Combat v. Non-Combat injuries

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

Matt pointed out a dispute going on about what injuries are combat-related and which aren't as well as whether combat injuries rate a higher benefit rate than non-combat ones. The story highlights several cases that don't accurately represent the question here. The military currently compensates those hurt in direct combat at a higher rate than those injured other ways. The story focuses on several instances where injuries that may have been combat-related were deemed not to be. If DoD is screwing people who ought to have their injuries deemed combat-related, that is wrong and should be addressed. That is a question of where we draw the line as to combat v. non-combat. The real question is should combat wounds garner more benefits. Let's look at that for a minute.

CPL Snuffy Smith 11 Bravo Infantry 1/75th Ranger Bn.
Volunteered after 9/11
Volunteered-
Infantry
Airborne
Ranger

Likelihood that he will be involved in direct combat operations near 100%.

SFC Lumpy Fat Bastard 71L Clerk 9999 REMF Bn.
Volunteered after failing out of college

Likelihood he will be involved in direct combat near 0%.

CPL Smith is wounded in action on the Afghan border catching a 12.7 mm round in his left ankle that destroyed the joint. He will be lucky to walk on it again.

SFC Fat Bastard breaks his ankle playing basketball for unit PT after taking time out of his busy day disapproving valor awards for grammatical errors.

Now I am not dissing all support personnel, I am pointing out that there are differences in what we all do for a living. We already offer additional money to CPL Smith and the other Rangers because we realize what they do is wicked hard. They get jump pay and then combat pay when in theater getting shot at and making dead tangos. So we have already made the value judgment that combat-related activities are worth more money. It is not a long jump to say that combat injuries deserve the same judgment.

I am asking more than answeing here as I think this is far from determined.

---

Mission: To protect and promote the reputation and dignity of America's Warriors.
Join us!

Comments

Combat v. Non-Combat injuries

Matt pointed out a dispute going on about what injuries are combat-related and which aren't as well as whether combat injuries rate a higher benefit rate than non-combat ones. The story highlights several cases that don't accurately represent the question here. The military currently compensates those hurt in direct combat at a higher rate than those injured other ways. The story focuses on several instances where injuries that may have been combat-related were deemed not to be. If DoD is screwing people who ought to have their injuries deemed combat-related, that is wrong and should be addressed. That is a question of where we draw the line as to combat v. non-combat. The real question is should combat wounds garner more benefits. Let's look at that for a minute.

CPL Snuffy Smith 11 Bravo Infantry 1/75th Ranger Bn.
Volunteered after 9/11
Volunteered-
Infantry
Airborne
Ranger

Likelihood that he will be involved in direct combat operations near 100%.

SFC Lumpy Fat Bastard 71L Clerk 9999 REMF Bn.
Volunteered after failing out of college

Likelihood he will be involved in direct combat near 0%.

CPL Smith is wounded in action on the Afghan border catching a 12.7 mm round in his left ankle that destroyed the joint. He will be lucky to walk on it again.

SFC Fat Bastard breaks his ankle playing basketball for unit PT after taking time out of his busy day disapproving valor awards for grammatical errors.

Now I am not dissing all support personnel, I am pointing out that there are differences in what we all do for a living. We already offer additional money to CPL Smith and the other Rangers because we realize what they do is wicked hard. They get jump pay and then combat pay when in theater getting shot at and making dead tangos. So we have already made the value judgment that combat-related activities are worth more money. It is not a long jump to say that combat injuries deserve the same judgment.

I am asking more than answeing here as I think this is far from determined.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfadb53ef010536198d7c970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Combat v. Non-Combat injuries: