Army Blocks Disability Paperwork Aid at Fort Drum

:mad: Just when you thought the Army had stopped digging itself further into a hole with the medical/disability issues, the bureaucracy strikes out in a supreme display of cluelessness.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=18492376

Quote:

---

Army officials in upstate New York instructed representatives from the Department of Veterans Affairs not to help disabled soldiers at Fort Drum Army base with their military disability paperwork last year. That paperwork can be crucial because it helps determine whether soldiers will get annual disability payments and health care after they're discharged.

.....

"To be tossed aside like a worn-out pair of boots is pretty disheartening," the soldier says. "I always believed the Army would take care of me if I did the best I could, and I've done that."

At a restaurant near Fort Drum, the soldier described his first briefing with the VA office on base. According to the soldier, the VA official told a classroom full of injured troops, "We cannot help you review the narrative summaries of your medical problems." The official said the VA used to help soldiers with the paperwork, but Army officials saw soldiers from Fort Drum getting higher disability ratings with the VA's help than soldiers from other bases. The Army told the VA to stop helping Fort Drum soldiers describe their army injuries, and the VA did as it was told.

....
According to Army spokesman George Wright, the Tiger Team thought the VA should not be helping soldiers with their medical documents. The Army delivered that message to VA officials in Buffalo, N.Y., who went along with the request, even though the VA's assistance complied with Army policy.

The Army declined to provide any information about the Tiger Team members' identities or their motivations in asking the VA to stop reviewing the soldiers' paperwork. However, private attorney Mara Hurwitt points out that the Army has a financial incentive to keep soldiers' disability ratings low.

"The more soldiers you have who get disability retirements, the more retirement pay is coming out of your budget," Hurwitt says.

---

Whether the reason behind the request is accurate or not, it just doesn't make sense that the Army would continue to turn away help.

It's no wonder we can't get strategic communications together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cavguy

:mad: Just when you thought the Army had stopped digging itself further into a hole with the medical/disability issues, the bureaucracy strikes out in a supreme display of cluelessness.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=18492376



Whether the reason behind the request is accurate or not, it just doesn't make sense that the Army would continue to turn away help.

It's no wonder we can't get strategic communications together.

---

Now this one really fits the dumb, dumber, and dumberer category. Ft Drum soldiers getting higher ratings than others so immediately the "fix" is to make sure the ratings are lower. :mad:

Tom

worth asking of our Congressmen and Senators?

I just passed the exerpts along to my congressman, Tom Cole. Incidentally, Mara Hurwitt was a Naval officer who was a student of mine at CGSC. Darned bright officer.

Sounds like the junior Senator from NY and presidental canidate has already started.

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/263946.html

The Army is already adding some caveats to the allegations, but it still doesn't pass the common sense test.

Quote:

---

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., upon learning of the controversy, issued her own statement critical of the overall bureaucracy confounding active-duty and former members of the military.

“If these allegations are true, they run counter to our nation’s pledge made to our men and women in uniform,” Clinton said. “It is our duty to eliminate obstacles standing in the way of our disabled service members and veterans, not to create them. Our wounded should not have to deal with endless bureaucratic red tape just to receive the basic care entitled to them.”

She sent a letter to Secretary of the Army Pete Geren asking for an independent investigation.

---

Army's response here ...

Quote:

---

.... Statements from the VA and Army officials dispute that, saying the Army merely made VA officials in Buffalo aware their workers were helping with paperwork they were not trained to handle. The VA said they felt it was “inappropriate” for their workers to use VA standards for paperwork on Army documents. The VA would neither confirm or deny that Army officials directed them to stop helping.

Both Congressman McHugh and Senator Clinton have expressed concerns over the report. McHugh met yesterday with the Army Surgeon General, who told him no orders or directions came from the group of Army representatives. He says he will wait until he hears the VA’s side of the story before saying more.

Senator Clinton has called for the Secretary of the Army to open a Pentagon investigation on the allegations.

