Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bobibutu

"and was subsequently killed in action "could" be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action. "

LOL. just exactly what kind of "disciplinary action" are you going to give a soldier that is dead?


24 posted on 01/15/2006 9:59:26 AM PST by Annie5622 (Democrats DO have a plan! They apparently plan to stay stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Annie5622
"and was subsequently killed in action "could" be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action. " I've heard that you could be denied SGLI payment and VA benefits in an off duty situation such as be killed while driving drunk or not wearing a seat belt during off duty hours....After an investigation and a "in the line of duty determination". I can't see how a soldier in a combat zone killed by hostile fire could be categorized in such a way.
43 posted on 01/15/2006 10:16:53 AM PST by Wristpin ("The Yankees have decided to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Annie5622; All
Actually this story is probably accurate.

1. The military doesn't want to be embarassed by reports that the items they just spent millions procuring are being discarded in favor of privately purchsed items;

2. Wearing of OTHER items might negatively affect troop morale - what are the soldiers who are not getting the 'private stuff' supposed to think?

3. Some JAG rocket scientist might well have warned his commanders that, if a soldier is killed while wearing something OTHER than Army-issued armor, there could be disciplinary/bad PR repercussions for the commanders who allowed them to wear the OTHER stuff (not to mention the possibility of law suits)....

This is so typically a bureaucratic story, but if you're within the bureaucracy, justifying it is very, very easy and a predictable response to the realization that they did not buy their troops the 'best stuff. After all, if you can't compare stats between those hit while wearing the private vs public stuff, they have 'deniability' of their screw-up;

Oh, and about the generals wearing the privtae stuff to 'evaluate it' - this is such a CLASSIC Orwellian military phrase that I almost spit out my drink - someone ought to ask: "But sir, doesn't it make more sense to allow the troops who are actually going into the areas where the shooting is to evaluate it instead of a bunch of (already) over-protected generals who don't go 'on patrol'?

51 posted on 01/15/2006 10:45:11 AM PST by Al Simmons ('A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user' - Theodore Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson