Wounded Troops Get Screwed Again!

[JoeEllison]

So much for the whole "supporting the troops" thing, huh?

Wounded Vet Told To Pay Back Bonus

Jordan Fox received a $10,000 signing bonus when he joined the Army. The Mt. Lebanon man served his country in Iraq, where as a sniper he survived machine gun battles and a roadside bomb that knocked him unconscious and blinded him in his right eye.

The injury forced the military to send him home. A few weeks later, Fox received a bill from the Department of Defense, saying he owes the military nearly $3,000 from his original enlistment bonus because he couldn't fulfill three months of his commitment.

I don't care what your position on the war is, this is completely unacceptable. This guy sacrificed his eye in the Army, and the Army thinks he owes them?

 

[Metullus]

I cannot read the link, but my bet is that it will turn out to be a clerical error that will be quickly rectified. Kind of like when social security wanted my dad to refund money because their records showed that he had been dead for two decades.

 

[Zep]

I'm seeing a programming glitch only. I suggest that it will be rectified by personal intervention somewhere, and apologies all round.

I hope he is well enough to return to civilian life with prospects unhindered, and with appropriate recognition and decoration.

 

[Puppycow]

I cannot read the link, but my bet is that it will turn out to be a clerical error that will be quickly rectified. Kind of like when social security wanted my dad to refund money because their records showed that he had been dead for two decades.

The article says this:

This is apparently not an isolated bureaucratic foul-up. The military is allegedly demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses - up to $30,000 in some cases. Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.

Now that the press is paying attention, I expect it will be rectified, but it is pretty disgusting that they tried to do this in the first place.

 

[Radrook]

So much for the whole "supporting the troops" thing, huh?

Wounded Vet Told To Pay Back Bonus



I don't care what your position on the war is, this is completely unacceptable. This guy sacrificed his eye in the Army, and the Army thinks he owes them?

It sounds really nasty. But remember, it all depends on who is violating the contract or agreement. The armed forces are no different than any other organization in reference to contracts and will stick to the letter of it-especially where money is involved. Not saying that I agree with this policy-just saying that one has to be very carefel what written legal agreements one makes. In this case it seems that there were restrictions stipulated on those full benefits promised. But lawyers will sort all these fine points out and if there is a legal injustice I'm sure it will ber rectified.

 

[Schneibster]

They're already bleeding personnel, and can't get more to replace them. This they don't need. They'll be taking care of it. For now.

I don't think it's a particularly palatable way to proceed; such contracts should never have been written, much less enforced upon disabled veterans. But somehow I don't think this is the last we'll hear of this.

 

[Radrook]

They're already bleeding personnel, and can't get more to replace them. This they don't need. They'll be taking care of it. For now.

I don't think it's a particularly palatable way to proceed; such contracts should never have been written, much less enforced upon disabled veterans. But somehow I don't think this is the last we'll hear of this.

But why sign such a contract in the first place. The military assumes that those who are signing are reading before they sign. So if indeed what the military is doing now is in accord with the contract, what effective defense is possible in a court of law?

1. I didn't understand what I read?

2. I didn't read what I signed?

3. I thought the military was joshing?

4. I changed my mind after being wounded?

The only defense I see is as you say, the injustice inherent in the contract itself. If it can be proven that the contract is indeed unjust and by being unjust is somehow unconstitutional-or if is found to be a personnel violation of official policy, then the would veterans might have a case after all.

 

[JoeEllison]

I don't think that anyone would agree that this is a just or fair way for the government to behave. The government doesn't even think so, if pressed on it. The problem I have is that for every case we hear about, how many others will slip past without comment or corrections.

It is easy for them to fix things for Jordan Fox, and he won't be paying back a dime. But, will anyone step up and make sure this doesn't happen again?

 

[Schneibster]

I don't think you've heard the whole story, Joe.

First of all, his Mom started an organization to oppose this, and apparently there are thousands of them. Second, some of them have already paid some or all of it back. Third, there are more who got a deferred bonus, who might or might not get paid.

This one is gonna get ugly, and it's liable to cost a lot. Somebody really porked the pooch on this one, and it's going to be interesting to find out exactly what evil ******* did it and what they do with hir- promote hir, probably ("Heckuva job, Brownie!"). Personally, I think said evil ******* oughta be gassed, but that's just me.

Having been young once and full of **** and vinegar, I am prepared to maintain that no person under age 22 is capable of objectively evaluating a contract that like that. They think they're immortal, or they're depressed over their angst and think they won't care- until they find out that they're going to have to keep on not caring about whatever bits they lost for the next fifty years or so. Not to mention find some kind of work they can stand to do, and are still capable of, so they can eat.

Not to mention, I'll bet there's nothing in the contract (except perhaps in the fine print) about having to give it back if you can't complete your duty because you're injured. Not having seen it, I don't know for sure, but evil *******s generally work it that way. First you ropes 'em in, then you skins 'em. Another good point would be that they might well expect to get a nebulous "desk job" to complete their service- and get a nasty surprise when they find out they're not needed (I believe "supernumerary" is the term) if they lose whatever bit it was they lost. Desk jobs are, after all, either given to those who have brown-nosed sufficiently, or have some irreplaceable skill. Not grunts.

Personally, I feel strongly that some kid who goes and gets his fingers blown off fighting for my country, whether I agree with the fight or not, at least oughta not get screwed out of his signing bonus, which they had to give in the first place because they've made such a SNAFU of it that no one will sign up unless they do. Not to mention medical care for life for at least whatever piece got blown off.

Wait 'til they get to the Section 8s or 5150s or whatnot. That's gonna be a real cluster ****. This IS, after all, the military we're talking about here.