---

I'm with Donna Shalala, the whole system needs to be canned.

are a result of Congressional tinkering. Congress frequently is apprised of a 'problem' (meaning a constituent has a specific issue which may or may not be valid) and then reacts (the Congroid involved slaps an amendment onto the appropriation bill) and passes a law to 'fix' the problem.

The problem is they also work offline by contacting DoD or the VA to 'suggest' certain fixes. Unfortunately, all these fixes, by amendment and by offline interference result in creating chaos and adding tons of bureaucratic complexity to what should be simple and forthright procedures and the disability systems -- both -- are as good examples of that as is our over 16,000 page Tax Code.

As always, the troops pay the price. :mad:

All that said, I agree that the whole system needs to be scrapped and re-done but my normal cheerful optimism is replaced, whenever Congress is involved, by extremely dour pessimism; no good can come of it... :eek:

I wonder if part of the story is confusing the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) with Disabled American Veterans (DAV). When I retired, DAV had a field service rep in the VA office who helped process disability applications through the DVA hoops. This guy came out to do retirement prep outbriefs as well. Could it be they are now in Retirement Service Offices at Posts, camps, and stations?

BTW, last fall my US Rep sent me (and all the other vets in his district I'm sure) a letter using his Congressional mail franking privileges that was blatant partisan politics. In it he provided a Veterans Affairs update tooting the horn of the Democratic Party for getting a lot more folks authorized for hire at DVA to speed the processing of disability claims paperwork. I sent him a reply suggesting that this was a short term fix to a problem and the fix will become a long term "entitlement" problem in its own right as the new hires get tenure in Civil Service. The money spent on their salaries and benefits could probably find much better uses in funding direct services for disabled vets both now and in the future.

a letter to a Rep or Senator produces an inquiry such as the ones Hill and McHugh made (although at the staff level). Typically, a staffer will call the unit in question or there will be a letter sent at a higher level.While the response is often bureaucratic gobbledygook (as seen in Cavguy's second post) the service will often modify what it is doing to make sure that people get what they deserve. If the mil bureaucracy is in the wrong the error usually gets rectified without any admission of error. (As we all know bureaucracies never are in error:rolleyes:).

Cheers

JohnT

Wow that's just a frustrating article. Just when you think we're getting better about taking care of these heros, (Warrior Transition Units, putting a Combat Arms 1 star in charge), this crap happens. Someone ought to get flamed.

involved are heroes and I'm even more sure that this is one side of a story and even more sure than that the disconnect between the services -- all of them -- and some (not all) 'veterans' organizations is quite adversarial.

I'd also suggest that both links provide only superficial knowledge of what may or may not have occurred; that the VA and Armed Forces differences in the handling and judgment of disability amounts is long standing, that a VA workers assistance with the Army's processes might sow more confusion than it could help.

As WM pointed out, a lot of 'Veterans Service' organizations -- to include State government agencies get involved in the process and many have muddied the water as much as they've helped.

Having a son who was medically discharged due to a jump injury, I do know the Army process is lengthy and tedious (as are many things...) but it was, in his case at least, fair (and that tracks with friends who have gone the same route); that he had a wait for the VA benefit to kick in and that much of that delay is due to the fact that the Army gives you severance pay when you're medically discharged. By law (Your Congress again) the VA must recoup that amount before the VA pension begins.

In the case cited in the first link the guy says: "“The Army certified me 10 percent disabled and medically discharged me in December 2006. I appealed that determination and was eventually certified 100 percent unemployable because of my injuries,” said Delmonte, who now receives a VA disability pension."" Possible but last time I knew, the Army didn't do that 'unemployable' bit, the VA did -- so I think he's at least mixing apples and potatoes

Things may not be all they seem in this case...

I think it's most likey a typical case of someone making well intentioned guidance based off of improving process, without considering how it gets interpreted by those on the receiving end.

