One of the most important decision a service member can make prior to deployment is the selection of a financial institution. Selecting a good financial institution is very important as there are many things to consider relating to financial transaction during your deployment. Some things to consider include, ease of use, the ability to make wire transfer and accessing your bank account online just to name a few things.
It is important that you shop around for a financial institution that knows how the military functions and if possible provides benefits for servicemembers at reduced cost. There are quite a few such financial institutions out there. In my book I give examples of what to look for in selecting a financial institution to handle not only your financial matters and transactions but other money matters as well. These may include personal and property insurance as well as investing and setting up a brokerage account.
You will be certain to find ways to save money after reading the section of my book titled Selecting a Financial Institution. I will also give you my top pick!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Importance of a Good Family Care Plan
The sequence of events on September 11, 2001 changed America forever. On this day, The United States of America lost its innocence. The land of the free was no longer as free as it once was. Open and free travel no longer seemed as open and free following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Subsequently, America soon found itself at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of service members needed to adequately fight this war was tremendous. The number of service members on active duty was not enough to engage in effective combat. As such, the burden to pick up the slack fell upon the Reserve and National Guard forces of our military. Not in recent memory has there been a greater number of service members deployed conus or oconus. From a military development standpoint, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provoked the number of deployments to grow substantially. Since September 11, 2001, over 1.7 million service members have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Operation Enduring Freedom’s military focus is on securing the nation of Afghanistan, while as its name suggest, Operation Iraqi Freedom is concerned with securing the nation of Iraq. In addition to the service members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service members were deployed to Kuwait and Qatar in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, tens of thousands service members were deployed in support of contingency operations around the world.
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
One of the first things a service member should do prior to deployment is review and/or implement a current family care plan. Your family care plan should be reviewed certainly, if you are being deployed, but also at least once a year regardless of deployment status. It is said that “the strength of the Family is the strength of the Soldier is the strength of the Military is the strength of the Nation!” So it logically follows that caring and providing for the families of service member alleviates many of the stresses related to deployment and combat. This in turn leads to the strong national defense of the United States of America.
The very first responsibility of a service member scheduled for deployment is to inform the family and start making a plan. While I would not say it is easier deploying without having a family, it certainly is challenging if you are a deployed service member with a family. Regardless, if you have children or not, you should have some form of a Family Care Plan in place.
In my book, I go into great detail explaining what a Family Care Plan is and how to set up a good Family Care Plan.
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
One of the first things a service member should do prior to deployment is review and/or implement a current family care plan. Your family care plan should be reviewed certainly, if you are being deployed, but also at least once a year regardless of deployment status. It is said that “the strength of the Family is the strength of the Soldier is the strength of the Military is the strength of the Nation!” So it logically follows that caring and providing for the families of service member alleviates many of the stresses related to deployment and combat. This in turn leads to the strong national defense of the United States of America.
The very first responsibility of a service member scheduled for deployment is to inform the family and start making a plan. While I would not say it is easier deploying without having a family, it certainly is challenging if you are a deployed service member with a family. Regardless, if you have children or not, you should have some form of a Family Care Plan in place.
In my book, I go into great detail explaining what a Family Care Plan is and how to set up a good Family Care Plan.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Study: Soldiers use extreme methods to meet military weight rules
Soldiers are dangerously starving themselves, gobbling diet pills and laxatives — even resorting to costly liposuction surgery — all to meet the Army's weight standards and avoid losing their careers, according to military personnel who spoke to Army Times.
Health experts say the number of soldiers using extreme weight-loss methods may closely resemble results of a recent study by two officers attending the Naval Post Graduate School. The study found that nearly one in three Marines have gone to such measures to lose weight. The Army doesn't keep data on the likely numbers of soldiers taking these risks, but dozens of soldiers responded to a question from Army Times, many saying they use starvation, dehydration, pills or laxatives, and some have used — or are considering using — liposuction.
Additionally, more than a third of men in uniform do not meet height and weight standards, according to a separate 2009 report.
"Liposuction saved my career — laxatives and starvation before an (Army Physical Fitness Test) sustains my career," a soldier told Army Times in an e-mail. "I for one can attest that soldiers are using liposuction, laxatives and starvation to meet height and weight standards. I did, do and still do," wrote the soldier, a medium helicopter repairer.
"Six years ago, I spent $4,500 on liposuction while on (permanent change of station) leave. As a crewmember, our mission is to keep those aircraft in the air, and time for PT is not available," he wrote. "I was blessed with a very slow metabolism and an insatiable appetite."
Soldiers know they will face the dreaded "tape" if they exceed height/weight standards. The tape measurements are used to determine body fat percentage, with limits set by age group and gender.
Soldiers are afraid of those limits, knowing that if they cross that line they won't be promotable. Further, they cannot be assigned to leadership positions and they are not authorized to attend professional military schools. Their career is over if they don't make satisfactory weight loss in two months — typically six to 16 pounds.
The danger to careers is real.
About 24,000 soldiers were discharged between 1992 and 2007 for failure to comply with weight standards outlined in Army Regulation 600-9, according to the 2009 Military Services Fitness Database report, which was published in the journal Military Medicine. In comparison, the Army discharged less than a tenth of that number — 2,342 soldiers — for failing the physical fitness test between 1999 and 2007.
To save their careers, some soldiers turn to excessive, unnatural and unhealthy measures.
Extent of practice not known
With 35% of male soldiers failing the weight standards, and 6% of men and women exceeding body fat standards, according to the 2009 report, how many of them will turn to extreme solutions is hard to say, as empirical data on this practice does not exist — a fact bemoaned by the medical experts interviewed by Army Times.
"I don't think we have a clear understanding how widespread this problem is," said Col. George Dilly, Medical Command's chief dietician and a consultant to the Army surgeon general. "Soldiers are hiding the fact they are doing this because they don't want the problem exposed."
Dilly said the typical scenario is well known. As a soldier approaches his semi-annual weigh-in, he may use diuretics and laxatives to reduce fluid and lower his weight. But this can be a deadly decision, Dilly said, because it causes dehydration, and the loss of essential electrolytes can lead to cardiac arrest. Worse yet, this approach has no effect on the individual's body fat.
"This is not a long-term strategy," he said. "In fact, it's a very dangerous short-term strategy."
Second Lt. Lane Stover knows this all too well. The 5-foot-4-inch quartermaster said she went to extreme measures to keep the weight off.
"When I ate more than I thought I should, I would purge, and punish myself by heading to the gym or out on a late-night run," she said in an e-mail to Army Times. "I would often take laxatives, in excess of the prescribed amount, and knew exactly how long it would take for them to go into effect. It was a disgusting and dangerous practice that I thought would help me.
Stover said she entered therapy and went to support groups to fix her problem, but said one problem remains.
"My behaviors aren't the only problem. The Army's weight standard is," she said. "Until the Army takes a closer look at the weight regulations and methods for determining body fat, soldiers will resort to extreme measures to ensure they are within their weight requirements."
Alejandra Lewis said she had taken laxatives and starved herself "a couple of times" in preparation for the PT test. She said the problem was not her weight, but the way the Army measures body fat.
"Every person has a different shape of body; not everyone is the same," she wrote to Army Times. "When I joined the military I went down 80 pounds starving myself and (using) laxatives. I had to do it because even though I had met weight, I have thick thighs. The tape measure said I was over, so I had to lose even more weight just to meet the standards. They need to change it because it isn't fair."
The fact that soldiers are taking these steps is no secret in the cosmetic-surgery community.
Chief Warrant Officer 2 Melissa Gash, based at Fort Riley, Kan., said she recently saw a poster for liposuction at the post gym.
"The bottom of the poster clearly states that advertisement does not mean endorsement, but the fact that material like that is even allowed on post, and more specifically where soldiers go to get fit, is inappropriate," she said. "It gives the soldier the false impression that liposuction should even be an option. Americans are all about fast results and immediate gratification. Whatever happened to working hard to accomplish a goal and feeling the satisfaction after earning what you set your sights on?"
But military health professionals say troops should not believe all the hype — and should be aware of the risks involved.
"We want soldiers to look right," said Dr. Thomas Williams, a retired colonel who heads the Army Physical Fitness Research Institute. "But they also need to feel right and perform right, and you can't get that from a pill or a procedure."
Reprinted from USAToday
By Lance M. Bacon, Army Times
Health experts say the number of soldiers using extreme weight-loss methods may closely resemble results of a recent study by two officers attending the Naval Post Graduate School. The study found that nearly one in three Marines have gone to such measures to lose weight. The Army doesn't keep data on the likely numbers of soldiers taking these risks, but dozens of soldiers responded to a question from Army Times, many saying they use starvation, dehydration, pills or laxatives, and some have used — or are considering using — liposuction.
Additionally, more than a third of men in uniform do not meet height and weight standards, according to a separate 2009 report.
"Liposuction saved my career — laxatives and starvation before an (Army Physical Fitness Test) sustains my career," a soldier told Army Times in an e-mail. "I for one can attest that soldiers are using liposuction, laxatives and starvation to meet height and weight standards. I did, do and still do," wrote the soldier, a medium helicopter repairer.
"Six years ago, I spent $4,500 on liposuction while on (permanent change of station) leave. As a crewmember, our mission is to keep those aircraft in the air, and time for PT is not available," he wrote. "I was blessed with a very slow metabolism and an insatiable appetite."
Soldiers know they will face the dreaded "tape" if they exceed height/weight standards. The tape measurements are used to determine body fat percentage, with limits set by age group and gender.
Soldiers are afraid of those limits, knowing that if they cross that line they won't be promotable. Further, they cannot be assigned to leadership positions and they are not authorized to attend professional military schools. Their career is over if they don't make satisfactory weight loss in two months — typically six to 16 pounds.
The danger to careers is real.
About 24,000 soldiers were discharged between 1992 and 2007 for failure to comply with weight standards outlined in Army Regulation 600-9, according to the 2009 Military Services Fitness Database report, which was published in the journal Military Medicine. In comparison, the Army discharged less than a tenth of that number — 2,342 soldiers — for failing the physical fitness test between 1999 and 2007.
To save their careers, some soldiers turn to excessive, unnatural and unhealthy measures.
Extent of practice not known
With 35% of male soldiers failing the weight standards, and 6% of men and women exceeding body fat standards, according to the 2009 report, how many of them will turn to extreme solutions is hard to say, as empirical data on this practice does not exist — a fact bemoaned by the medical experts interviewed by Army Times.
"I don't think we have a clear understanding how widespread this problem is," said Col. George Dilly, Medical Command's chief dietician and a consultant to the Army surgeon general. "Soldiers are hiding the fact they are doing this because they don't want the problem exposed."
Dilly said the typical scenario is well known. As a soldier approaches his semi-annual weigh-in, he may use diuretics and laxatives to reduce fluid and lower his weight. But this can be a deadly decision, Dilly said, because it causes dehydration, and the loss of essential electrolytes can lead to cardiac arrest. Worse yet, this approach has no effect on the individual's body fat.
"This is not a long-term strategy," he said. "In fact, it's a very dangerous short-term strategy."
Second Lt. Lane Stover knows this all too well. The 5-foot-4-inch quartermaster said she went to extreme measures to keep the weight off.
"When I ate more than I thought I should, I would purge, and punish myself by heading to the gym or out on a late-night run," she said in an e-mail to Army Times. "I would often take laxatives, in excess of the prescribed amount, and knew exactly how long it would take for them to go into effect. It was a disgusting and dangerous practice that I thought would help me.
Stover said she entered therapy and went to support groups to fix her problem, but said one problem remains.
"My behaviors aren't the only problem. The Army's weight standard is," she said. "Until the Army takes a closer look at the weight regulations and methods for determining body fat, soldiers will resort to extreme measures to ensure they are within their weight requirements."
Alejandra Lewis said she had taken laxatives and starved herself "a couple of times" in preparation for the PT test. She said the problem was not her weight, but the way the Army measures body fat.
"Every person has a different shape of body; not everyone is the same," she wrote to Army Times. "When I joined the military I went down 80 pounds starving myself and (using) laxatives. I had to do it because even though I had met weight, I have thick thighs. The tape measure said I was over, so I had to lose even more weight just to meet the standards. They need to change it because it isn't fair."
The fact that soldiers are taking these steps is no secret in the cosmetic-surgery community.
