This act made
it easier for wounded soldiers to have their injuries rated and treated
by the federal government. But less than a year after President Bush
signed the bill, the Defense Department interpreted the law in a way
that reduced its scope and denied many veterans the benefits they
thought they had been promised. The Pentagon's interpretation, which
veterans groups are challenging, is laid out in two memos written in
2008 by David S.C. Chu, who was undersecretary of defense for personnel
and readiness. The effect of the memos, which have been obtained by The
Washington Times, is to disqualify numerous soldiers who suffer from
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from receiving medical benefits
and to prevent others from receiving extra pay that the NDAA promised
to veterans with combat-related injuries. In drafting the NDAA,
Congress relied on the recommendations of a bipartisan panel headed by
former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and former Health and Human
Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala. The legislation permitted troops
who were injured during training operations to receive extra pay, but
Mr. Chu, in one of his memos, defined "combat-related operations" in
such a way that troops injured during training or simulated conditions
of war would not qualify.
Some lawmakers involved in enacting the 2008 law had expected
differently. During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)
said: "This addition expands the population that is eligible for the
enhancement of disability severance pay to include injuries incurred
during performance of duty in support of combat operations." But
Congress did not explicitly include in the bill a definition of
combat-related operations, leaving it to the Pentagon to make that
determination. The result was Mr. Chu's first memo, issued in MAR 08.
Mr. Chu said that the injury must have been inflicted during "armed
conflict," or in a combat zone, in order for the service member to
receive the benefits authorized. "The fact that a member may have
incurred a disability during a period of war or in an area of armed
conflict, or while participating in combat operations is not sufficient
to support this finding [of a combat-related disability]. There must be
a definite causal relationship between the armed conflict and the
resulting unfitting disability," Mr. Chu wrote in a document attached
to his MAR 08 memo. This excluded soldiers who were hurt while engaging
in operations outside combat zones, including situations Mr. Pryor
envisioned: conducting training exercises, jumping from helicopters in
rough terrain or participating in other hazardous duties.
Officials maintain that the scope of the law was narrowed to ensure
that combat-wounded soldiers would receive the bulk of the new
benefits. Many veterans groups view it as an unwelcome cost-saving
measure. David Gorman, executive director of the Disabled American
Veterans, wrote a letter to every member of Congress in AUG 08 that
said: "Sadly, the 2007 Walter Reed scandal, which resulted mostly from
poor oversight and inadequate leadership, pales in comparison to what
we view as deliberate manipulation of the law" by Mr. Chu and his
deputies. "He must not be allowed to continue thumbing his nose at the
will of Congress and the American people," Mr. Gorman said. Mr. Chu,
who is no longer with the Defense Department, told The Times that an
"enormous amount of confusion" has been associated with the memo and
advised The Times to speak with William Carr, the acting deputy
undersecretary for military personnel policy. The Department of Defense
did not make Mr. Carr available for an interview and instead issued a
statement through Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith, who confirmed
that the MAR 08 memo was still in effect.
The 2008 NDAA also made it easier for soldiers dismissed from service
because of PTSD to undergo treatment and receive compensation. The law
said veterans dismissed from service because of PTSD must be given a
disability rating of 50%, high enough to ensure disability pay and
health care for the soldiers and their families. But another memo
written by Mr. Chu on 14 OCT 08, added a catch: It said the policy
should not go into effect until the date of the memo, nine months after
the bill had been signed into law, leaving out any soldiers dismissed
from service because of PTSD before that date. Many soldiers with PTSD
who were dismissed from service before the October deadline suffered
severe physical injuries as well. They included long-serving, decorated
soldiers regularly exposed to mortar fire and roadside bombs. Seven of
them have banded together with the National Veterans Legal Services
Program in a class-action lawsuit, filed in DEC 08, seeking the 50%
rating. Bart Stichman, a lawyer handling the case for the veterans
legal services program, said the military has a "history of lowballing"
the ratings and estimates that there are "thousands who have been
discharged before OCT 08 that the military has done nothing about."
One of the soldiers suing is former Army Sgt. Juan Perez, who was
discharged from the military in 2006 after being deemed unfit for
further service because of a PTSD diagnosis. During his first
deployment to Iraq, he routinely carried out reconnaissance missions
near the Syrian border. On one occasion, his Bradley fighting vehicle
was hit with an improvised explosive device. But it was during his
second deployment when he sustained an injury, as an
industrial-strength bungee cord restraining ammunition lost its hold
and snapped violently against his head. The injury caused him to
temporarily lose his eyesight, and he was flown to Germany for
treatment. He then began suffering migraines and sometimes losing
consciousness. He was sent later to the United States, where he began
to experience PTSD symptoms, including insomnia, paranoia and extreme
irritability. He was later diagnosed with PTSD and traumatic brain
injury. Because of the PTSD diagnosis, the Army officially declared him
no longer fit to serve and dismissed him from duty in 2006, before any
of the 2008 NDAA benefits became available. Perez said, "They didn't
include my eye injury. They just said I was unfit to be a soldier
anymore. And they gave me 0 percent for PTSD. They gave me a severance
package, but that didn't even last three months. If I would have gotten
a 30% rating, at least, I could have medical care for my wife and kids,
but now I don't have that." Sgt. Perez says he can see, but not as well
as before the accident. He suffers from migraines and carries an oxygen
tank to help alleviate the headaches. [Source: The Washington Times
Amanda Carpenter article 28 Dec 09 ++]
Posted
Jan 02 2010, 12:43 PM
by
Anthony Swetala