Wounded vets asked to return signing bonuses.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-11-20 06:20pm

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ―

The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.

One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.

He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.

Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.

A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.

"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.

It's a slap for Fox's mother, Susan Wardezak, who met with President Bush in Pittsburgh last May. He thanked her for starting Operation Pittsburgh Pride which has sent approximately 4,000 care packages.

He then sent her a letter expressing his concern over her son's injuries, so she cannot understand the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over injuries to countless U.S. Soldiers and demands that they return their bonuses.

While he's unsure of his future, Fox says he's unwavering in his commitment to his country.

"I'd do it all over again... because I'm proud of the discipline that I learned. I'm proud to have done something for my country," he said.

But Fox feels like he's already given enough. He'll never be able to pursue his dream of being a police officer because of his wounds and he can't believe he's being asked to return part of his $10,000 signing bonus.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2007-11-20 06:34pm

No one pays full whack for damaged goods, so why should vets be any different? What's that? It's inhuman? Get outta town, pussy.

America doesn't win wars with pussies who can't get the job done.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2007-11-20 07:29pm

*sigh* The armed forces have to understand, you go to war with the body-parts you have, not the body-parts you want.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-20 07:32pm

A nation that treats its soldiers this way does not deserve to be defended.

Post by **Dalton** » 2007-11-20 07:55pm

"Support the troops" indeed. I wonder how the Faux Noise hounds will defend this one. I smell another KO Special Comment.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2007-11-20 08:00pm

Disgusting. Hopefully this will be reversed if the public outcry gets loud enough.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-11-20 08:05pm

Dalton wrote:"Support the troops" indeed. I wonder how the Faux Noise hounds will defend this one. I smell another KO Special Comment.

They're just phony soldiers for bitching about it. They should be like real soldiers and suffer in silence.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-20 08:11pm

Flagg wrote: They're just phony soldiers for bitching about it. They should be like real soldiers and suffer in silence.

One is moved to wonder why they hate freedom.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-11-20 08:17pm

Dalton wrote:"Support the troops" indeed. I wonder how the Faux Noise hounds will defend this one. I smell another KO Special Comment.

I'm not sure if it's going to be a Special Comment, unless I heard wrongly, but Olbermann is going to be talking about it tonight. He just mentioned it before the commercial break at a minute ago.

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2007-11-20 08:54pm

Dalton wrote:"Support the troops" indeed. I wonder how the Faux Noise hounds will defend this one. I smell another KO Special Comment.

Saw it on Fox news this morning, and they were not defending this at all.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-20 09:02pm

Wow, has this government finally reached a sub-sub-sub-basement drain sump, which even Fox won't applaud?

The mind boggles.

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » 2007-11-20 09:02pm

Saw it on Fox news this morning, and they were not defending this at all.

Was that because they were blaming the situation on the Democrats, "lieberals", or homosexuals? Because honestly blaming the other guys seems like the only way the right-wing cocksuckers out there can handle the disconnect between the propoganda they've gobbled up and actual reality.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-11-20 09:06pm

It wasn't Special Comment after all, just on the Worst Person in the World list, at number one.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2007-11-20 09:33pm

An overzealous REMF is probably behind this. Wants his review to say "Saved the Army $$$ by getting signing bonuses returned from ex-soldiers".

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-11-20 10:20pm

What's REMF stand for? I'm having some trouble with the idea one nutter could be requesting it back from thousands, for nearly a month now, without someone stepping in.

(But Nitram, why do you say a month? Because with a touch more digging, I find this: Link, a bill introduced because a US Rep. found out about this and is trying to stop it. Timestamp on the bill? Later October.)

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2007-11-20 10:38pm

SirNitram wrote:What's REMF stand for?

Rear Echelon Mother Fucker.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2007-11-20 11:28pm

I have one simple question to all you liberal pansies who are upset about this. Why do you hate God, freedom and our troops?

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2007-11-20 11:58pm

The sad thing is according to the law when a soldier receives a medical discharge they are entitled to keep their all their benefits that they signed the contract for. For example one of the soldiers in my unit just got a medical and according to his separation papers he will keep his GI Bill, signing bonus plus all the stuff he'll receive as a vet.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-11-21 01:34am

Durandal wrote:I have one simple question to all you liberal pansies who are upset about this. Why do you hate God, freedom and our troops?

The answer to all three is "Bob Hope".

They need to get whoever is behind this shit, frogmarch him out of the Pentagon, and put him in stocks with a giant neon "Biggest Douche In the Universe" sign over them. Seriousely. That's my honest proposal for dealing with this fuckwit.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-11-21 01:59am

dragon wrote:The sad thing is according to the law when a soldier receives a medical discharge they are entitled to keep their all their benefits that they signed the contract for. For example one of the soldiers in my unit just got a medical and according to his separation papers he will keep his GI Bill, signing bonus plus all the stuff he'll receive as a vet.

If that is the case then the order to return the money is illegal...

Is it possible to file a grievance under the UMCJ?

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2007-11-21 02:12am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
dragon wrote:The sad thing is according to the law when a soldier receives a medical discharge they are entitled to keep their all their benefits that they signed the contract for. For example one of the soldiers in my unit just got a medical and according to his separation papers he will keep his GI Bill, signing bonus plus all the stuff he'll receive as a vet.
If that is the case then the order to return the money is illegal...

Is it possible to file a grievance under the UMCJ?

Crap I really should have proofed my stuff better. Signing bonuses are usually not one lump sum. They are instead spread out over the term of service. For example my bonus I received 6k after the 1st year. Then ecah year after that I received another 1.5k. This gave me a total of 12k for 5 years of service.

Now if I received a medical at say two years I would get to keep the money already given me but they would not give me the remaining money. Maybe downrange it was a lump sum and falls under a different category.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-11-21 03:05am

remember the neocon definition of "support the troops" means No Lube before sticking the chainsaw in.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2007-11-21 03:28am

Dalton wrote:"Support the troops" indeed. I wonder how the Faux Noise hounds will defend this one.

Isn't it obvious?

Those damn Democrats are not giving the Pentagon the money they need, so the Pentagon has to scrounge together whatever they can get in order to help the REAL soldiers...

Napoleon the Clown · Post by **Napoleon the Clown** » 2007-11-21 03:32am

Hey, I'm fine with this.

Provided they give the soldiers big-ass payouts for lost limbs like would happen if they lose anything in the workforce. Though I'd honestly still prefer they keep their sign on bonus in addition to getting some pay-off from losing their fucking arm/leg.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-11-21 03:58am

why is this remindin me of the civil war again...

oh yeah simular treatment of vets with disabilities back then too.