Chief Warrant Officer 2 Melissa Gash, based at Fort Riley, Kan., said she recently saw a poster for liposuction at the post gym.
"The bottom of the poster clearly states that advertisement does not mean endorsement, but the fact that material like that is even allowed on post, and more specifically where soldiers go to get fit, is inappropriate," she said. "It gives the soldier the false impression that liposuction should even be an option. Americans are all about fast results and immediate gratification. Whatever happened to working hard to accomplish a goal and feeling the satisfaction after earning what you set your sights on?"
But military health professionals say troops should not believe all the hype — and should be aware of the risks involved.
"We want soldiers to look right," said Dr. Thomas Williams, a retired colonel who heads the Army Physical Fitness Research Institute. "But they also need to feel right and perform right, and you can't get that from a pill or a procedure."
Reprinted from USAToday
By Lance M. Bacon, Army Times
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Presents ready for troops, but need postage
Charity organizations across the country have been collecting everything from blowup reindeer and hand-knit scarves to mp3 players and guitars all year long, planning to brighten the holidays for troops deployed far from home.
The task at hand is finding enough money to ship the gifts overseas, organizers say. Postage to Iraq and Afghanistan is almost $100 per box, says Andi Grant, president and founder of Give 2 the Troops. Her Connecticut-based organization sends 70-pound boxes with gifts inside for an entire unit to share. "I need help sending that over," she says.
Grant started Give 2 the Troops eight years ago and says that although the group is "overflowing" with material donations, it is not receiving as much money for shipping costs as it has in previous years. Coming into Thanksgiving week, the organization needed an additional $30,000 to $40,000 to get this year's holiday gifts to the troops, Grant says. The cost can vary greatly depending on the size of boxes shipped.
Florida-based Operation Shoe Box also sees shrinking donations though it gets as many requests from troops as ever, says Mary Harper, president and founder of the organization. "It's harder every year to keep the motivation going," she says.
Since Grant's husband was deployed to Iraq in 2002, Give 2 the Troops has been sending packages to units who register on the organization's website. There are about 75,000 units signed up from all branches of the military, serving mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan, Grant says.
Give 2 the Troops fills boxes with the typical handwritten cards and stockings but includes things the units specifically requested, such as microwaves.
Gifts are especially important as the holidays approach, Grant says. "This is one of the weakest times for our troops because they really miss home," she says.
Master Sgt. Michael Goza has been deployed in an undisclosed location overseas since May 2010 and will not return home until January. He will miss his traditional holiday celebrations with his wife and three daughters. In June, he received a care package from Operation Gratitude and says the items inside made him and the rest of his unit very happy.
"Believe me, we really do enjoy getting some of the things from home, no matter how small or how big," Goza says.
Operation Gratitude focuses on sending smaller packages to individual servicemembers overseas. Based in California, the group sends 100,000 packages a year, each containing 150 small items that can be shared with the recipient's unit, says Carolyn Blashek, the organization's founder and president.
Including expenses such as storage, forklifts, communication and security, each package costs about $15 to ship, she says. Shipping is much less than what Give 2 The Troops pays because Operation Gratitude sends significantly smaller boxes.
This year, each holiday package includes a hand-knit or crocheted scarf, blank holiday cards for the servicemember to send home, beef jerky, protein bars, energy shots, DVDs, socks and more.
Because Iraq and Afghanistan are Muslim countries, pork products, alcohol and overly religious items cannot be sent, Blashek says. Each box includes a small stuffed animal, which can be given to local children. This encourages the children to tell troops where bombs and terrorists are, Blashek says.
Dec. 11 will be Operation Gratitude's last shipping day, on which it will ship its 600,000th box, Blashek says. Each milestone box goes to a randomly selected servicemember with a dramatic surprise such as keys to a new SUV or a vacation in the Caribbean.
"It's really a celebration of the support the country has for the troops," Blashek says.
"All of your gifts bring smiles and sometimes tears to everyone that receives them," Goza says.
Reprinted from USAToday
The task at hand is finding enough money to ship the gifts overseas, organizers say. Postage to Iraq and Afghanistan is almost $100 per box, says Andi Grant, president and founder of Give 2 the Troops. Her Connecticut-based organization sends 70-pound boxes with gifts inside for an entire unit to share. "I need help sending that over," she says.
Grant started Give 2 the Troops eight years ago and says that although the group is "overflowing" with material donations, it is not receiving as much money for shipping costs as it has in previous years. Coming into Thanksgiving week, the organization needed an additional $30,000 to $40,000 to get this year's holiday gifts to the troops, Grant says. The cost can vary greatly depending on the size of boxes shipped.
Florida-based Operation Shoe Box also sees shrinking donations though it gets as many requests from troops as ever, says Mary Harper, president and founder of the organization. "It's harder every year to keep the motivation going," she says.
Since Grant's husband was deployed to Iraq in 2002, Give 2 the Troops has been sending packages to units who register on the organization's website. There are about 75,000 units signed up from all branches of the military, serving mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan, Grant says.
Give 2 the Troops fills boxes with the typical handwritten cards and stockings but includes things the units specifically requested, such as microwaves.
Gifts are especially important as the holidays approach, Grant says. "This is one of the weakest times for our troops because they really miss home," she says.
Master Sgt. Michael Goza has been deployed in an undisclosed location overseas since May 2010 and will not return home until January. He will miss his traditional holiday celebrations with his wife and three daughters. In June, he received a care package from Operation Gratitude and says the items inside made him and the rest of his unit very happy.
"Believe me, we really do enjoy getting some of the things from home, no matter how small or how big," Goza says.
Operation Gratitude focuses on sending smaller packages to individual servicemembers overseas. Based in California, the group sends 100,000 packages a year, each containing 150 small items that can be shared with the recipient's unit, says Carolyn Blashek, the organization's founder and president.
Including expenses such as storage, forklifts, communication and security, each package costs about $15 to ship, she says. Shipping is much less than what Give 2 The Troops pays because Operation Gratitude sends significantly smaller boxes.
This year, each holiday package includes a hand-knit or crocheted scarf, blank holiday cards for the servicemember to send home, beef jerky, protein bars, energy shots, DVDs, socks and more.
Because Iraq and Afghanistan are Muslim countries, pork products, alcohol and overly religious items cannot be sent, Blashek says. Each box includes a small stuffed animal, which can be given to local children. This encourages the children to tell troops where bombs and terrorists are, Blashek says.
Dec. 11 will be Operation Gratitude's last shipping day, on which it will ship its 600,000th box, Blashek says. Each milestone box goes to a randomly selected servicemember with a dramatic surprise such as keys to a new SUV or a vacation in the Caribbean.
"It's really a celebration of the support the country has for the troops," Blashek says.
"All of your gifts bring smiles and sometimes tears to everyone that receives them," Goza says.
Reprinted from USAToday
Friday, November 26, 2010
Civilian soldiers' suicide rate alarming
National Guard soldiers who are not on active duty killed themselves this year at nearly twice the rate of 2009, marring a year when suicides among Army soldiers on active duty appear to be leveling off, new Army statistics show.
Eighty-six non-active-duty Guard soldiers have killed themselves in the first 10 months of 2010, compared with 48 such suicides in all of 2009.
The reason for the rise in suicides among these "citizen soldiers" is not known. It may be linked to the recession, says Army Col. Chris Philbrick, deputy commander of an Army task force working to reduce suicides.
Philbrick said investigations into the suicides of soldiers not on full-time-active status have found that some were facing stressful situations such as home foreclosures, debt and the loss of a job.
Other factors have played a role in the suicides, including relationship problems, depression, substance abuse, combat stress and mild brain injuries, Philbrick says.
The rise comes as the rate of suicides leveled among full-time active-duty Army soldiers, National Guard members and reservists following years of increases, Philbrick says. Among that group, there were 132 confirmed or suspected suicides in the first 10 months of this year compared with 140 such suicides for the same period in 2009.
That positive trend among active-duty troops was more than offset by the rise in suicides among non-active-duty National Guard members.
There were 252 confirmed or suspected suicides among active and non-active Army members through October of this year. There were 242 such deaths in all of 2009.
Active-duty soldiers have greater access to programs and mental health resources, Philbrick says. New efforts aimed at reducing suicides among that group may be beginning to have an effect. "We do whatever we can to drive down these numbers," Philbrick says. "But it doesn't happen overnight."
The Army has launched a series of programs aimed at breaking down a stigma among soldiers against seeking mental health treatment. It has also initiated two studies — a $50 million, five-year investigation by the National Institute of Mental Health in 2009 and this year, a $17 million research consortium — aimed at understanding why the suicides are happening and how to stop them.
Army suicides have been climbing since 2007, bringing the rate to 22 per 100,000 soldiers. The rate among civilians within the same age group is 20 per 100,000. The Marine Corps has seen an increase since 2008 and its rate is 24 per 100,000. But there, too, the trend may be downward.
There were 45 confirmed or suspected cases of suicides among Marines through October of this year compared with 53 suicides for the same period last year, Marine Corps statistics show.
Reprinted from USAToday
Eighty-six non-active-duty Guard soldiers have killed themselves in the first 10 months of 2010, compared with 48 such suicides in all of 2009.
The reason for the rise in suicides among these "citizen soldiers" is not known. It may be linked to the recession, says Army Col. Chris Philbrick, deputy commander of an Army task force working to reduce suicides.
Philbrick said investigations into the suicides of soldiers not on full-time-active status have found that some were facing stressful situations such as home foreclosures, debt and the loss of a job.
Other factors have played a role in the suicides, including relationship problems, depression, substance abuse, combat stress and mild brain injuries, Philbrick says.
The rise comes as the rate of suicides leveled among full-time active-duty Army soldiers, National Guard members and reservists following years of increases, Philbrick says. Among that group, there were 132 confirmed or suspected suicides in the first 10 months of this year compared with 140 such suicides for the same period in 2009.
That positive trend among active-duty troops was more than offset by the rise in suicides among non-active-duty National Guard members.
There were 252 confirmed or suspected suicides among active and non-active Army members through October of this year. There were 242 such deaths in all of 2009.
Active-duty soldiers have greater access to programs and mental health resources, Philbrick says. New efforts aimed at reducing suicides among that group may be beginning to have an effect. "We do whatever we can to drive down these numbers," Philbrick says. "But it doesn't happen overnight."
The Army has launched a series of programs aimed at breaking down a stigma among soldiers against seeking mental health treatment. It has also initiated two studies — a $50 million, five-year investigation by the National Institute of Mental Health in 2009 and this year, a $17 million research consortium — aimed at understanding why the suicides are happening and how to stop them.
Army suicides have been climbing since 2007, bringing the rate to 22 per 100,000 soldiers. The rate among civilians within the same age group is 20 per 100,000. The Marine Corps has seen an increase since 2008 and its rate is 24 per 100,000. But there, too, the trend may be downward.
There were 45 confirmed or suspected cases of suicides among Marines through October of this year compared with 53 suicides for the same period last year, Marine Corps statistics show.
Reprinted from USAToday
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Power of a Power of Attorney!
When considering securing a power of attorney, know that there are two types. A Special power of attorney and a General power of attorney. A general power of attorney gives another person broad and far reaching authority to handle your affairs. A special power of attorney only provides for specifically limited handling of your affairs such as selling your vehicle or preparing your taxes. Regardless of the type of power of attorney you give, there should be a specific termination date. As an attorney, I recommend powers of attorney terminate after one year has passed.
Case Scenario 1:
“Service Member” was ordered to active duty to be deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 18 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.
“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse”was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.
Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, due to the “Service Member” not fully understanding the difference between a general power of attorney and a special power of attorney, “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a general power of attorney.
What do you think happened?
Case Scenario 2:
“Service Member” was order to active duty to be deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 5 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.
“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse” was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.
Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, prior to deploying to Afghanistan, “Service Member” reads the book The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; what every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2008 “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a special power of attorney.
What do you think happened?
To find the answers to these “Case Scenarios” and other fascinating questions, read the book, The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2009
Case Scenario 1:
“Service Member” was ordered to active duty to be deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 18 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.
“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse”was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.
Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, due to the “Service Member” not fully understanding the difference between a general power of attorney and a special power of attorney, “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a general power of attorney.
What do you think happened?
Case Scenario 2:
“Service Member” was order to active duty to be deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 5 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.
“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse” was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.
Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, prior to deploying to Afghanistan, “Service Member” reads the book The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; what every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2008 “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a special power of attorney.
What do you think happened?
To find the answers to these “Case Scenarios” and other fascinating questions, read the book, The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2009
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The need for a Family Care Plan
The sequence of events on September 11, 2001 changed America forever. On this day, The United States of America lost its innocence. The land of the free was no longer as free as it once was. Open and free travel no longer seemed as open and free following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Subsequently, America soon found itself at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of service members needed to adequately fight this war was tremendous. The number of service members on active duty was not enough to engage in effective combat. As such, the burden to pick up the slack fell upon the Reserve and National Guard forces of our military. Not in recent memory has there been a greater number of service members deployed conus or oconus. From a military development standpoint, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provoked the number of deployments to grow substantially. Since September 11, 2001, over 1.7 million service members have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Operation Enduring Freedom’s military focus is on securing the nation of Afghanistan, while as its name suggest, Operation Iraqi Freedom is concerned with securing the nation of Iraq. In addition to the service members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service members were deployed to Kuwait and Qatar in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, tens of thousands service members were deployed in support of contingency operations around the world.
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
One of the first things a service member should do prior to deployment is review and/or implement a current family care plan. Your family care plan should be reviewed certainly, if you are being deployed, but also at least once a year regardless of deployment status. It is said that “the strength of the Family is the strength of the Soldier is the strength of the Military is the strength of the Nation!” So it logically follows that caring and providing for the families of service member alleviates many of the stresses related to deployment and combat. This in turn leads to the strong national defense of the United States of America.
The very first responsibility of a service member scheduled for deployment is to inform the family and start making a plan. While I would not say it is easier deploying without having a family, it certainly is challenging if you are a deployed service member with a family. Regardless, if you have children or not, you should have some form of a Family Care Plan in place.
In my book, I go into great detail explaining what a Family Care Plan is and how to set up a good Family Care Plan.
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
One of the first things a service member should do prior to deployment is review and/or implement a current family care plan. Your family care plan should be reviewed certainly, if you are being deployed, but also at least once a year regardless of deployment status. It is said that “the strength of the Family is the strength of the Soldier is the strength of the Military is the strength of the Nation!” So it logically follows that caring and providing for the families of service member alleviates many of the stresses related to deployment and combat. This in turn leads to the strong national defense of the United States of America.
The very first responsibility of a service member scheduled for deployment is to inform the family and start making a plan. While I would not say it is easier deploying without having a family, it certainly is challenging if you are a deployed service member with a family. Regardless, if you have children or not, you should have some form of a Family Care Plan in place.
In my book, I go into great detail explaining what a Family Care Plan is and how to set up a good Family Care Plan.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Deployment to the war zone. What do I do next?
The sequence of events on September 11, 2001 changed America forever. On this day, The United States of America lost its innocence. The land of the free was no longer as free as it once was. Open and free travel no longer seemed as open and free following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Subsequently, America soon found itself at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of service members needed to adequately fight this war was tremendous. The number of service members on active duty was not enough to engage in effective combat. As such, the burden to pick up the slack fell upon the Reserve and National Guard forces of our military. Not in recent memory has there been a greater number of service members deployed conus or oconus. From a military development standpoint, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provoked the number of deployments to grow substantially. Since September 11, 2001, over 1.7 million service members have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Operation Enduring Freedom’s military focus is on securing the nation of Afghanistan, while as its name suggest, Operation Iraqi Freedom is concerned with securing the nation of Iraq. In addition to the service members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service members were deployed to Kuwait and Qatar in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, tens of thousands service members were deployed in support of contingency operations around the world.
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
Over the next several post, I will attempt to share some insights for service members and their families as to of what to expect during the time of deployment and the best way to minimize many difficulties sure to occur...
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
Over the next several post, I will attempt to share some insights for service members and their families as to of what to expect during the time of deployment and the best way to minimize many difficulties sure to occur...
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Army finds simple blood test to identify mild brain trauma
FREDERICK, Md. — The Army says it has discovered a simple blood test that can diagnose mild traumatic brain damage or concussion, a hard-to-detect injury that can affect young athletes, infants with "shaken baby syndrome" and combat troops.
"This is huge," said Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army vice chief of staff.
Army Col. Dallas Hack, who has oversight of the research, says recent data show the blood test, which looks for unique proteins that spill into the blood stream from damaged brain cells, accurately diagnosing mild traumatic brain injury in 34 patients.
Doctors can miss these injuries because the damage does not show up on imaging scans, and symptoms such as headaches or dizziness are ignored or downplayed by the victims.
If the brain is not allowed time to recover and a second concussion occurs, permanent damage may result. Brain injuries afflict 1.4 million Americans each year, says the National Brain Injury Association. Seventy percent are mild cases.
About 300,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered concussions, mostly from roadside bombs, according to a RAND Corp. study.
Hack says the new findings could rival the discovery of unique proteins in the 1970s that now help doctors identify heart disease.
"This will in fact do for brain injury what that test did for chest pain. It's going to change medicine entirely," Hack says.
If the Army wins FDA approval for the test, the discovery could be a milestone in brain-injury care, says Gregory O'Shanick, national medical director for the Brain Injury Association of America.
"We will find people who are under the radar and then treat them appropriately," he says.
The Army collaborated on the biomarker program with Florida-based Banyan Biomarkers, company created by former faculty member of the University of Florida.
The company recently received $26 million to conduct a final, large set of clinical trials through 2013 on 1,200 patients suffering mild to moderate to severe brain injuries. The patients will be drawn from 30 trauma centers across the country. The success of this phase will determine FDA approval for public use of the biomarker test, Hack says.
"We're trying to see if we can make that (clinical trial) earlier and make it faster," Hack says.
Physician Jeffrey Bazarian said the results may be flawed if researchers are studying only people admitted into hospitals. Their brain injuries, even if characterized as mild, may be more severe than common forms of concussion.
"The key is whatever patients they study need to look like concussed patients, walking, talking and not necessarily in need of hospitalization," said Bazarian, a trauma specialist who has served on task forces involving brain injury and panels for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "If you just look at the milds that are admitted ... that's potentially a flaw."
From USAToday.
"This is huge," said Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army vice chief of staff.
Army Col. Dallas Hack, who has oversight of the research, says recent data show the blood test, which looks for unique proteins that spill into the blood stream from damaged brain cells, accurately diagnosing mild traumatic brain injury in 34 patients.
Doctors can miss these injuries because the damage does not show up on imaging scans, and symptoms such as headaches or dizziness are ignored or downplayed by the victims.
If the brain is not allowed time to recover and a second concussion occurs, permanent damage may result. Brain injuries afflict 1.4 million Americans each year, says the National Brain Injury Association. Seventy percent are mild cases.
About 300,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered concussions, mostly from roadside bombs, according to a RAND Corp. study.
Hack says the new findings could rival the discovery of unique proteins in the 1970s that now help doctors identify heart disease.
"This will in fact do for brain injury what that test did for chest pain. It's going to change medicine entirely," Hack says.
If the Army wins FDA approval for the test, the discovery could be a milestone in brain-injury care, says Gregory O'Shanick, national medical director for the Brain Injury Association of America.
"We will find people who are under the radar and then treat them appropriately," he says.
The Army collaborated on the biomarker program with Florida-based Banyan Biomarkers, company created by former faculty member of the University of Florida.
The company recently received $26 million to conduct a final, large set of clinical trials through 2013 on 1,200 patients suffering mild to moderate to severe brain injuries. The patients will be drawn from 30 trauma centers across the country. The success of this phase will determine FDA approval for public use of the biomarker test, Hack says.
"We're trying to see if we can make that (clinical trial) earlier and make it faster," Hack says.
Physician Jeffrey Bazarian said the results may be flawed if researchers are studying only people admitted into hospitals. Their brain injuries, even if characterized as mild, may be more severe than common forms of concussion.
"The key is whatever patients they study need to look like concussed patients, walking, talking and not necessarily in need of hospitalization," said Bazarian, a trauma specialist who has served on task forces involving brain injury and panels for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "If you just look at the milds that are admitted ... that's potentially a flaw."
From USAToday.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Not guilty, but stuck with big bills, damaged career
By Kevin McCoy and Brad Heath, USA TODAY
A judge had a warning for the Justice Department lawyers who accused Army Lt. Col. Robert Morris of conspiring to steal military supplies: The case could be "ill-advised." A nearly two-year Army probe had cleared him. And another U.S. attorney's office had declined to prosecute.
The cost of fighting federal charges could "take the guy's life savings away," the judge added.
Prosecutors went ahead, anyway. The judge's prediction was right — a jury needed only 45 minutes to find Morris not guilty. By then, though, his career had derailed. His parents had mortgaged their home to help with $250,000 in legal bills. He had drained his own savings.
The government he had served in uniform for decades could have compensated Morris for some of the losses. A 1997 law requires the Justice Department to repay the legal bills of defendants who win their cases and prove that federal prosecutors committed misconduct or other transgressions.
RARE VICTORY: Va. bankers beat government twice
VIDEO: One man's story of beating the government
EXPLORE CASES: Investigate the misconduct cases we ID'd
JUSTICE IN BALANCE: Prosecutors' conduct can tip the scales
FULL COVERAGE: Federal prosecutors series
But Morris didn't get anything from Washington. It took a gift from a Texas billionaire to help the Morris family pay off part of the debts.
The law, known as the Hyde Amendment, was intended to deter misconduct and compensate people who are harmed when federal prosecutors cross the line. A USA TODAY investigation found the law has left innocent people like Morris coping not only with ruined careers and reputations but with heavy legal costs. And it hasn't stopped federal prosecutors from committing misconduct or pursuing legally questionable cases.
USA TODAY documented 201 cases in the years since the law's passage in which federal judges found that Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. Although those represent a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of federal criminal cases filed each year, the problems were so grave that judges dismissed indictments, reversed convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. Yet USA TODAY found only 13 cases in which the government paid anything toward defendants' legal bills. Most people never seek compensation. Most who do end up emptyhanded.
The Hyde Amendment did nothing for Morris, whose claim was dismissed by a judge who nonetheless criticized prosecutors and said they had "lost sight of the objective — justice."
It did nothing for Daniel Chapman, a lawyer who lost his job and had to sell his house to pay $275,000 in legal bills fighting a securities fraud case a judge threw out for "flagrant" prosecutorial misconduct.
And it did nothing for Michael Zomber, an antiques dealer who spent two years in prison and paid more than $1 million in attorney fees before his fraud conviction was thrown out.
The Justice Department, which fought the Hyde Amendment from the day it was proposed, nearly always resists efforts to win compensation, no matter how egregious a prosecutor's conduct might have been. Defense lawyers contend that the scarcity of compensation wins, amid a rise in misconduct charges, shows the law's not working.
"The Hyde Amendment is practically a useless tool for dealing with prosecutorial misconduct," said Jon May, a Miami lawyer who co-chairs the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' white-collar crime committee. For a defendant to win, "the standard is so high that a prosecutor practically has to know" in advance "that his case is so meritless that it is unlikely to get a conviction."
USA TODAY found the government is seldom forced to pay because:
• Many defendants don't apply. The wealthy and those so poor they had court-appointed lawyers don't qualify. Others hold back because they'd have to spend time and money in court and pursue a new civil action against the government after winning their criminal cases. The investigation identified just 92 Hyde Amendment compensation cases since the law's enactment.
• Some defendants are pressured by federal prosecutors to give up their right to seek repayment in exchange for lenient plea bargains or getting their cases thrown out.
• Even those who seek compensation face what an appeals court called the "daunting obstacle" of proving, sometimes in another trial, that prosecutors wronged them. Congress deliberately set a high legal standard to qualify for payment: To win, a defendant must prove a prosecution had been "vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith." But the House and the Senate never held committee hearings that could have defined that standard.
An anonymous tip
The case against Morris began in 1999 with an anonymous tip to a Department of Defense hot line. The caller said the infantry officer had diverted $7 million of surplus medical equipment from a Marine Corps base in Albany, Ga., just south of his own post at Fort Benning.
Morris, now 54, was a decorated combat veteran and logistics expert. Superiors often had praised his ability to work his way through complex military supply rules and get the job done. He played a role, for example, in ex-Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's 1990 surrender to U.S. troops. When commanders decided to use deafening music to force Noriega out of the Vatican Embassy in Panama City, Morris quickly found and set up a sound system.
Morris' defense team said the medical supplies were intended to help a charity he had founded open health clinics in Rwanda. The non-profit, Partners International Foundation, had been approved by Army brass and had never paid Morris.
The Army's Criminal Investigation Division and the Defense Logistics Agency probed the charges and gave a report to Army Maj. Gen. John Le Moyne, the Fort Benning commander. Le Moyne issued a February 2001 decision that cleared Morris, finding that he didn't violate military law, hadn't lied and didn't misappropriate government property. "There was no theft," the decision stated.
Dissatisfied, the Defense Logistics Agency took its findings to the U.S. attorney's office in Columbus, Ga., which declined to prosecute. The agency then turned to the U.S. attorney's office in Dallas. In March 2001, a grand jury there indicted Morris on a theft conspiracy charge.
U.S. District Court Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas voiced doubts about the case. He said it looked as if investigators had shopped it to prosecutors in several jurisdictions. Getting a guilty verdict from a Texas jury could be hard, he warned, and prosecuting Morris could be a mistake. The prosecutors went forward, and Kendall granted a defense motion to transfer the case to Georgia for trial.
Le Moyne also tried to head off the August 2002 trial. He reminded prosecutors the Army had exhaustively investigated Morris. In a letter to an Army officer panel, Le Moyne said he had met with the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Candina Heath, and told her "she would lose … and be embarrassed in the process." In a separate memo sent to prosecutors before trial, Le Moyne wrote that Morris had made an "error in judgment" that "did not rise to the level of a criminal offense." It concluded: "Bob Morris is not a crook!"
During a nearly two-week trial, the prosecution called 38 witnesses. The defense called none. The jury acquitted Morris in 45 minutes, a "lightning fast" verdict that U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land tied to the government's "woefully inadequate presentation."
The Dallas U.S. attorney's office and Heath declined to comment.
Legal bills from Morris' criminal case totaled $250,000.He said he faced at least $40,000 more in related expenses — and had exhausted his savings and life insurance benefits during the earlier Army investigation. So Morris' parents took two new mortgages on their Connecticut home, and also cashed life insurance policies, to help pay the lawyers.
Morris filed a Hyde Amendment application. Despite Judge Land's criticism of the prosecution, he dismissed the case in 2003. The decision to prosecute hadn't been totally baseless, he ruled, because Morris' logistics skill and signs that he'd skirted military rules provided "sufficient circumstantial evidence" to infer "criminal intent."
The judge did not rule that the prosecutors committed misconduct. For that reason, USA TODAY did not include the Morris case among 201 misconduct cases the newspaper found in an extensive search of federal court records since 1997.
The prosecutors, Land wrote, "will likely lick their wounds and fully recover. Because of the strict requirements for recovering fees and expenses, Lt. Col. Morris, an innocent (and now financially poorer) man, may not."
The case put a three-year hold on Morris' previously approved promotion to colonel. He got the promotion after the trial, but his military career plateaued and he ultimately retired Aug. 31. The case didn't leave him destitute, but there seemed little hope of repaying his parents anytime soon.
Then Texas billionaire and former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot and his charitable foundation stepped in. Grants totaling $210,000 to Morris and his father arrived in 2003 after the court denied Morris' compensation claim, the foundation's tax filings show. The organization, which often requires beneficiaries to sign confidentiality pacts, declined to comment.
Morris said the money helped his parents pay off their mortgages. It did not, though, cover thousands in other debts related to the investigations and trial. His widowed mother, Lillian, 86, is his dependent; he took over paying most of her bills.
Said Jack Zimmerman, a Houston lawyer who represented Morris: "If Congress really intended to compensate innocent people who were put upon by the government, they've got to revisit the Hyde Amendment standard. … Any court is loath to penalize the government … if it's a judgment call."
A compromise in Congress
Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde spoke bluntly when he rose on the House floor and introduced the law that bears his name. "This simply says to Uncle Sam, 'Look, if you are going to sue somebody … and the verdict is not guilty, then the prosecution pays something toward the attorney's fees of the victim,' " Hyde said on Sept. 24, 1997.
As proposed, the legislation would have required the Justice Department to pay legal fees to vindicated defendants unless the government proved the prosecution had been "substantially justified." That provoked a veto threat from the Clinton White House.
Then-deputy attorney general Eric Holder, the Justice Department's leader, said defendants such as John Gotti, the mobster who beat the rap at his first trials, might get "big taxpayer checks."
Asa Hutchinson, a former House member from Arkansas who led the opposition, said critics feared the law could have a "chilling effect," making prosecutors shy away from worthwhile but difficult cases.
Hyde compromised. He agreed to require defendants to prove they had been wrongly charged. And to win, they would have to show not just that they were innocent, but that prosecutors had acted vexatiously, frivolously or in bad faith.
Congress approved the measure, which Hyde had attached to an appropriations bill, without defining those terms. As a result, federal trial and appeals courts in different parts of the country have issued conflicting and often confusing rules about when the Justice Department must pay.
A U.S. district court in Virginia in 1999 ruled the standard for vexatiousness should be whether a "reasonable prosecutor should have concluded" that evidence was "insufficient to prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco explicitly rejected the standard used in Virginia. It adopted a two-step rule: To win, a defendant must prove that the case was "deficient or without merit" and the prosecutor "acted maliciously or with an intent to harass."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta used different language. It said defendants must show a prosecutor's "state of mind (was) affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will."
The U.S. Supreme Court, which often resolves conflicting lower-court rulings, has not yet accepted any Hyde Amendment cases.
The legal threshold is so high that Joseph McKay, a Montana lawyer who won nearly $17,000 in a 1999 Hyde Amendment repayment, says the legal standard has become "un-meetable" since his win.
Law not a deterrent
Hyde Amendment awards are so infrequent and so small that the law "hasn't been a major remedy for bad prosecutions," said Bennett Gershman, a Pace Law School professor who examined the misconduct cases USA TODAY identified. "It's a very minuscule deterrent" to prosecutors.
Even courts that have ruled that prosecutors violated defendants' constitutional rights find their hands tied. That's what happened when the government brought securities fraud charges against Las Vegas lawyer Daniel Chapman. The case collapsed in 2006 because prosecutors failed to turn over more than 650 pages of records his lawyers could have used to discredit prosecution witnesses.
A series of judges berated prosecutors for violating Chapman's rights. U.S. District Judge James Mahan, who presided over the trial, said it was "not some slight oversight, but it strikes at the very heart of the government's obligation." He said prosecutors had offered no proof that Chapman broke the law and then dismissed the case.
An appeals court was even tougher, ruling that prosecutors had committed "misconduct in its highest form" and "conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution."
Chapman, now 57, has spent four years seeking repayment of his legal bills. That effort has so far failed, because the Hyde Amendment only allows payment to a "prevailing party." Courts ruled the dismissal Chapman won didn't qualify because it didn't decide his innocence or guilt.
He's now pursuing another long-shot appeal. Chapman said his continued battle is about vindication and discouraging government misconduct as much as a desire for repayment. Without a strong deterrent, Chapman said, federal prosecutors will "do this over and over again."
Defendants who win Hyde cases also say they doubt that repayment awards have any impact on the Justice Department.
Ali Shaygan, a Miami doctor, was charged in 2008 with 141 counts of illegally administering prescription drugs. Acquitted in 2009, he sought Hyde Amendment payment because the government had engaged in what the trial judge called "win-at-all-costs" conduct. Shaygan won compensation of $601,795; the government is appealing.
Even if he wins again on appeal, Shaygan said the money would amount to "a drop in the bucket" that wouldn't change prosecutors' "habits."
Payments in all the winning Hyde Amendment cases ranged from $8,722 to nearly $1.5 million, USA TODAY found, less than some of the defendants' total legal costs. The 13-year payout total was just under $5.3 million.
A bargaining chip
Michael Zomber already had served his two-year sentence when prosecutors agreed to throw out his conviction stemming from a 2003 conspiracy indictment. There was just one catch: He had to give up give up his right to seek government repayment of his $1 million legal bills.
Before agreeing to a dismissal, federal prosecutors used Zomber's right to seek government repayment as a bargaining chip.
A federal jury in Pennsylvania had convicted Zomber of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud for the sale of four antique Colt pistols to businessman Joseph Murphy. Prosecutors said the weapons were worth half of what Murphy paid for them, and that Zomber lied to increase the price.
Zomber, now 60, spent almost two years in a federal prison camp before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit threw out his conviction. It found that the prosecutor, Robert Goldman, had failed to give Zomber's defense the letters Murphy wrote to Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates offering to resell the pistols "at cost" — the same price Murphy paid.
Goldman said he did nothing wrong and warned USA TODAY that he would have any article about Zomber's case "reviewed by counsel for potential litigation." He said he regrets only that Zomber's conviction was overturned because of "an insignificant document." But the Appeals Court ruled the letters could have given jurors "reasonable doubt" about whether Zomber overcharged Murphy.
The court's decision meant Zomber faced the prospect of another costly trial. He was unlikely to go back to prison. But he could have been ordered to pay $1 million or more in restitution.
Instead, defense lawyer Gerald Lefcourt reached a deal in which prosecutors ended the case.
"They weren't going to consider dismissing" it "unless we agreed not to pursue a Hyde Amendment application," he said. Lefcourt, Hutchinson and other lawyers say prosecutors now automatically include such waivers in many plea agreements.
Zomber said he had little choice but to go along with the agreement, because prosecutors are "always going to make you sign a Hyde Amendment" waiver. Battling for repayment, he said, was "just not worth it."
A judge had a warning for the Justice Department lawyers who accused Army Lt. Col. Robert Morris of conspiring to steal military supplies: The case could be "ill-advised." A nearly two-year Army probe had cleared him. And another U.S. attorney's office had declined to prosecute.
The cost of fighting federal charges could "take the guy's life savings away," the judge added.
Prosecutors went ahead, anyway. The judge's prediction was right — a jury needed only 45 minutes to find Morris not guilty. By then, though, his career had derailed. His parents had mortgaged their home to help with $250,000 in legal bills. He had drained his own savings.
The government he had served in uniform for decades could have compensated Morris for some of the losses. A 1997 law requires the Justice Department to repay the legal bills of defendants who win their cases and prove that federal prosecutors committed misconduct or other transgressions.
RARE VICTORY: Va. bankers beat government twice
VIDEO: One man's story of beating the government
EXPLORE CASES: Investigate the misconduct cases we ID'd
JUSTICE IN BALANCE: Prosecutors' conduct can tip the scales
FULL COVERAGE: Federal prosecutors series
But Morris didn't get anything from Washington. It took a gift from a Texas billionaire to help the Morris family pay off part of the debts.
The law, known as the Hyde Amendment, was intended to deter misconduct and compensate people who are harmed when federal prosecutors cross the line. A USA TODAY investigation found the law has left innocent people like Morris coping not only with ruined careers and reputations but with heavy legal costs. And it hasn't stopped federal prosecutors from committing misconduct or pursuing legally questionable cases.
USA TODAY documented 201 cases in the years since the law's passage in which federal judges found that Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. Although those represent a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of federal criminal cases filed each year, the problems were so grave that judges dismissed indictments, reversed convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. Yet USA TODAY found only 13 cases in which the government paid anything toward defendants' legal bills. Most people never seek compensation. Most who do end up emptyhanded.
The Hyde Amendment did nothing for Morris, whose claim was dismissed by a judge who nonetheless criticized prosecutors and said they had "lost sight of the objective — justice."
It did nothing for Daniel Chapman, a lawyer who lost his job and had to sell his house to pay $275,000 in legal bills fighting a securities fraud case a judge threw out for "flagrant" prosecutorial misconduct.
And it did nothing for Michael Zomber, an antiques dealer who spent two years in prison and paid more than $1 million in attorney fees before his fraud conviction was thrown out.
The Justice Department, which fought the Hyde Amendment from the day it was proposed, nearly always resists efforts to win compensation, no matter how egregious a prosecutor's conduct might have been. Defense lawyers contend that the scarcity of compensation wins, amid a rise in misconduct charges, shows the law's not working.
"The Hyde Amendment is practically a useless tool for dealing with prosecutorial misconduct," said Jon May, a Miami lawyer who co-chairs the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' white-collar crime committee. For a defendant to win, "the standard is so high that a prosecutor practically has to know" in advance "that his case is so meritless that it is unlikely to get a conviction."