A statement intended to reduce the possibility of paperwork confusion was interpreted by the VA as a desire to prevent an increase in successful claims and ratings. And if the service was discontinued, then you work against the mission of providing help to the soldiers in a complex process if no replacement process was made.

There's a great RAND paper about Vietnam called "Bureauacracy does its Thing", which probably is the most apt description of the whole issue. The process is the obstacle.

On a high note, BG Tucker is absolutely the right guy to be the DCG of the Medical Command. As a former NCO and Tanker, anyone whose served under him knows of his patience for things that don't make sense. God help the individual who isn't ready to be flexible and go above and beyond what is required to help a soldier.

"Operation Free Chicken" is still legendary in 1AD - he busted the difficult European supply process to allow us to turn in literally all our excess property that clogged the supply rooms and connexes with a minimum of hassle to the unit - and made the log agenices come to us instead of us going to them. My supply sergeant often made long road trips trying to dispose of or repair equipment only to be turned back by short working hours, new paperwork requirements, or other factors. (In Germany the BCT bases are mostly distributed away from the supporting logistics site for routine matters, legacy of the Cold War dispersion).

My contact inside of the WTU process told me that shaking up the medical command bureaucrats who just frankly didn't care was the hardest part.

"Go to window 7, get a stamp, go to window 9, you need the new TPS cover sheet on this, no you need an O-7 signature, etc."

I think the Army will be proactive on this and is already hyper sensitive to the issue. I just hate that it takes a soldier going to the media or congress to get people moving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cavguy

I think it's most likey a typical case of someone making well intentioned guidance based off of improving process, without considering how it gets interpreted by those on the receiving end.

---

Probably true; that happens all too often...

Quote:

---

There's a great RAND paper about Vietnam called "Bureauacracy does its Thing", which probably is the most apt description of the whole issue. The process is the obstacle.

---

As does that... :mad:

Quote:

---

On a high note, BG Tucker is absolutely the right guy to be the DCG of the Medical Command... My contact inside of the WTU process told me that shaking up the medical command bureaucrats who just frankly didn't care was the hardest part.

---

True -- that was a good move on Schoomaker's part. I chuckle thinking about the Medics reaction to that... :wry:

Quote:

---

I think the Army will be proactive on this and is already hyper sensitive to the issue.

---

Agree.

Quote:

---

...I just hate that it takes a soldier going to the media or congress to get people moving.

---

At the risk of being called old school, reactionary 'hard core' and a number of probably well deserved less appealing names including unsympathetic and compassion challenged, I don't think soldiers do that. Sometimes people who are or have been in the Army do. Not the same thing in my book.

Also been my observation over the years that most of the time -- not all -- the going was not required and frequently does more harm than good. Particularly if Congress is involved; most of them mean well but they don't understand the systems and stick their busy fingers in all the wrong holes too often. That and they play to the crowd. Plus, a lot of the Staffers are former military types with pet rocks (and bruised egos)...

receiving end of a Congressional inquiry conducted at the staffer level. The real issue was that things were not happeningfast enough for the soldier in question who was concerned that nothing at all was happening. A phone conversation between me and the staffer clarified things - the staffer understood that I was on the soldier's side but it was going to take a little time to resolve.

My experience with Congress and staffers has been that they are patriotic people who try to be reasonable when doing constituent service.

Cheers

JohnT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John T. Fishel

receiving end of a Congressional inquiry conducted at the staffer level. The real issue was that things were not happeningfast enough for the soldier in question who was concerned that nothing at all was happening. A phone conversation between me and the staffer clarified things - the staffer understood that I was on the soldier's side but it was going to take a little time to resolve.

My experience with Congress and staffers has been that they are patriotic people who try to be reasonable when doing constituent service.

