Surely this is just a mistake that can be corrected:Army charges GI for being wounded

[Hatfield]

Army Charges GI for Being Wounded
The last time 1st Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook IV saw his body armor, he was lying on a stretcher in Iraq, his arm shattered and covered in blood.

Now he is forced to pay for the "missing" body armor. The army charges soldiers for missing equipment. When medics rushed to save Rebrook's life, they neglected to keep track of the bloody and destroyed body armor. "I last saw the [body armor] when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter," Rebrook said. "They took it off me and burned it."

Rebrook decided to leave the army because of his injuries. But he was informed that he could not be discharged until he paid $700 for his "missing" armor. Rebrook scrounged up the cash from his Army buddies and returned home last Friday.

http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2006020623

[Harry Beanbag]

That's pretty crappy. So if he had died from his wounds would the Army have sent the bill to his wife/mother?

[yermom]

he should have gone to see Dr. Rummy

he'd probably be back in Iraq by now ;)

[fadada1]

maybe it's in the "fine print."

hey GI, if you happen to get shot up, don't throw away yer gear!!! we love you long time.

stupid.

[Octavian]

getting charged for missing body armor? thats crap.

having the same leaders that sent you propose cutting your veteran benefits? double-crap

[NormanPride]

IBTT

[BoomerJack]

Requiring personnel reimburse for lost equipment is nothing new, but this is the first I've heard of it being required for something lost in combat. (Perhaps it's because "major operations" have been over since when, May, '03?)

But this is really henhouse. His buddies and medics are taking stuff off him so that his injured arm can be treated and he won't bleed to death and the body armor gets lost. I don't recall in the article if all this took place while they were under fire or not. This is just a sad, sad commentary.

[IBTT]

IBTT

Good call.

[Viking Kitten]

That reminds me of an anecdote that was told at the Titanic exhibit.

Apparently, the widows of the band members who went down with the ship playing "Nearer My God to Thee" were each billed by the White Star line for the tuxedos their husbands were wearing as they went down.

[jk the sooner fan]

the army supply system is a nasty animal.......

[Pieces Hit]

It wasn't a mistake and don't call me Shirly.

[OklahomaTuba]

Total Bull ****.

I can't believe the army charges for this stuff. WTF is that about?

[Scott D]

It's called a capitalism first society.

[jk the sooner fan]

i could try and explain it but it would be lost on most.....it IS crap...but its a product of the system

[mdklatt]

I can't believe the army charges for this stuff. WTF is that about?

Don't some troops have to buy their own body armor and other supplies in the first place? I read about how stores near military bases that sell that type of stuff are raking in the dough.

[Scott D]

i could try and explain it but it would be lost on most.....it IS crap...but its a product of the system

no argument, that's why I think a lot of people would be surprized at the equipment that military personnel buy over the counter as to not have the concern of being billed by their branch of service over the items..the most glaring one that I know of are GPS locators and in some cases night vision glasses.

[mdklatt]

i could try and explain it but it would be lost on most.....it IS crap...but its a product of the system

What if you do turn in the body armor in after you've been wounded? Do they charge you for the damages?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

It is gub'ment property and if you sign it out, you are responsible for it. Just looking out for Mr. Taxpayer...

OTOH, couldn't a superior officer deem it to be lost as a battle casualty and it is off the books officially with no cost associated?

[OklahomaTuba]

Capitalism has nothing to do with it.

If the armed forces aren't getting enough money to provide and replace their weapons, then thats a big problem.

Perhaps this is a way of making sure weapons and gear don't go missing? I have no clue but this is simply wrong. We don't pay our troops enough in the first place.

[mdklatt]

no argument, that's why I think a lot of people would be surprized at the equipment that military personnel buy over the counter as to not have the concern of being billed by their branch of service over the items..the most glaring one that I know of are GPS locators and in some cases night vision glasses.

Even though GPS was developed by the military, many private planes had GPS capability long before military aircraft did. During Desert Storm, A-10 pilots were using handheld GPS receivers they bought for themselves.

[KABOOKIE]

They force you to buy the **** you lost because if they didn't then, knuckleheads would f'ing steal it. Yea, I know. Who the **** wants body armor but, you'd be surprised what people steal when they can do so without risk.

The bad part of this is the average military supply officer comes standard issue with nuts of a humming bird and the brains of a bull. This type of dingle-doo is unable to make any kind of command decision in instances like this and usually just says, daaaaaah you checked it out and you don't have it.