USA TODAY found the government is seldom forced to pay because:
• Many defendants don't apply. The wealthy and those so poor they had court-appointed lawyers don't qualify. Others hold back because they'd have to spend time and money in court and pursue a new civil action against the government after winning their criminal cases. The investigation identified just 92 Hyde Amendment compensation cases since the law's enactment.
• Some defendants are pressured by federal prosecutors to give up their right to seek repayment in exchange for lenient plea bargains or getting their cases thrown out.
• Even those who seek compensation face what an appeals court called the "daunting obstacle" of proving, sometimes in another trial, that prosecutors wronged them. Congress deliberately set a high legal standard to qualify for payment: To win, a defendant must prove a prosecution had been "vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith." But the House and the Senate never held committee hearings that could have defined that standard.
An anonymous tip
The case against Morris began in 1999 with an anonymous tip to a Department of Defense hot line. The caller said the infantry officer had diverted $7 million of surplus medical equipment from a Marine Corps base in Albany, Ga., just south of his own post at Fort Benning.
Morris, now 54, was a decorated combat veteran and logistics expert. Superiors often had praised his ability to work his way through complex military supply rules and get the job done. He played a role, for example, in ex-Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's 1990 surrender to U.S. troops. When commanders decided to use deafening music to force Noriega out of the Vatican Embassy in Panama City, Morris quickly found and set up a sound system.
Morris' defense team said the medical supplies were intended to help a charity he had founded open health clinics in Rwanda. The non-profit, Partners International Foundation, had been approved by Army brass and had never paid Morris.
The Army's Criminal Investigation Division and the Defense Logistics Agency probed the charges and gave a report to Army Maj. Gen. John Le Moyne, the Fort Benning commander. Le Moyne issued a February 2001 decision that cleared Morris, finding that he didn't violate military law, hadn't lied and didn't misappropriate government property. "There was no theft," the decision stated.
Dissatisfied, the Defense Logistics Agency took its findings to the U.S. attorney's office in Columbus, Ga., which declined to prosecute. The agency then turned to the U.S. attorney's office in Dallas. In March 2001, a grand jury there indicted Morris on a theft conspiracy charge.
U.S. District Court Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas voiced doubts about the case. He said it looked as if investigators had shopped it to prosecutors in several jurisdictions. Getting a guilty verdict from a Texas jury could be hard, he warned, and prosecuting Morris could be a mistake. The prosecutors went forward, and Kendall granted a defense motion to transfer the case to Georgia for trial.
Le Moyne also tried to head off the August 2002 trial. He reminded prosecutors the Army had exhaustively investigated Morris. In a letter to an Army officer panel, Le Moyne said he had met with the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Candina Heath, and told her "she would lose … and be embarrassed in the process." In a separate memo sent to prosecutors before trial, Le Moyne wrote that Morris had made an "error in judgment" that "did not rise to the level of a criminal offense." It concluded: "Bob Morris is not a crook!"
During a nearly two-week trial, the prosecution called 38 witnesses. The defense called none. The jury acquitted Morris in 45 minutes, a "lightning fast" verdict that U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land tied to the government's "woefully inadequate presentation."
The Dallas U.S. attorney's office and Heath declined to comment.
Legal bills from Morris' criminal case totaled $250,000.He said he faced at least $40,000 more in related expenses — and had exhausted his savings and life insurance benefits during the earlier Army investigation. So Morris' parents took two new mortgages on their Connecticut home, and also cashed life insurance policies, to help pay the lawyers.
Morris filed a Hyde Amendment application. Despite Judge Land's criticism of the prosecution, he dismissed the case in 2003. The decision to prosecute hadn't been totally baseless, he ruled, because Morris' logistics skill and signs that he'd skirted military rules provided "sufficient circumstantial evidence" to infer "criminal intent."
The judge did not rule that the prosecutors committed misconduct. For that reason, USA TODAY did not include the Morris case among 201 misconduct cases the newspaper found in an extensive search of federal court records since 1997.
The prosecutors, Land wrote, "will likely lick their wounds and fully recover. Because of the strict requirements for recovering fees and expenses, Lt. Col. Morris, an innocent (and now financially poorer) man, may not."
The case put a three-year hold on Morris' previously approved promotion to colonel. He got the promotion after the trial, but his military career plateaued and he ultimately retired Aug. 31. The case didn't leave him destitute, but there seemed little hope of repaying his parents anytime soon.
Then Texas billionaire and former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot and his charitable foundation stepped in. Grants totaling $210,000 to Morris and his father arrived in 2003 after the court denied Morris' compensation claim, the foundation's tax filings show. The organization, which often requires beneficiaries to sign confidentiality pacts, declined to comment.
Morris said the money helped his parents pay off their mortgages. It did not, though, cover thousands in other debts related to the investigations and trial. His widowed mother, Lillian, 86, is his dependent; he took over paying most of her bills.
Said Jack Zimmerman, a Houston lawyer who represented Morris: "If Congress really intended to compensate innocent people who were put upon by the government, they've got to revisit the Hyde Amendment standard. … Any court is loath to penalize the government … if it's a judgment call."
A compromise in Congress
Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde spoke bluntly when he rose on the House floor and introduced the law that bears his name. "This simply says to Uncle Sam, 'Look, if you are going to sue somebody … and the verdict is not guilty, then the prosecution pays something toward the attorney's fees of the victim,' " Hyde said on Sept. 24, 1997.
As proposed, the legislation would have required the Justice Department to pay legal fees to vindicated defendants unless the government proved the prosecution had been "substantially justified." That provoked a veto threat from the Clinton White House.
Then-deputy attorney general Eric Holder, the Justice Department's leader, said defendants such as John Gotti, the mobster who beat the rap at his first trials, might get "big taxpayer checks."
Asa Hutchinson, a former House member from Arkansas who led the opposition, said critics feared the law could have a "chilling effect," making prosecutors shy away from worthwhile but difficult cases.
Hyde compromised. He agreed to require defendants to prove they had been wrongly charged. And to win, they would have to show not just that they were innocent, but that prosecutors had acted vexatiously, frivolously or in bad faith.
Congress approved the measure, which Hyde had attached to an appropriations bill, without defining those terms. As a result, federal trial and appeals courts in different parts of the country have issued conflicting and often confusing rules about when the Justice Department must pay.
A U.S. district court in Virginia in 1999 ruled the standard for vexatiousness should be whether a "reasonable prosecutor should have concluded" that evidence was "insufficient to prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco explicitly rejected the standard used in Virginia. It adopted a two-step rule: To win, a defendant must prove that the case was "deficient or without merit" and the prosecutor "acted maliciously or with an intent to harass."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta used different language. It said defendants must show a prosecutor's "state of mind (was) affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will."
The U.S. Supreme Court, which often resolves conflicting lower-court rulings, has not yet accepted any Hyde Amendment cases.
The legal threshold is so high that Joseph McKay, a Montana lawyer who won nearly $17,000 in a 1999 Hyde Amendment repayment, says the legal standard has become "un-meetable" since his win.
Law not a deterrent
Hyde Amendment awards are so infrequent and so small that the law "hasn't been a major remedy for bad prosecutions," said Bennett Gershman, a Pace Law School professor who examined the misconduct cases USA TODAY identified. "It's a very minuscule deterrent" to prosecutors.
Even courts that have ruled that prosecutors violated defendants' constitutional rights find their hands tied. That's what happened when the government brought securities fraud charges against Las Vegas lawyer Daniel Chapman. The case collapsed in 2006 because prosecutors failed to turn over more than 650 pages of records his lawyers could have used to discredit prosecution witnesses.
A series of judges berated prosecutors for violating Chapman's rights. U.S. District Judge James Mahan, who presided over the trial, said it was "not some slight oversight, but it strikes at the very heart of the government's obligation." He said prosecutors had offered no proof that Chapman broke the law and then dismissed the case.
An appeals court was even tougher, ruling that prosecutors had committed "misconduct in its highest form" and "conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution."
Chapman, now 57, has spent four years seeking repayment of his legal bills. That effort has so far failed, because the Hyde Amendment only allows payment to a "prevailing party." Courts ruled the dismissal Chapman won didn't qualify because it didn't decide his innocence or guilt.
He's now pursuing another long-shot appeal. Chapman said his continued battle is about vindication and discouraging government misconduct as much as a desire for repayment. Without a strong deterrent, Chapman said, federal prosecutors will "do this over and over again."
Defendants who win Hyde cases also say they doubt that repayment awards have any impact on the Justice Department.
Ali Shaygan, a Miami doctor, was charged in 2008 with 141 counts of illegally administering prescription drugs. Acquitted in 2009, he sought Hyde Amendment payment because the government had engaged in what the trial judge called "win-at-all-costs" conduct. Shaygan won compensation of $601,795; the government is appealing.
Even if he wins again on appeal, Shaygan said the money would amount to "a drop in the bucket" that wouldn't change prosecutors' "habits."
Payments in all the winning Hyde Amendment cases ranged from $8,722 to nearly $1.5 million, USA TODAY found, less than some of the defendants' total legal costs. The 13-year payout total was just under $5.3 million.
A bargaining chip
Michael Zomber already had served his two-year sentence when prosecutors agreed to throw out his conviction stemming from a 2003 conspiracy indictment. There was just one catch: He had to give up give up his right to seek government repayment of his $1 million legal bills.
Before agreeing to a dismissal, federal prosecutors used Zomber's right to seek government repayment as a bargaining chip.
A federal jury in Pennsylvania had convicted Zomber of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud for the sale of four antique Colt pistols to businessman Joseph Murphy. Prosecutors said the weapons were worth half of what Murphy paid for them, and that Zomber lied to increase the price.
Zomber, now 60, spent almost two years in a federal prison camp before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit threw out his conviction. It found that the prosecutor, Robert Goldman, had failed to give Zomber's defense the letters Murphy wrote to Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates offering to resell the pistols "at cost" — the same price Murphy paid.
Goldman said he did nothing wrong and warned USA TODAY that he would have any article about Zomber's case "reviewed by counsel for potential litigation." He said he regrets only that Zomber's conviction was overturned because of "an insignificant document." But the Appeals Court ruled the letters could have given jurors "reasonable doubt" about whether Zomber overcharged Murphy.
The court's decision meant Zomber faced the prospect of another costly trial. He was unlikely to go back to prison. But he could have been ordered to pay $1 million or more in restitution.
Instead, defense lawyer Gerald Lefcourt reached a deal in which prosecutors ended the case.
"They weren't going to consider dismissing" it "unless we agreed not to pursue a Hyde Amendment application," he said. Lefcourt, Hutchinson and other lawyers say prosecutors now automatically include such waivers in many plea agreements.
Zomber said he had little choice but to go along with the agreement, because prosecutors are "always going to make you sign a Hyde Amendment" waiver. Battling for repayment, he said, was "just not worth it."
Monday, August 30, 2010
Protest at military funeral ignites a test of free speech
YORK, Pa. — Albert Snyder tears up, then turns angry as he recalls burying his Marine son while members of the anti-gay fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church picketed nearby.
"I can remember being presented the flag at the graveyard. I can remember saluting the coffin," Snyder says of the unusually balmy day in March 2006 when the family memorialized Matthew, a lance corporal killed in Iraq.
Yet, Snyder says, he can't separate such moments from the memory that his only son's funeral was picketed by fundamentalist pastor Fred Phelps and his followers with an inflammatory message that had nothing to do with Matthew.
Disconnecting the death of his 20-year-old son from his reaction to the protests "became very difficult."
Snyder, who sued Phelps for his distress, says he feels like he has been stabbed, and the wound will not heal.
The case has grown beyond a single clash between a devastated father and an attention-seeking, fire-and-brimstone group into a major test of speech rights and of safeguards for the sanctity of military funerals. The Supreme Court will hear the case Oct. 6, a crucial First Amendment challenge against the poignant backdrop of war deaths, family suffering and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve — as long as their sexual orientation remains secret.
Fourteen sets of outside organizations have entered the case. Those siding with Snyder include a majority of the states and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, led by Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Free speech groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say they find Phelps' message horrific but that such speech is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
Supporters of Snyder, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the states, emphasize the importance of protecting the privacy of grieving families and minimize the value of the Phelps' speech.
