And what took this long?

The current policy is the result of beancounters busy looking over their shoulders. Without having to think of the bigger picture, they focus on the small one: Congress will get all over their *sses if they're seen to be 'wasting' money.

Sometimes, I'd swear that the government spends more money in CYA operations than it does in carrying out its legislated mandates.

But it starts with a Congress that is quick to find any sort of hay that can be spun into political gold.

I agree with Public Defender. If a service related injury causes an enlistment to end prematurely, let that person keep the money--it is small payment for being willing to serve in the first place.

This is simple political grandstanding. As the Army has been pointing out to anybody who will listen, the letter was sent out by mistake -- and anybody who knows the military knows that such mistakes are trivial and common. If Congress decides to pass a new law every time the military bureaucracy sends out an incorrect letter, we will never have to worry about them dealing with anything else.

Of course, folk with an axe to grind against the military will continue to insist that this was really policy and that the Army really wants this money from this one soldier.

In particular, the Army stated on 21 Nov that:

"Soldiers who become ill or are wounded while on active duty are entitled to keep all recruitment bonuses due them.

The Army reiterated that policy today, after a Wounded Soldier inadvertently received a letter from the Army that stated he would be required to pay back any enlistment money he received.

“If you are ill or were injured while on duty, the Army will not ask you to repay any portion of your recruitment bonus,” said Brig. Gen. Mike Tucker, assistant surgeon general for Warrior Care and Transition. 'This money will stay in the hands of our Soldiers.' "

"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterward."

- Theodore Roosevelt

There should be some checks in place so that recruiters don't bribe unfit enlistees with protected bonuses in order to inflate enlistment numbers.

Agreed, but the bias should be not to require a bonus refund. I'd rather pay out my tax dollars to a few service members who don't deserve them than have a few who deserve the money go without.

And sorry for the clunkiness of that sentence.

There is no policy that required that military personnel, given early discharges because of service-connected disability, repay their bonuses. The bonus regulations, since their inception, allowed for military personnel, being discharged early for service connected disabilities, to keep the full amount of their bonuses.

I am a veteran, listed as service-connected disabled. I have served as a NYS Veterans Counselor for 14 years, I have been both a County Service Officer and registered represenative for the American Legion and a registered represenative for the Veteran's of Foreign Wars during most of those 14 years.

Please spend as much time researching such stories as this one as you would devote to other legal issues. BTW, I have a JD and worked, as an attorney, for NYS until I retired.

Wasn't this a matter of contract?

If the enlistees don't fulfill the conditions required to get the bonus, I don't see why they should receive it.

They need to make it retroactive.

One more time!

The Regulations of all five branches of the service provide and always have provided that service personnel discharged early due to service connected disability do not have to return any part of their bonuses.

It does not matter whether their disability is combat or non-combat related. If the disability was line of duty, the dischargee gets to keep all of the bonus.

As to those commenters and their remarks about "recent evidence of service members getting poorly treated by the DOD." I would like to have some facts about the "poor treatment" allegedy given our service members.

longwalker:

I believe I can provide several examples of "recent evidence of service members getting poorly treated by the DOD." You will recall the various scandals concerning the horrible medical hold barracks a couple of years ago, leading to the relief (called a “retirement”) of the Commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I’m sitting across the street from a renovation of some old barracks so that the Medical Holding Company on this post will be decent – not great, but a whole lot better than the Roach Motel the troops had to endure up until several months ago.

Still, when talking about “DoD” it’s easy to forget that DoD’s budget and appropriations are first proposed by the President and enacted by Congress. And, it usually takes about 10 years for the projects to go through the process of proposal, review, drafting, authorization, appropriation, letting of contracts, completion, acceptance, etc. Pretty much the scandals referred to above were the product of the Clinton Administration’s budget proposals, as enacted by a Republican controlled Congress. The GWOT got things moving along to change that, especially after the severe embarrassment to the Bush Administration and a Republican controlled Congress caused by the afore-mentioned scandals.

Now, we have the Bush Administration and a Democrat controlled Congress. Consider what is now going on:
The $516 Billion omnibus appropriations bill is now being considered by the Senate, to which another $40 Billion will be added to fund continuing operations in Iraq (the House having already agreed to $31 Billion for operations in Afghanistan, but the House Leadership cannot add funding for operations in Iraq – except in a Joint House-Senate Conference behind closed doors – due to certain “interest groups” of interest to the House Leadership – “move-on” there little Doggies.). The omnibus appropriations bill includes some 8,983 such "earmarks" worth $7.4 Billion, which Taxpayers for Common Sense calls “pork barrel projects” To fund these “earmarks” and keep the appropriation within the limits that the President would not veto (likely disrupting the Holiday break for our elected representatives) and not be filibustered or otherwise tied up by procedural moves by members of Congress who are at least giving lip homage to fiscal restraint, most of the money for the earmarks was obtained by transferring funds from military construction authorizations (about $6 Billion according to the last report I saw).

So, if projects to benefit don’t get funded, be sure to blame “DoD” again. Doesn’t it write the laws, propose the budget and appropriate the funds? Things really don’t seem to change. See:

Tommy

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,

O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,

O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

From Barrack Room Ballads (1892) by Rudyard Kipling

Yes, DoD is to blame, since our elected reps all know that "Nothing -- is too good for our men and women who serve in our armed forces."

wfjag makes a good point: there is plenty of blame to go around.

The problems of treatment of patients are well known to extend beyond one bad building at Walter Reed. I recommend you see articles by the Washington Post.

Regarding the oft-repeated assertions that the US military is the best equipped, maintained and trained military in the world: such a broad statement is irrelevant to assertions of specific defects. It seems that the love of shiny new high tech solutions (especially beloved of Congress) masks deficiencies in other areas. If you cannot find a service member to comment about body armor, particular weapons, and the new camoflague, you can always look on the military blogs. As for the M16 and M4 rifles: these are very old technology, and have been the subject of complaints for a long time. Then you have actual evidence, from Army tests, that other guns are more reliable. I know which gun I would rather have.

Any bureaucracy is capable of stupid mistakes, but I still scratch my head at some of these mistakes.

CNN had a report a while back about combat-injured soldiers, one of whom was denied compensation for what the letter described as "shrapnel throughout his body" claiming that it wasn't a service-related injury. Huh? Even better: when they received the letter, the soldier claimed that the signature block had been cut out of the letter--almost like someone was ashamed of this letter that the VA was sending.

longwalker:

You also might want to elaborate on the effects of the "uniformed services"* having different disability determination standards than the VA, although not infrequently using the same terms. With 14 years experience I suspect you've seen the effects of that any number of times. It has been proposed that one set of standards be adopted for all of the uniform services' disability determinations and the VA, so that the person only has to go through the process once.

I suspect that you have the knowledge and experience to explain what a Rube Goldberg process it is. Educating others might help lead to beneficial changes, rather than adding additional bureaucratic levels.

* use of the term "uniformed services" is because some of the uniformed services, like the Coast Guard, are not within DoD.