Pre and post deployment support

[reed11b]

Soldiers deploying and returning from deployment’s are run the gambit of “helpful” briefings and screenings by the DOD and VA. Unit FSGs and the community service agencies of each branch have greatly increased the benefits and support available to both soldiers and their spouses. While these programs all seem positive in and of themselves, (Battlemind, Yellow Ribbon, PDHRA, Strong Bonds, WTU’s, etc etc.) they have all been created ad-hoc, and some have limited public awareness, such as the strong bonds program. My focus is social service needs and mental health, though medical treatment falls into this. My question is, if you were to create a comprehensive program for the returning vets, what programs would you keep or model your plan on; what programs are redundant or of negative benefit? All feedback is beneficial
Reed

[Ken White]

let me suggest with personal AND family experience at returning from several wars that the current focus on such support assumes everyone needs pretty much the same thing and the need or desirability for such support is universal. I strongly doubt that. Predeployment or post deployment, tour location, length and efforts / job while deployed all have an effect and every individual and family situation is different.

My assessment of today's efforts is that it is significant overkill for most. I understand the (presumed?) difficulty in a large organization of tailoring such support as opposed to offering high volume, one size fits all solutions but I would also suggest that many people are being exposed to ideas they might never get on their own. The current processes offer excessive support that is excessive for most, adequate for a few and inadequate for a few more; the effort needs to be tailored and that, to me, means a psychological assessment for each person -- a very difficult but not impossible task -- or, better yet, such an assessment before service entry and rejection of those likely to need heavy support.

An idea which ought to fire up the PC crowd...

[reed11b]

-- or, better yet, such an assessment before service entry and rejection of those likely to need heavy support.

An idea which ought to fire up the PC crowd...

A true assessment or a simple review of existing history and the resulting go/no-go from it? I would agree if a true assessment was involved as MH diagnosis is not an exact science and I have meet many diagnosed as ODD that I would diagnose as "teenagers". A diagnosis does not make true, but a suitability screening may pay dividends. On a historical note, we had extensive MH screening during WWII and high no-go rates from them, but they had very little impact on MH casualties during that conflict, hence why we no longer use them. One thing that I do advocate for is a required mental health screening for combat vets w/i a certain period of there redeployment if they are involved in any UCMJ disciplinary actions or civilian legal violations. I feel this is often our first warning sign with a vet that fails to self-disclose.
Reed

[Ken White]

A true assessment or a simple review of existing history and the resulting go/no-go from it? ... On a historical note, we had extensive MH screening during WWII and high no-go rates from them, but they had very little impact on MH casualties during that conflict, hence why we no longer use them.

True but theoretically we're 65 years smarter today. Such an assessment won't be a panacea nor will it catch 'em all but I do believe it would be better than today's shotgun approach.

...One thing that I do advocate for is a required mental health screening for combat vets w/i a certain period of there redeployment if they are involved in any UCMJ disciplinary actions or civilian legal violations. I feel this is often our first warning sign with a vet that fails to self-disclose.
Reed

Makes sense; those that stay in are fairly well covered by the system; those that ETS -- or the RC folks -- have a different problem...

[reed11b]

True but theoretically we're 65 years smarter today. Such an assessment won't be a panacea nor will it catch 'em all but I do believe it would be better than today's shotgun approach...

What research and studies exist, suggest that is incorrect, at least in regards to MH casualties. The reason for this is that, while a history of pre-existing mental health issues make PTSD more likely, the majority of soldiers diagnosed with PTSD have had NOsignificant MH history. There is also a large body of deployed soldiers w/ MH histories that have had no Combat related MH troubles. I appreciate your participation in the subject Ken, but on this matter I am closer to being a SME. Prevention of disciplinary failures in basic and early in enlistments may be more achievable through pre-screening however.
Reed

[Ken White]

wrong direction. Don't look for pre-existing issues, they're obviously not reliable as a forecast mechanism, not what I intended at all.

Look for the mental outlook that can and will tolerate stress. Hire more sociopaths -- and yes, I'm quite serious.

...while a history of pre-existing mental health issues make PTSD more likely, the majority of soldiers diagnosed with PTSD have had NOsignificant MH history.

Obviously.

...There is also a large body of deployed soldiers w/ MH histories that have had no Combat related MH troubles.

Also obviously. I'd add that the combat flip out is variable, can occur early or later and that the number of triggers available on the battlefield is vast. MH issues in general do not show how well combat stress will be tolerated, people are too variable -- but the sociopathic trend, if not total, can aid in acceptance of most combat stressors.

...I appreciate your participation in the subject Ken, but on this matter I am closer to being a SME.

Gee, thanks. I appreciate your appreciation. Always good to deal with experts even if they do go in the wrong direction..

...Prevention of disciplinary failures in basic and early in enlistments may be more achievable through pre-screening however.Reed

Nothing to do with combat stress; in fact the guy with minor disciplinary problems is probably more tolerant of combat stress than the average straight arrow. We probably should stop trying to throw 'em all out of the service and exercise a little leadership.

[Stan]

I appreciate your participation in the subject Ken, but on this matter I am closer to being a SME. Prevention of disciplinary failures in basic and early in enlistments may be more achievable through pre-screening however.

Hello Reed,
Not to be a wise old retired NCO herein, but exactly what would you have expected from Ken having read your quotes below?

Let's get a little less personal with the seniors and respect the fact that Ken's background and experience is significant and plays a much larger role than some acronym SME.

Back in my days, SME translated to 15 years minimum.

Regards, Stan

4 years active duty paratrooper (mortars) and responded to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 as an untrained mental Health Specialist.

This seems to be important on a page w/ so many high grade officers and NCO's; I am a career smartass SPC. Turned down PLDC twice.