Phelps, who preaches that God hates gay people and protests what he views as the nation's tolerance of homosexuality — particularly the "don't ask, don't tell" policy — brushes off Snyder's anguish. In a telephone interview from his Topeka home, Phelps says the father's claim of emotional injuries is exaggerated.
"He ought to be very thankful to us that we ... warn people about the perils of sinful conduct that will destroy a nation," Phelps says.
Phelps knew nothing about Matthew Snyder, who was not gay, beyond that his funeral in Westminster, Md., offered the chance to draw attention to Phelps' message. Among the signs he brought were some that said, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
Snyder sued Phelps and family members who were the primary demonstrators for the distress he suffered from their picketing and a Web video the Phelpses created about their protest. Snyder won a $5 million verdict in 2007. A federal appeals court overturned the judgment last year, saying the Phelps protest was protected by the First Amendment.
The dispute before the Supreme Court involves Maryland law, yet cases related to the Phelpses and other local laws are simmering across the country. The issue for the justices in Snyder v. Phelps is an individual's claim for damages from offensive messages, not the validity of government limits on protests near funerals.
"Free speech ideals usually are pretty abstract," observes University of Missouri law professor Christina Wells, who has written extensively on protesters' rights. "People say we agree with the First Amendment but when we get into areas that are offensive, like flag burning, people are much less tolerant."
Wells is among several scholars of First Amendment law, civil libertarians and news media representatives who have joined briefs stressing the need to protect odious speech.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars, among the groups on Snyder's side, counters in its brief, "If Albert Snyder, a grieving father of an American hero, cannot seek remedy from (Phelps and his relatives) for the emotional torment (they) viciously imposed upon him, what purpose do our laws serve?"
"You only get one chance to do a burial," adds Harrisburg, Pa., lawyer Timothy Nieman, who wrote the VFW's filing. He says the Westboro protest created "a circus atmosphere at a private, sanctified time."
'I still have so much anger'
Snyder, who has become a public face of families' grief for the thousands of troops killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has received e-mails from across the nation, letters from troops in the field, stuffed toys, a quilt and other tokens of sympathy.
"A man who dies for his country, for peace, should not have a father who has to fight to bury him in peace," Snyder, an industrial equipment salesman, says during an interview in his lawyer's office. "I still have so much anger that I have to cope with."
Snyder, 55 years old with a salt-and-pepper beard, clasps his hands tightly in front of him and speaks slowly, trying to keep emotions in check, as he explains why he decided to sue the Phelpses: "Every time I thought of Matt or passed his picture on the wall, I would think about what these people did to him."
It was more than the hateful signs near the funeral at the Catholic Church service in the family's hometown, he says. The video on the Westboro website that Snyder found days later also caused him pain. Entitled The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, it asserted Snyder and his ex-wife had "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."
Snyder said Phelps and other Westboro church members caused him depression and worsened his diabetes. Snyder prevailed in federal court in 2007 based on three Maryland state grounds: intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion on privacy and civil conspiracy.
The jury said Snyder was owed $2.9 million in damages to compensate him for the harm and $8 million in punitive damages, designed to punish Phelps. The judge reduced the punitive damages to $2.1 million, for a total of $5 million against the Phelpses.
In their appeal, the Phelpses said the case should have never gone to a jury because of the First Amendment principles at stake.
Part of anti-gay campaign
For Fred Phelps, who founded the Westboro church in 1955 and has been its only pastor, military funerals have become a prime site for drawing news media attention to his opposition to homosexuals, the government and sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church.
The U.S. appeals court that heard the Snyder case noted that the Westboro Church focuses on "the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens." Among the signs Phelps and his congregants display, according to lower court records, are "Pope in Hell," "Priests Rape Boys," "Don't Pray for the USA," and "America is Doomed."
He and his grown children check local newspapers for obituaries and, Phelps says, try to send congregants to protest almost every day of the year. "When homosexuality rears its ugly head, and you don't preach and stop it, your nation is doomed," says Phelps, 80.
Phelps has made headlines for decades, including for protesting at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student slain in 1998.
Westboro church has about 60 members, most of whom are Phelps' relatives. Two grown daughters and four of Phelps' grandchildren joined him at the Snyder funeral.
Phelps' lawyer is one of his 13 children, Margie Phelps, who says the congregation was "engaging in public speech on a public right-of-way, about issues of vital public interest." She says church members "act out of a love for God, the Bible, and their fellow citizens."
Margie Phelps argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that the First Amendment protects their protests, as long as they follow local laws about how close they can get to a church.
The appeals court agreed, saying the case should never have gone to the jury.
The trial judge had declared that Snyder was not a "public figure," undercutting the First Amendment protection the Phelpses asserted. The appeals court, however, said the question was not the private or public status of Snyder, but rather the "type" of speech at issue.
"As utterly distasteful as these signs are," the 4th Circuit said, "they involve matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens."
Quoting from an earlier ruling, the court added, "the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."
Speech advocates urging the high court to uphold the 4th Circuit ruling say natural public sympathy for military families and the Phelpses' shocking statements should not cloud the First Amendment stakes.
Joshua Wheeler, representing the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Freedom of Expression in Charlottesville, Va., says, "We do not challenge the suffering that Mr. Snyder has had to endure. We strongly disagree with the Phelpses' message and the manner in which they expressed it. But if the court sides with Mr. Snyder, the consequences for freedom of expression would be significantly chilling."
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by 21 news media groups, adds, "This case tests the mettle of even the most ardent free speech advocates because the underlying speech is so repugnant."
For Snyder, the case is not about speech rights, but personal harassment. Many federal and state officials agree.
Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing Senate leaders, tells the high court that free speech on public issues "does not encompass insults and verbal abuse intended to invade a private memorial ceremony and injure its participants."
He says protesters can take a stand in virtually any public place, but they cannot "hijack (a family's) private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their own hate."
Joining Snyder are 48 states — all except Maine and Virginia, which did not weigh in on the case — and the District of Columbia. In his appeal on behalf of Snyder, lawyer Sean Summers urges the court to focus on the targeted nature of the Phelpses' conduct against private people who Summers says were not public figures in a public debate.
Summers says because Matthew Snyder was not gay and not engaged in public debate, it was likely the Phelpses' signs and Web video were intended to hurt a particular servicemember and interfere with the family's grief.
Snyder recalls that Matthew decided to enlist in the Marines shortly after the U.S. had invaded Iraq in 2003. He had just finished high school and was only 17, but Snyder says he did not want to stand in his son's way. He had known that military service was a goal of Matthew, the middle of his three children.
"People say, 'If you had to do it all over again, would you do it all over again?' " Snyder says. "Yeah, I probably would because that's what his dream was."
Reposted from USAToday
"I can remember being presented the flag at the graveyard. I can remember saluting the coffin," Snyder says of the unusually balmy day in March 2006 when the family memorialized Matthew, a lance corporal killed in Iraq.
Yet, Snyder says, he can't separate such moments from the memory that his only son's funeral was picketed by fundamentalist pastor Fred Phelps and his followers with an inflammatory message that had nothing to do with Matthew.
Disconnecting the death of his 20-year-old son from his reaction to the protests "became very difficult."
Snyder, who sued Phelps for his distress, says he feels like he has been stabbed, and the wound will not heal.
The case has grown beyond a single clash between a devastated father and an attention-seeking, fire-and-brimstone group into a major test of speech rights and of safeguards for the sanctity of military funerals. The Supreme Court will hear the case Oct. 6, a crucial First Amendment challenge against the poignant backdrop of war deaths, family suffering and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve — as long as their sexual orientation remains secret.
Fourteen sets of outside organizations have entered the case. Those siding with Snyder include a majority of the states and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, led by Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Free speech groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say they find Phelps' message horrific but that such speech is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
Supporters of Snyder, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the states, emphasize the importance of protecting the privacy of grieving families and minimize the value of the Phelps' speech.
Phelps, who preaches that God hates gay people and protests what he views as the nation's tolerance of homosexuality — particularly the "don't ask, don't tell" policy — brushes off Snyder's anguish. In a telephone interview from his Topeka home, Phelps says the father's claim of emotional injuries is exaggerated.
"He ought to be very thankful to us that we ... warn people about the perils of sinful conduct that will destroy a nation," Phelps says.
Phelps knew nothing about Matthew Snyder, who was not gay, beyond that his funeral in Westminster, Md., offered the chance to draw attention to Phelps' message. Among the signs he brought were some that said, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
Snyder sued Phelps and family members who were the primary demonstrators for the distress he suffered from their picketing and a Web video the Phelpses created about their protest. Snyder won a $5 million verdict in 2007. A federal appeals court overturned the judgment last year, saying the Phelps protest was protected by the First Amendment.
The dispute before the Supreme Court involves Maryland law, yet cases related to the Phelpses and other local laws are simmering across the country. The issue for the justices in Snyder v. Phelps is an individual's claim for damages from offensive messages, not the validity of government limits on protests near funerals.
"Free speech ideals usually are pretty abstract," observes University of Missouri law professor Christina Wells, who has written extensively on protesters' rights. "People say we agree with the First Amendment but when we get into areas that are offensive, like flag burning, people are much less tolerant."
Wells is among several scholars of First Amendment law, civil libertarians and news media representatives who have joined briefs stressing the need to protect odious speech.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars, among the groups on Snyder's side, counters in its brief, "If Albert Snyder, a grieving father of an American hero, cannot seek remedy from (Phelps and his relatives) for the emotional torment (they) viciously imposed upon him, what purpose do our laws serve?"
"You only get one chance to do a burial," adds Harrisburg, Pa., lawyer Timothy Nieman, who wrote the VFW's filing. He says the Westboro protest created "a circus atmosphere at a private, sanctified time."
'I still have so much anger'
Snyder, who has become a public face of families' grief for the thousands of troops killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has received e-mails from across the nation, letters from troops in the field, stuffed toys, a quilt and other tokens of sympathy.
"A man who dies for his country, for peace, should not have a father who has to fight to bury him in peace," Snyder, an industrial equipment salesman, says during an interview in his lawyer's office. "I still have so much anger that I have to cope with."
Snyder, 55 years old with a salt-and-pepper beard, clasps his hands tightly in front of him and speaks slowly, trying to keep emotions in check, as he explains why he decided to sue the Phelpses: "Every time I thought of Matt or passed his picture on the wall, I would think about what these people did to him."
It was more than the hateful signs near the funeral at the Catholic Church service in the family's hometown, he says. The video on the Westboro website that Snyder found days later also caused him pain. Entitled The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, it asserted Snyder and his ex-wife had "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."
Snyder said Phelps and other Westboro church members caused him depression and worsened his diabetes. Snyder prevailed in federal court in 2007 based on three Maryland state grounds: intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion on privacy and civil conspiracy.
The jury said Snyder was owed $2.9 million in damages to compensate him for the harm and $8 million in punitive damages, designed to punish Phelps. The judge reduced the punitive damages to $2.1 million, for a total of $5 million against the Phelpses.
In their appeal, the Phelpses said the case should have never gone to a jury because of the First Amendment principles at stake.
Part of anti-gay campaign
For Fred Phelps, who founded the Westboro church in 1955 and has been its only pastor, military funerals have become a prime site for drawing news media attention to his opposition to homosexuals, the government and sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church.
The U.S. appeals court that heard the Snyder case noted that the Westboro Church focuses on "the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens." Among the signs Phelps and his congregants display, according to lower court records, are "Pope in Hell," "Priests Rape Boys," "Don't Pray for the USA," and "America is Doomed."
He and his grown children check local newspapers for obituaries and, Phelps says, try to send congregants to protest almost every day of the year. "When homosexuality rears its ugly head, and you don't preach and stop it, your nation is doomed," says Phelps, 80.
Phelps has made headlines for decades, including for protesting at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student slain in 1998.
Westboro church has about 60 members, most of whom are Phelps' relatives. Two grown daughters and four of Phelps' grandchildren joined him at the Snyder funeral.
Phelps' lawyer is one of his 13 children, Margie Phelps, who says the congregation was "engaging in public speech on a public right-of-way, about issues of vital public interest." She says church members "act out of a love for God, the Bible, and their fellow citizens."
Margie Phelps argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that the First Amendment protects their protests, as long as they follow local laws about how close they can get to a church.
The appeals court agreed, saying the case should never have gone to the jury.
