<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Wounded Soldiers Fight Off Bill Collectors at Home - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=1894152&page=1</a></p>
<p>"“This is no way to win a war, I can tell you that,” said Davis. “You’d think after four years after fighting a war in Iraq, the government would have its act together.”</p>
<p>Actually, it’s combat bonus pay. </p>
<p>Support the troops indeed.</p>
<p><a href=“HAL Interactive Stock Chart | Halliburton Company Stock - Yahoo Finance”>HAL Interactive Stock Chart | Halliburton Company Stock - Yahoo Finance;
<p>(you can be sure Dick Cheney and his friends won’t be giving back any of theirs anytime soon…)</p>
<p>Actually, it’s both. They do have to return combat pay, but they also have to return their enlistment bonus. Example in the article I linked to.</p>
<p>Isn’t the enlistment bonus paid after some defined length of service? I’d think if the money hasn’t been paid to the soldier…</p>
<p>I had read articles about that before conyat
for instance- if there is an enlistment bonus, but the soldier is killed before he fills his tour , the family doesn’t recieve it.</p>
<p>A friend who had an amputation after an injury in Iraq, hasn’t been released from his committment, and is still serving in DC at a desk.</p>
<p>I also was appalled at the recent story about soliders lack of follow up care, once they are released closer to their homes.
I wasn’t surprised, as it is something I had heard of before, but I am appalled.</p>
<p>I guess this is what getting older is like- even though to me, every indication was that this would be as big of a mess as Vietnam- we did it anyway.
Isnt that the definition of stupidity?
TO do the same thing and expect different results?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hazmat, apparently they get at least some of it upfront, or there wouldn’t be demands for repayment. This is what happened to Tyron Johnson (CC cut off the quote before): </p>
<p>"Army specialist Tyson Johnson of Mobile, Ala., had just been promoted in a field ceremony in Iraq when a mortar round exploded outside his tent, almost killing him.</p>
<p>“It took my kidney, my left kidney, shrapnel came in through my head, back of my head,” he recounted.</p>
<p>His injuries forced him out of the military, and the Army demanded he repay an enlistment bonus of $2,700 because he’d only served two-thirds of his three-year tour. </p>
<p>When he couldn’t pay, Johnson’s account was turned over to bill collectors. He ended up living out of his car when the Army reported him to credit agencies as having bad debts, making it impossible for him to rent an apartment."</p>
<p>Thanks for the more complete information.</p>
<p>i want fundingfather to explain this…</p>
<p>stay the course. then blame clinton.</p>
<p>yeah, its the presses fault for bringing this out into the open…darn them</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the part of the story that makes wonder. It didn’t say “the Army discharged him” it says “his injuries forced him out.” What – exactly – does this mean? If he voluntarily left the service, yeah, he should repay the bonus. If the Army was willing to let him serve his enlistment commitment and he chose to leave, that’s not their fault. If his leaving the service and repaying his bonus was the Army’s idea, they were acting like scum.</p>
<p>And the “combat bonus pay”?</p>
<p>(I’m only surprised that they didn’t send someone out to break his kneecaps, but maybe he no longer HAD any kneecaps.)</p>
<p>""Army specialist Tyson Johnson of Mobile, Ala., had just been promoted in a field ceremony in Iraq when a mortar round exploded outside his tent, almost killing him.</p>
<p>“It took my kidney, my left kidney, shrapnel came in through my head, back of my head,” he recounted.</p>
<p>guess that isn’t enough for some…brain injury…missing a kidney…yeah, he should buck up and go back…what are some people thinking</p>
<p>Hey, he still has ONE kidney, and half a brain, so he’s almost good as new!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dunno. If he was collecting combat pay when he wasn’t in a war zone, why didn’t he report it to the payroll people (assuming he wasn’t in a coma or something equivalent)?</p>
<p>Are all injured soldiers entitled to combat zone pay?</p>
<p><a href=“I’m%20only%20surprised%20that%20they%20didn’t%20send%20someone%20out%20to%20break%20his%20kneecaps,%20but%20maybe%20he%20no%20longer%20HAD%20any%20kneecaps.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I always look forward to whatever bizarre non-constructive comment you have to make on the news of the day.</p>
<p>Thanks! 
(And Switzerland invaded Liechtenstein…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are referring to my post, please point out where I suggested that he be sent back into combat, or even to Iraq. The Army has lots of places where a wounded soldier could serve until a final decision has been made whether he is fit to return to service. For what it’s worth, some battalions in World War 2 had almost all of the soldiers become wounded and then return to the front lines. A wound is not necessarily a one-way ticket to permanent disability, or even to non-combat service. Specialist Johnson’s wounds were severe, and it’s not likely (at least in my non-trained opinion) that he would be returned to combat, but that doesn’t mean that he would be unfit for any military duty.</p>
<p>WashDad, I don’t think a guy that badly injured has to “quit” the Army, or that the Army even gives soldiers a choice just to “quit” if they want. I think he most likely got a “medical discharge.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of the soldiers who have been turned over to collection agencies had never been overpaid, and had nothing to refund. They were turned over due to clerical mistakes. </p>
<p>Other guys were overpaid, but I would question whether they realized it at the time, so they could save up the money to repay the Army. The Army is not long on explaining certain parts of the contract sometimes…and if the people at the Army who work on payroll all day long couldn’t get it right, it’s asking a lot to ask a wounded soldier to know their job better than they do. </p>
<p>But even if the Army is 100% justified in asking for it’s money back, it still seems callous to me to turn the soldiers over to a collection agency, especially if it ends up with them not having a place to live. There are all ready 200,000 homeless veterans on the streets of America.</p>
<p>seeing how much respect and help the top brass give to the wounded. this does not surprise me at all</p>
<p>to try and justify this is sad</p>
<p>after reading all about how the wounded are treated and ignored and having to do mounds of paper work, etc, we are to trust the judgement of the leadership in this</p>
<p>don’t think so</p>