Holy crap! Soldiers blown up in the line of duty are financially responsible for their equipment? That's just wrong.
That's screwed up.
__________________ Of Courtesy, it is much less than Courage of Heart or Holiness. Yet in my walks it seems to me that the Grace of God is in Courtesy.
Reading further into the story, it appears that if it had been properly documented, he would not have been charged for it. I guess they want the cost to serve as a deterrent for people walking off with the body armor after their stint in the service?
But no one documented that he lost his Kevlar body armor during battle, he said. No one wrote down that armor had apparently been incinerated as a biohazard.
However, surely they can confirm by talking to his unit, that he indeed lost his body armor like he claims he did and thereby waive this fee.
__________________ Of Courtesy, it is much less than Courage of Heart or Holiness. Yet in my walks it seems to me that the Grace of God is in Courtesy.
$700 is a lot of money to a soldier, even a junior officer. Not to mention the price he already payed (and will pay the rest of his life) to serve his country. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times: FTA!
This is one of those non news stories. This kind of thing is a simple paperwork snafu and will be corrected. It makes about as much sense turning this into news as ordering something online and having the wrong item shipped. When discharged all issued equipment must be returned. Folks trying to take stuff home with them is a big concern. This guy didn't turn his stuff in nor was any paperwork filed to document it's loss/destruction.
Colleague was mentioning how he witnessed a soldier try to turn in his bloodied/torn CVC uniform after Desert Storm, he had been wounded. CIF wouldn't accept it in that condition and wanted to charge him. Fortunately, the brigade commander happened to be standing next to him, and lit off.
What will probably happen is that the unit will file a form for combat loss, with a few sworn statements. If he's clever, he can get a hand receipt signed by the supply sergeant or CO for it, and present that to CIF to be discharged. When the combat loss is finally entered into the system, it all becomes dandy.
Wonder why they haven't thought of that yet?
NTM
__________________
A man only needs two tools in life. WD-40 and duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
Wow, I've been out so long I had to think hard for a good 20 seconds before I remembered what FTA stands for.
Hey vm,
lol, I knew there had to be some other veterans out there reading this thread. It's one of those great army acronyms like FUBAR and SNAFU.
For those out there who haven't had an army experience:
FTA = Fuck The Army
FUBAR = Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition
SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fucked Up
I was Navy, so me for it was FTN rather than FTA.
__________________
I can see by your coat my friend that you're from the other side.
There's just one thing I got to know,
Can you tell me please, who won?
-- Wooden Ships by David Crosby, Stephen Stills and Paul Kantner
I'm still reeling from the "bureaucratic screw-up" that sent a Guardsman, whose stint was completed three days after his unit was to be shipped out to Iraq.
He petitioned to not be sent, in light of the end of his contract with the Army National Guard. The result? The Army reupped his recruitment for an additional 23 years! On top of the six years he'd already served. I could see them telling him he'd have to serve out his rotation abroad, but 23 years is excessive to the extreme.
He challenged it in federal court. And lost.
And they wonder why enlistments with the Guard have fallen so far so fast.
un and CT,
Well, honestly, I hope you guys are right, and the problem gets fixed with a little paper shuffle. The article said his commander wouldn't go to bat for him, and I hope that isn't true.
JC,
How funny! Does that mean there is an FTM, FTAF, and FTCG too?
I'm still reeling from the "bureaucratic screw-up" that sent a Guardsman, whose stint was completed three days after his unit was to be shipped out to Iraq.
He petitioned to not be sent, in light of the end of his contract with the Army National Guard. The result? The Army reupped his recruitment for an additional 23 years!
It's not really 23 years. It is simply an involuntary extension that is open ended. As soon as he completes his tour he will be out. 23 years is more than likely when he becomes too old to still serve. A friend of mine went through this when his deployment coincided with the end of his enlistment and this was during peace time. He did his tour and was released.
Not the most 'customer friendly' way of doing business, but it is standard stuff.
Last edited by username; 02-08-2006 at 09:10 PM.
Reason: remove bad info and fix spelling
I'm still reeling from the "bureaucratic screw-up" that sent a Guardsman, whose stint was completed three days after his unit was to be shipped out to Iraq.
He petitioned to not be sent, in light of the end of his contract with the Army National Guard. The result? The Army reupped his recruitment for an additional 23 years! On top of the six years he'd already served. I could see them telling him he'd have to serve out his rotation abroad, but 23 years is excessive to the extreme.
He challenged it in federal court. And lost.
And they wonder why enlistments with the Guard have fallen so far so fast.
OK, that's just a reaction due to ignorance of how the Army is dealing with it. My gunner was stop-lossed one day before he was due to get out. Back-door-draft or otherwise, it's quite legal.
The bit about the ETS date being kicked forward to 2030 (Or wherever) is just an admin item. Since -nobody- has an ETS date in that year, anyone who was stop-lossed automatically had that date entered into the computer system as a notifier that the troop was on stop-loss. It didn't mean that the troop would be forced to stay in until 2030, it was just a handy way of making sure people could easily tell who was overdue to get out by looking at the computer record.
NTM
__________________
A man only needs two tools in life. WD-40 and duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
So, does this mean that the contract signed by the recruit (for a six year hitch) isn't worth the paper it's printed on?
Does this mean that our government has no consideration for the sanctity of the contract? Or, is all this crap in the fine print?
It is all in the contract. In fact most contracts include an inactive reserve component during which time you can be called back at any time for any reason. So a 6 year contract might have a 2-4 year inactive reserve time as well. Serve 6 years on active duty and 2-4 as a civilian subject to involuntary activation. Further one is required to maintain all uniforms while in the inactive reserves and to be ready to be called up and report to a duty station within x days of receiving activation orders. If your uniform doesn't fit anymore, you pay for new ones. You also have to stay in good enough shape to pass the physical tests and unit deployment requirements.
You also have to stay in good enough shape to pass the physical tests and unit deployment requirements.
OR what?
Dunno. There is probably something in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that covers the scenario, but I don't know what the repercussions are of not maintaining readiness. My guess is the person would probably be shipped out anyway and put on some physcial remediation plan which basically means getting exercised to death and given reduced rations until proper weight/physical ability returns.
You also have to stay in good enough shape to pass the physical tests and unit deployment requirements.
OR what?
Dunno. There is probably something in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that covers the scenario, but I don't know what the repercussions are of not maintaining readiness. My guess is the person would probably be shipped out anyway and put on some physcial remediation plan which basically means getting exercised to death and given reduced rations until proper weight/physical ability returns.
This conversation makes me SO glad I'm a civilian now.
When I signed up, everyone (enlisted) had to sign for 10 years, and that was split between active/inactive time. I signed for 5 active, served two at my first duty station, then got sent overseas for a four year tour. That meant I got involuntarily extended for a year on active duty, and that was during peace time. When I got on inactive duty, I got fat, out-of-shape, and drug addled (and got a promotion).
You also have to stay in good enough shape to pass the physical tests and unit deployment requirements.
OR what?
Dunno. There is probably something in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that covers the scenario, but I don't know what the repercussions are of not maintaining readiness. My guess is the person would probably be shipped out anyway and put on some physcial remediation plan which basically means getting exercised to death and given reduced rations until proper weight/physical ability returns.
Support Our Troops? Apparently not.
Linear Mode
