when some of them come home broken and maimed, we don't even want to acknowledge their existence. That needs to change.

 

[CSM]

I don't see this as a Democrat/Republican or a liberal/conservative issue. ABC's motives for reporting these stories may well be suspect, but that doesn't change the fact that we seem to have soldiers returning from Iraq with serious injuries who need to be treated better.

It is ridiculous to hold Pres Bush personally responsible for every soldier. But it is fair to demand that Pres Bush place emphasis on efforts to assure that soldiers are treated fairly. Their physical and financial needs should be met and the armed services should have a better system in place to do just that.

Unfortunately, it has been true throughout our history that we view soldiers as disposable. We glorify them while they are on the battlefield, but when some of them come home broken and maimed, we don't even want to acknowledge their existence. That needs to change.

SOoooo true. There is no question that the beauracracy sometimes gets the upper hand in situations like this. I can tell you one thing for sure, I know the General personally and I wouldn't want to be the "faceless beauracrat" who sent out that bill; nor would I want to be in that particular office when the General came to visit (something I know he did). There is no doubt in my mind that things will get fixed right quick.

Anyone who has experience running a large organization knows darn well that it is impossible to be aware of each and every problem each individual has in that organization, once made aware of the problem, however, it needs to be resolved immediately. Blaming Bush personally is ridiculous; he has a not insignificant military chain of command that is SUPPOSED to take care of these things ... they obviously failed.
As to who is to blame ... everyone is. I have always felt that soldiers and former soldiers are poorly treated, whether they are disabled or not. Our citizens dont bat an eye when some sports figure gets a multi-million dollar salary, but squeal like pigs if soldiers get a 2% raise on their already meager salary. The nation managed to pull together a huge sum of money for the victims of 9/11, but not one penny for those members of our armed forces wounded or killed in any theater, never mind Iraq. I sometimes think that the citizens of the US do not deserve the kind of loyalty and sacrafice our men and women in the services make for them.

I can also tell you that our Congress is very reluctant to increase benefits for vets. Many, many bills have been proposed to increase pay, retirement benefits, medical benefits, disability benefits and so on. Almost all have been voted down. State governments are no better.

I know personally of one individual who served for 40 years (that's right FORTY) who when he went to a VA hospital for treatment was initially rejected because some snot nosed kid who never served one day in his life and was lucky enough to get a job at that particular hospital as a receptionist told him he was NOT a vet because he didn't ever serve in a combat zone (the vet was in the Navy). It took two weeks of daily phone calls and working through the chain of command (they were staunchly supporting their employee) right up to the Chief Administrator to get the poor guy in for treatment. The hospital administration didn't even have copies of the appropriate regulations and laws defining who was eligible for care.

When the American people stop viewing service members as second class citizens maybe things will change. Until then I dont hold much hope. As fewer and fewer of our elected and appointed officials serve in the military, the less likely things are to change.

 

[NATO AIR]

i have a classmate of mine from high school who has serious burns all over his chest, arms and neck from a vehicle fire caused by an RPG in iraq and has serious mental trauma as well... he's been back home for five months and has been seen a total of two times...

its bullshit how they're treating these guys... ALL the politicians should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this.