Wounded Vets Told Injuries Not Combat Related

  It is just one outrage after another under the Bush Crime Syndicate.

     The Los Angeles Times has an interesting, if not disgusting, look at how the Pentagon has gone about telling our wounded troops that their injuries are not combat related. This costs those veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits, which are rightfully theirs.

   So how have some of our veterans been injured?

Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries.

  Sounds like combat related injuries to me.

      In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not combat-related.

   This kind of diagnosis comes about because of some rule changes that went onto effect this past March.

In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.
The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.

    The DAV is working on having this rule rescinded, and it should be tossed of the books.

But veterans like Dixon and Meshell said their disabilities were a direct result of wounds suffered in combat.
Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought the Pentagon and won a reversal of his noncombat-related designation.
"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?" Dixon said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."
Meshell, who is appealing her status, estimates she is losing at least $1,200 a month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone during an enemy mortar attack, she said, her wounds would be considered combat-related only if she had been struck by shrapnel.

    Funny how the government can pony up $700 billion to financial institutions which ripped of investors while lining their pockets, but they attempt to  deny benefits to our people fighting a war in foreign lands, who come home ravaged by that war.

Technorati Tags: Pentagon,DAV,Veterans,Benefits,Congress