The trial judge had declared that Snyder was not a "public figure," undercutting the First Amendment protection the Phelpses asserted. The appeals court, however, said the question was not the private or public status of Snyder, but rather the "type" of speech at issue.
"As utterly distasteful as these signs are," the 4th Circuit said, "they involve matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens."
Quoting from an earlier ruling, the court added, "the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."
Speech advocates urging the high court to uphold the 4th Circuit ruling say natural public sympathy for military families and the Phelpses' shocking statements should not cloud the First Amendment stakes.
Joshua Wheeler, representing the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Freedom of Expression in Charlottesville, Va., says, "We do not challenge the suffering that Mr. Snyder has had to endure. We strongly disagree with the Phelpses' message and the manner in which they expressed it. But if the court sides with Mr. Snyder, the consequences for freedom of expression would be significantly chilling."
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by 21 news media groups, adds, "This case tests the mettle of even the most ardent free speech advocates because the underlying speech is so repugnant."
For Snyder, the case is not about speech rights, but personal harassment. Many federal and state officials agree.
Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing Senate leaders, tells the high court that free speech on public issues "does not encompass insults and verbal abuse intended to invade a private memorial ceremony and injure its participants."
He says protesters can take a stand in virtually any public place, but they cannot "hijack (a family's) private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their own hate."
Joining Snyder are 48 states — all except Maine and Virginia, which did not weigh in on the case — and the District of Columbia. In his appeal on behalf of Snyder, lawyer Sean Summers urges the court to focus on the targeted nature of the Phelpses' conduct against private people who Summers says were not public figures in a public debate.
Summers says because Matthew Snyder was not gay and not engaged in public debate, it was likely the Phelpses' signs and Web video were intended to hurt a particular servicemember and interfere with the family's grief.
Snyder recalls that Matthew decided to enlist in the Marines shortly after the U.S. had invaded Iraq in 2003. He had just finished high school and was only 17, but Snyder says he did not want to stand in his son's way. He had known that military service was a goal of Matthew, the middle of his three children.
"People say, 'If you had to do it all over again, would you do it all over again?' " Snyder says. "Yeah, I probably would because that's what his dream was."
Reposted from USAToday
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Troops: Skipping Christian concert got us punished
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The Army said Friday it was investigating a claim that dozens of soldiers who refused to attend a Christian band's concert at a Virginia military base were banished to their barracks and told to clean them up.
Fort Eustis spokesman Rick Haverinen told The Associated Press he couldn't comment on the specifics of the investigation. At the Pentagon, Army spokesman Col. Thomas Collins said the military shouldn't impose religious views on soldiers.
"If something like that were to have happened, it would be contrary to Army policy," Collins said.
Pvt. Anthony Smith said he and other soldiers felt pressured to attend the May concert while stationed at the Newport News base, home of the Army's Transportation Corps.
"My whole issue was I don't need to be preached at," Smith said in a phone interview from Phoenix, where he is stationed with the National Guard. "That's not what I signed up for."
Smith, 21, was stationed in Virginia for nearly seven months for helicopter electrician training when the Christian rock group BarlowGirl played as part of the "Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts."
Smith said a staff sergeant told 200 men in their barracks they could either attend or remain in their barracks. Eighty to 100 decided not to attend, he said.
"Instead of being released to our personal time, we were locked down," Smith said. "It seemed very much like a punishment."
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation first reported on the Christian concert. The foundation said it was approached by soldiers who were punished for not attending or offended by the religious theme of the event.
The group's president, Mikey Weinstein, claims Christian-themed events are "ubiquitous" throughout the military, and he credited the soldiers for stepping forward.
"Whenever we see this egregious, unconstitutional religious tyranny our job is to fight it," he said.
Smith said he and the other soldiers were told not to use their cellphones or personal computers and ordered to clean up the barracks.
About 20 of the men, including several Muslims, refused to attend the concert based on their religious beliefs, he said.
Smith said he went up the chain of command and traced the concert edict to a captain, who said he simply wanted to "show support for those kind of events that bring soldiers together."
While not accepting blame, the officer apologized to the soldiers who refused to attend the concert and said it was not his intent to proselytize, he said.
"But once you get in there, you realize it's evangelization," Smith said.
From USAToday
Fort Eustis spokesman Rick Haverinen told The Associated Press he couldn't comment on the specifics of the investigation. At the Pentagon, Army spokesman Col. Thomas Collins said the military shouldn't impose religious views on soldiers.
"If something like that were to have happened, it would be contrary to Army policy," Collins said.
Pvt. Anthony Smith said he and other soldiers felt pressured to attend the May concert while stationed at the Newport News base, home of the Army's Transportation Corps.
"My whole issue was I don't need to be preached at," Smith said in a phone interview from Phoenix, where he is stationed with the National Guard. "That's not what I signed up for."
Smith, 21, was stationed in Virginia for nearly seven months for helicopter electrician training when the Christian rock group BarlowGirl played as part of the "Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts."
Smith said a staff sergeant told 200 men in their barracks they could either attend or remain in their barracks. Eighty to 100 decided not to attend, he said.
"Instead of being released to our personal time, we were locked down," Smith said. "It seemed very much like a punishment."
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation first reported on the Christian concert. The foundation said it was approached by soldiers who were punished for not attending or offended by the religious theme of the event.
The group's president, Mikey Weinstein, claims Christian-themed events are "ubiquitous" throughout the military, and he credited the soldiers for stepping forward.
"Whenever we see this egregious, unconstitutional religious tyranny our job is to fight it," he said.
Smith said he and the other soldiers were told not to use their cellphones or personal computers and ordered to clean up the barracks.
About 20 of the men, including several Muslims, refused to attend the concert based on their religious beliefs, he said.
Smith said he went up the chain of command and traced the concert edict to a captain, who said he simply wanted to "show support for those kind of events that bring soldiers together."
While not accepting blame, the officer apologized to the soldiers who refused to attend the concert and said it was not his intent to proselytize, he said.
"But once you get in there, you realize it's evangelization," Smith said.
From USAToday
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Military sees it's time for a change in camouflage
Soon, when soldiers stalk the enemy in Afghanistan, they may be harder to see.
The Army this month began issuing new uniforms printed with a camouflage pattern called MultiCam, which is designed to blend in better with the varied landscapes of the country's mountainous terrain.
"MultiCam was selected as being the best pattern suited to Afghanistan," says Lt. Col. Mike Sloane, product manager for soldier clothing and individual equipment for Army's Program Executive Office Soldier.
The first to get the clothing is the 2nd Brigade 34th Infantry division, an Iowa National Guard unit preparing to deploy overseas from Camp Shelby, Miss. Brigades will get the uniforms as they deploy. Those that have already deployed will begin turning in their uniforms for new ones in December.
The current camouflage has been in use for six years and consists of hundreds of tiny squares bearing shades of tan, green and gray.
The MultiCam uniforms (as well as backpacks and other gear) are a patchwork of seven shades, including greens, tan and brown interspersed with dark brown splotches.
One significant difference between the two patterns is that MultiCam is designed not only to blend with the environment but also to reflect some surrounding colors, taking on an overall green appearance under a forest canopy and a tan look in the open desert, according to Crye Precision, the Brooklyn company that created the pattern.
The pattern also benefits U.S. troops who fight mostly under the cover of darkness. It is less reflective of infrared and near-infrared colors, "so at night you'll blend into the background a little bit" when seen through night-vision goggles, Sloane says.
In designing the pattern, makers took hundreds of photographs of the Afghan terrain and studied how animals use camouflage in nature, company founder Caleb Crye says.
The change is costing between $200 million and $270 million, Sloane says. He said the switch to MultiCam was ramped up after soldiers complained that their camouflage uniforms were ineffective in Afghanistan.
Capt. Joe Corsentino, an aviator, told the Army Times that the current combat uniform "stands out like a sore thumb" in Afghanistan.
"It doesn't blend into anything," 2nd Lt. Chris Cahak said.
The switch is at least the third Army battle uniform change in the past 20 years, says security analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org.
Previous patterns included the six-color "chocolate chip" desert pattern that had patches of dark brown, gray and black flecks and was worn in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, followed by a three-color desert uniform of light tan, dark tan and brown swaths. The current camouflage uniform was adopted in 2004.
Soldiers who tested MultiCam in military exercises at Fort Benning in Georgia said comrades were much harder to see among trees, or from a distance when on patrol and in mock battle situations, according to a 2007 report from the Army Research Laboratory.
The new uniforms will also have features such as buttons on pockets instead of Velcro, which can clog with sand. They also are made with a built-in bug repellent, called permethrin, to counter sand fleas and mosquitoes, Sloane says.
The quest to better cloak our fighters will continue, though. The Pentagon says it is soliciting ideas for camouflage that works well in other areas of the world.
"Somebody might come in with chameleon pattern," Sloane says. "We're hoping they will, but we don't know if the technology is there yet."
Reposted from USAToday.com
The Army this month began issuing new uniforms printed with a camouflage pattern called MultiCam, which is designed to blend in better with the varied landscapes of the country's mountainous terrain.
"MultiCam was selected as being the best pattern suited to Afghanistan," says Lt. Col. Mike Sloane, product manager for soldier clothing and individual equipment for Army's Program Executive Office Soldier.
The first to get the clothing is the 2nd Brigade 34th Infantry division, an Iowa National Guard unit preparing to deploy overseas from Camp Shelby, Miss. Brigades will get the uniforms as they deploy. Those that have already deployed will begin turning in their uniforms for new ones in December.
The current camouflage has been in use for six years and consists of hundreds of tiny squares bearing shades of tan, green and gray.
The MultiCam uniforms (as well as backpacks and other gear) are a patchwork of seven shades, including greens, tan and brown interspersed with dark brown splotches.
One significant difference between the two patterns is that MultiCam is designed not only to blend with the environment but also to reflect some surrounding colors, taking on an overall green appearance under a forest canopy and a tan look in the open desert, according to Crye Precision, the Brooklyn company that created the pattern.
The pattern also benefits U.S. troops who fight mostly under the cover of darkness. It is less reflective of infrared and near-infrared colors, "so at night you'll blend into the background a little bit" when seen through night-vision goggles, Sloane says.
In designing the pattern, makers took hundreds of photographs of the Afghan terrain and studied how animals use camouflage in nature, company founder Caleb Crye says.
The change is costing between $200 million and $270 million, Sloane says. He said the switch to MultiCam was ramped up after soldiers complained that their camouflage uniforms were ineffective in Afghanistan.
Capt. Joe Corsentino, an aviator, told the Army Times that the current combat uniform "stands out like a sore thumb" in Afghanistan.
"It doesn't blend into anything," 2nd Lt. Chris Cahak said.
The switch is at least the third Army battle uniform change in the past 20 years, says security analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org.
Previous patterns included the six-color "chocolate chip" desert pattern that had patches of dark brown, gray and black flecks and was worn in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, followed by a three-color desert uniform of light tan, dark tan and brown swaths. The current camouflage uniform was adopted in 2004.
Soldiers who tested MultiCam in military exercises at Fort Benning in Georgia said comrades were much harder to see among trees, or from a distance when on patrol and in mock battle situations, according to a 2007 report from the Army Research Laboratory.
The new uniforms will also have features such as buttons on pockets instead of Velcro, which can clog with sand. They also are made with a built-in bug repellent, called permethrin, to counter sand fleas and mosquitoes, Sloane says.
The quest to better cloak our fighters will continue, though. The Pentagon says it is soliciting ideas for camouflage that works well in other areas of the world.
"Somebody might come in with chameleon pattern," Sloane says. "We're hoping they will, but we don't know if the technology is there yet."
Reposted from USAToday.com
Friday, July 16, 2010
Soldiers killed themselves at the rate of one per day in June 2010 making it the worst month on record for Army suicides...
Soldiers killed themselves at the rate of one per day in June making it the worst month on record for Army suicides, the service said Thursday. There were 32 confirmed or suspected suicides among soldiers in June, including 21 among active-duty troops and 11 among National Guard or Reserve forces, according to Army statistics. Seven soldiers killed themselves while in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan in June, according to the statistics. Of the total suicides, 22 soldiers had been in combat, including 10 who had deployed two to four times.
"The hypothesis is the same that many have heard me say before: continued stress on the force, said Army Col. Christopher Philbrick, director of the Army Suicide Prevention Task Force. He pointed out that the Army has been fighting for nine years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last year was the Army's worst for suicides with 244 confirmed or suspected cases.