Cheers

JohnT

---

There was one minor problem with the kid who was kidnapped off Hay Street in Fayetteville and whisked to Miami in a white Cadillac and whose mother was convinced this was all that was required to explain his sixteen days AWOL/ UA. Fortunately a move from her cousin the Congessman's staffer to that persons boss got that straightened out... :wry:

Don't let my Congress bashing obscure the fact that I think I've said several times that they generally mean well -- and that I understand they're necessary and think they generally do an all round marginally acceptable job.

I agree with you that they are very responsive and responsible when doing constituent service -- my concern is that when they get into their legislating and oversight roles they in too many cases do not understand all they know about what they're doing. Let me also clarify that when I mention many staffers have pet ideas they push, that too is in the lawmaking and scrutiny side of the work and is particularly applied to the Armed Services Committees, their members and staffers.

I do not question the loyalty or patriotism of anyone on Capitol Hill. Nor do I have any doubt about their concern for their State or District and its voters.

I do question their tendency to put those concerns and a quest for reelection as well as their political party ahead of the good of the Nation even though I understand the realities of the situation. I also question some laws that get passed, generally as kneejerk reaction to an event, simply so they can say "We did something" and a number of laws that seem to transcend reality. In short, I wish they put as much effort into the nuts and bolts of their lawmaking as they do into voter services.

Ah Ken you make the same mistake many men of military mind make about congress. You can't expect a body politic bent on the needs of some, agreed to by a few, organized by a couple, and working towards some goals to have the efficiency of the military hierarchy which as we all know isn't much better at the higher levels. The Constitution of the United States is about insuring inefficiency and obstructing change without consideration for the needs. 2 years elected for representatives and six years elected for senators. Emotional in one chamber responding to whims and staid and considering in the other chamber. A President sitting between. A Supreme court above them all appointed for life.

with the concept. Strongly support it, in fact -- it's far better than a Parliamentary system in my view. I also understand all politics is pandering and the art of the possible. I do not object to sausage making, love Bratwurst in fact.

My complaint is with the corruption of that model you cite -- the two year elected Representatives seem to stay a whole lot longer then they need to; the "staid and considering" chamber is unstaid and as flighty as is the emotional chamber; the Presidents sitting in between in the last seventy years seem to be more concerned with their crooked and venal parties than they do with nation and all of them, all 536, seem to forget that their Oath bears a great deal of similarity to the Oath taken by those military minds. The Consitution is more often ignored than followed... :(

The Supreme Court hasn't annoyed me yet but they probably will. ;)

Ken I need to buy you a beer.

Personal observation...

I got my ETS physical last month. I am not a "wounded warrior". I did 3 trips to Iraq and got hurt no worse than when I was a kid playing in the woods or a teen playing football - just scrapes, bruises, and a minor concussion. However, when I went into the ETS physical, I was at least expecting, well, a physical examination of some kind.

The entire procedure consisted of filling out a one-page questionaire about my general health and then reviewing it. In the question asking, "do you have any concerns about your health?" I answered yes. In the comment section where you expand upon affirmative answers, I cited that I spent over 3 years of my life in combat zones, inhaling burning trash, burning feces, interacting with people who do not have vaccinations, eating tainted food and drinking dirty water that made me sick, and being in filthy urban environments with open sewers, diseased animals, and assorted other things.

I figured that I would at least get a blood test or maybe a routine screening for something. I don't know - I'm not a doctor. But, even if I had said that everything was peachy-keen, I would think that the fact that this was an ETS physical and my first "full" physical in nearly 7 years would prompt at least the standard blood pressure check or cold stethoscope on my back. My physical exam was neither physical, nor was it an examination. It just consisted of me sitting down with some health care provider who may or may not have been a doctor and reviewing my answers to the questions. When we happened upon the "health concerns" question, she said something along the lines of, "yeah, a lot of people cite those concerns." It seemed that simply documenting it was the way to address it. I guess the assumption is that if I get leukemia in 2 years then my insurance company can blame it on the Army and get them to pay my medical bills while I whither away.

The whole "ETS physical exam" took about 10 minutes, to include filling out the form.