[KABOOKIE]

General: Major.
Major: Yes sir!
General: Where'd come from before infantry?
Major: I come over from Supply.
General: Where ya good at it?
Major: YES SIR!!!
General: THEN STICK WITH IT!!!

http://brutrec.nofate.ru/faces/emcgi.jpg

[jk the sooner fan]

i would bet this entire thing is a faceless paperwork snafu......once those working the system know the entire story, then they can document it as a combat loss and write off the item

this has more to do with how many levels of supervision are involved in the supply chain......i'm sure the guy that charged the injured soldier wouldnt know the man if he were standing right next to him

i'd also bet if the injured soldier handled this thru military channels rather than the news media, it would have easily been resolved.

[OklahomaTuba]

i would bet this entire thing is a faceless paperwork snafu......once those working the system know the entire story, then they can document it as a combat loss and write off the item

this has more to do with how many levels of supervision are involved in the supply chain......i'm sure the guy that charged the injured soldier wouldnt know the man if he were standing right next to him

i'd also bet if the injured soldier handled this thru military channels rather than the news media, it would have easily been resolved.

I figured as much.

Its amazing how this stuff gets overblown. I can understand the reasoning behind having such a rule though.

[jk the sooner fan]

here's how it works

soldier gets injured and flown away to a hospital

unit is left to box up his stuff to send home...however, they collect all the goverment owned property and turn it in to supply

supply sergeant inventories stuff and says "hey that bastard went home with his body armor"

supply sergeant initiates statement of charges and submits to finance

supply sergeant has no idea who injured soldier is, or how/why his stuff is being turned in, but supply sergeant sure as hell isnt going to pay for it himself

[Desert Sapper]

Having read the whole article, this doesn't make much sense. His battalion commander sounds like a complete retard. They conducted a report of survey, which works like this (having been a survey officer, I know):

-The commander (company or higher) orders a RoS.
-The survey officer interviews everyone involved, gets sworn statements, etc, and determines the proximate cause of the loss.
-The survey officer reports findings and a recommendation to the commander.
-The Soldier is found to be liable for charges if he is the proximate cause AND if there was some negligence involved.
-It is the commander's discretion, regardless of the findings.

My guess is that the commander was trying to keep the LT from leaving, and was using this as a method. Overall, I think this sums it up:



“It’s a combat loss,” he said. “It shouldn’t be a cost passed on to the soldier. If a soldier’s stuff is hit by enemy fire, he shouldn’t have to pay for it.”
Rebrook said he tried to get a battalion commander to sign a waiver on the battle armor, but the officer declined. Rebrook was told he’d have to supply statements from witnesses to verify the body armor was taken from him and burned.
“There’s a complete lack of empathy from senior officers who don’t know what it’s like to be a combat soldier on the ground,” Rebrook said. “There’s a whole lot of people who don’t want to help you. They’re more concerned with process than product.”


I haven't seen the survey, but from what I get out of the article, the LT was not liable for the damages, and his BC screwed up. Were I him, I would contact my congressman and initiate a congressional inquiry (you can do that as a constituent). I would not be surprised to find the BC in some pretty deep water over this.

[MiccoMacey]

And all of this is on the word of a kid.

Sorry, but I was in the military waaaay too long to believe everything someone says. I've seen too many cases where the person was negligent or lied to cover something up.

I feel for his injury, and am thankful for his service to our country. But this doesn't pass the smell test.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'll bet the ROS wasnt done anywhere near to the thoroughness standards......

[Okla-homey]

When I was a commander if troop signed a letter stating these circumstances of loss, that would be the end of it. period.

This is wacky. There's got to be some more to this story.

[Desert Sapper]

And all of this is on the word of a kid.

Sorry, but I was in the military waaaay too long to believe everything someone says. I've seen too many cases where the person was negligent or lied to cover something up.

I feel for his injury, and am thankful for his service to our country. But this doesn't pass the smell test.

The only thing I can figure is that:

A) He was determined to be the proximate cause of the loss and was determined to be negligent, because he didn't maintain proper accountability of his equipment when the medics cut it off (which they may have had to do depending on which artery was damaged and where). This is a hard one to swallow IMO, because the Soldier reasonably could not maintain control of his equipment if he were being MEDEVAC'd to Landstuhl and on to Walter Reed (as mentioned in the article). If it weren't an emergency and severe, he would never have been evac'd out of theater.

B) The BC didn't think his injuries were sufficient to warrant his departure from the army and wanted to delay him. Having seen this in other situations, I am more inclined to believe this. Some commanders are great. Others aren't. He mentioned commanders that hadn't seen combat, so my guess is that the commander had an inferiority complex (all too common in today's BTDT or not Army).

It's unfortunate, but people are imperfect creatures. A Congressional is the right answer, because it would allow him to address his concerns and force the commander to answer. If the commander is not in the wrong, it's irrelevant.

[Desert Sapper]

When I was a commander if troop signed a letter stating these circumstances of loss, that would be the end of it. period.


Bingo.