The increase was a setback for the service, which has been pushing troops to seek counseling. Through May of this year, the Army had seen a decline in suicides among active-duty soldiers this year compared with the same period in 2009.
Philbrick expressed frustration over the June deaths. "Because we believe that the programs, policies, procedures ... are having a positive impact across the entire force. The help is there."
A leading military suicide researcher says changing a culture that views psychological illness as a weakness takes time.
"I would expect it to be years," said David Rudd, dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Science at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
The mounting stress on an Army facing renewed deployments and combat in Afghanistan is also a factor, Rudd said. "That's not a challenge they (Army leaders) control. It's a challenge that the president and Congress controls," he said.
The Army also unveiled on Thursday a training video designed to combat suicides. It contains testimonials by soldiers who struggled with self-destructive impulses before seeking help. It is titled Shoulder to Shoulder: I Will Never Quit on Life.
Philbrick said this was an improved video that he hoped would reach troubled soldiers. The previous video did not resonate with average soldiers, he said. During a showing in Baghdad, soldiers laughed at it, Philbrick said. "In grunt language, it sucked," he said.
The Army's current suicide rate is about 22 deaths per 100,000, which is above a civilian rate that has been adjusted to match the demographics of the Army. That rate is 18-per-100,000. Only the Marine Corps has a higher suicide rate, at 24-per-100,000. Although Marine Corps suicides had been tracking similarly to last year's record pace, the service reported only one suicide in June.
Just among Guard and Reserve soldiers, suicides have occurred at a higher rate this year than last year, according to Army figures. There have been 65 confirmed or suspected cases this year, compared with 42 for the same period last year.
Reprinted from USAToday
"The hypothesis is the same that many have heard me say before: continued stress on the force, said Army Col. Christopher Philbrick, director of the Army Suicide Prevention Task Force. He pointed out that the Army has been fighting for nine years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last year was the Army's worst for suicides with 244 confirmed or suspected cases.
The increase was a setback for the service, which has been pushing troops to seek counseling. Through May of this year, the Army had seen a decline in suicides among active-duty soldiers this year compared with the same period in 2009.
Philbrick expressed frustration over the June deaths. "Because we believe that the programs, policies, procedures ... are having a positive impact across the entire force. The help is there."
A leading military suicide researcher says changing a culture that views psychological illness as a weakness takes time.
"I would expect it to be years," said David Rudd, dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Science at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
The mounting stress on an Army facing renewed deployments and combat in Afghanistan is also a factor, Rudd said. "That's not a challenge they (Army leaders) control. It's a challenge that the president and Congress controls," he said.
The Army also unveiled on Thursday a training video designed to combat suicides. It contains testimonials by soldiers who struggled with self-destructive impulses before seeking help. It is titled Shoulder to Shoulder: I Will Never Quit on Life.
Philbrick said this was an improved video that he hoped would reach troubled soldiers. The previous video did not resonate with average soldiers, he said. During a showing in Baghdad, soldiers laughed at it, Philbrick said. "In grunt language, it sucked," he said.
The Army's current suicide rate is about 22 deaths per 100,000, which is above a civilian rate that has been adjusted to match the demographics of the Army. That rate is 18-per-100,000. Only the Marine Corps has a higher suicide rate, at 24-per-100,000. Although Marine Corps suicides had been tracking similarly to last year's record pace, the service reported only one suicide in June.
Just among Guard and Reserve soldiers, suicides have occurred at a higher rate this year than last year, according to Army figures. There have been 65 confirmed or suspected cases this year, compared with 42 for the same period last year.
Reprinted from USAToday
Thursday, July 15, 2010
What happens when you receive your deployment orders...
The sequence of events on September 11, 2001 changed America forever. On this day, The United States of America lost its innocence. The land of the free was no longer as free as it once was. Open and free travel no longer seemed as open and free following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Subsequently, America soon found itself at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of service members needed to adequately fight this war was tremendous. The number of service members on active duty was not enough to engage in effective combat. As such, the burden to pick up the slack fell upon the Reserve and National Guard forces of our military. Not in recent memory has there been a greater number of service members deployed conus or oconus. From a military development standpoint, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provoked the number of deployments to grow substantially. Since September 11, 2001, over 1.7 million service members have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Operation Enduring Freedom’s military focus is on securing the nation of Afghanistan, while as its name suggest, Operation Iraqi Freedom is concerned with securing the nation of Iraq. In addition to the service members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service members were deployed to Kuwait and Qatar in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, tens of thousands service members were deployed in support of contingency operations around the world.
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
Over the next several post, I will attempt to share some insights for service members and their families as to of what to expect during the time of deployment and the best way to minimize many difficulties sure to occur...
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
Over the next several post, I will attempt to share some insights for service members and their families as to of what to expect during the time of deployment and the best way to minimize many difficulties sure to occur...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Sand drives Army to ditch Velcro on pants
WASHINGTON — The Army is ripping space-age Velcro from its uniforms and replacing it with the humble button, which turns out to be tailor-made for the rigors of Afghanistan.
Hook-and-pile tape — the generic term for Velcro— strains to keep jam-packed cargo pants pockets closed. And when the Taliban attacks, the last thing soldiers need to worry about is spilling their gear.
MILITARY: Fails on brain-test follow-ups
DEATH TOLL: A statistical, personal look at U.S. lives lost
Soldiers told superiors that Velcro didn't suit their needs, and the Army began testing alternatives last year, said Debi Dawson, an Army spokeswoman. In August, the Army will begin issuing new pants to soldiers heading to Afghanistan.
"When concerns surfaced in surveys that the hook-and-pile tape was not holding under the weight of full pocket loads, the Army evaluated several solutions," Dawson said. Velcro has been part of the latest Army combat uniform since it was introduced in 2004.
Dirt and rocks also clog the pile portion of the fastener. That requires soldiers to clean it regularly. An Army website offersthis helpful hint: a soldier's small weapons cleaning brush has been "working very well" in removing dirt and sand.
"This is the latest proof that dust and debris are the biggest enemy for the U.S. military," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute and a consultant to defense contractors. "Taliban attacks come and go, but dust is constant in Afghanistan. Dust will impede the function of anything."
Sgt. Kenny Hatten cut to the heart of the matter in this posting on an Army website, urging the military to go back to the future:
"Get rid of the pocket flap Velcro and give us back our buttons," Hatten wrote. "Buttons are silent, easy to replace in the field, work just fine in the mud, do not clog up with dirt and do not fray and disintegrate with repeated laundering."
Somebody, apparently, was listening.
Snaps and buttons were identified as possible fixes for failing Velcro. The Army surveyed 2,700 soldiers who tested prototypes, and 60% said they preferred buttons and 29% liked snaps. Just 11% wanted to keep Velcro, according to the Army. In the end, the Army decided to substitute three buttons for Velcro on the cargo pockets of its pants.
It's cheaper, too. The Army will save 96 cents per uniform when it swaps buttons for Velcro, Dawson said.
The new-and-improved uniforms will still have plenty of Velcro, the sticky fabric popularized during spaceflights. (Astronauts used it to keep pens and other items from floating in the weightless environment.) Velcro remains on the cuffs of sleeves. It's also used for nameplates and patches.
Hatten's ideal uniform might save the Army a few more pennies.
"I don't mind the insignia Velcro on the sleeve pockets, but why would I need Velcro for my name tape and U.S. Army tapes?" he asked. "Am I going to change my name and join a different army? Why not let us sew these items on the uniform, along with the patrol cap? That's cheaper, more durable and reduces the possibility of having your uniform items stolen or tampered with."
The Army, Dawson said, hears soldiers like Hatten. It's aware of continuing complaints about Velcro and will take them into account when redesigning uniforms in the future.
USAToday
Hook-and-pile tape — the generic term for Velcro— strains to keep jam-packed cargo pants pockets closed. And when the Taliban attacks, the last thing soldiers need to worry about is spilling their gear.
MILITARY: Fails on brain-test follow-ups
DEATH TOLL: A statistical, personal look at U.S. lives lost
Soldiers told superiors that Velcro didn't suit their needs, and the Army began testing alternatives last year, said Debi Dawson, an Army spokeswoman. In August, the Army will begin issuing new pants to soldiers heading to Afghanistan.
"When concerns surfaced in surveys that the hook-and-pile tape was not holding under the weight of full pocket loads, the Army evaluated several solutions," Dawson said. Velcro has been part of the latest Army combat uniform since it was introduced in 2004.
Dirt and rocks also clog the pile portion of the fastener. That requires soldiers to clean it regularly. An Army website offersthis helpful hint: a soldier's small weapons cleaning brush has been "working very well" in removing dirt and sand.
"This is the latest proof that dust and debris are the biggest enemy for the U.S. military," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute and a consultant to defense contractors. "Taliban attacks come and go, but dust is constant in Afghanistan. Dust will impede the function of anything."
Sgt. Kenny Hatten cut to the heart of the matter in this posting on an Army website, urging the military to go back to the future:
"Get rid of the pocket flap Velcro and give us back our buttons," Hatten wrote. "Buttons are silent, easy to replace in the field, work just fine in the mud, do not clog up with dirt and do not fray and disintegrate with repeated laundering."
Somebody, apparently, was listening.
Snaps and buttons were identified as possible fixes for failing Velcro. The Army surveyed 2,700 soldiers who tested prototypes, and 60% said they preferred buttons and 29% liked snaps. Just 11% wanted to keep Velcro, according to the Army. In the end, the Army decided to substitute three buttons for Velcro on the cargo pockets of its pants.
It's cheaper, too. The Army will save 96 cents per uniform when it swaps buttons for Velcro, Dawson said.
The new-and-improved uniforms will still have plenty of Velcro, the sticky fabric popularized during spaceflights. (Astronauts used it to keep pens and other items from floating in the weightless environment.) Velcro remains on the cuffs of sleeves. It's also used for nameplates and patches.
Hatten's ideal uniform might save the Army a few more pennies.
"I don't mind the insignia Velcro on the sleeve pockets, but why would I need Velcro for my name tape and U.S. Army tapes?" he asked. "Am I going to change my name and join a different army? Why not let us sew these items on the uniform, along with the patrol cap? That's cheaper, more durable and reduces the possibility of having your uniform items stolen or tampered with."
The Army, Dawson said, hears soldiers like Hatten. It's aware of continuing complaints about Velcro and will take them into account when redesigning uniforms in the future.
USAToday
Monday, June 14, 2010
Military fails on brain-test follow-ups
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has failed to comply with a congressional directive to give all troops tests before and after they serve in combat to measure their thinking abilities and uncover possible brain injuries, military records show.
More than 562,000 tests of troops taken before they deployed have not been readministered on their return by military health officials, the records show. That means the Pentagon could be missing thousands of cases of brain injury, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., who helped write the 2008 order.
"This is a total failure," says Pascrell, co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Brain Injury Task Force. "We're failing to find TBI (traumatic brain injury) and post-traumatic stress disorder in an era when the military is trying to find and assist folks who need it."
Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, and other Army officials say the test is flawed and no better than a "coin flip."
The test, called the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM), produces too many false positive results, said Lt. Col. Michael Russell, head of the Army's ANAM program.
The test "was promised ... as a sort of 'pregnancy test' for (mild) TBI. It has failed to deliver," says Russell, adding that false results could be triggered by medication, such as Benadryl.
BRAIN DAMAGE: Two wars produce unique and puzzling injuries
MILITARY: Mental health stays rising
FAITH: Ministries pave a spiritual path to help veterans with PTSD
This misrepresents the test, which is designed only to alert doctors that a soldier's thinking process has declined and further evaluation is necessary, says Tresa Roebuck-Spencer, a neuropsychologist with the University of Oklahoma, which develops and distributes the testing program for the Army. She says research shows that false positives drop significantly when the post-deployment test is compared with the original exam.
In that role, this kind of test would be a useful tool for screening all returning troops as Congress intended, say two military neurologists, Air Force Col. Michael Jaffee, director of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and Cmdr. Jack Tsao, director of TBI programs for the Navy and Marines.
"Anything that would help us to better diagnose ... servicemembers who may need further care or follow-up is welcome," Tsao says.
ANAM is a roughly 20-minute computerized test that scores areas such as reaction time, learning speed, short-term memory and mathematical processing. It also gauges a servicemember's mood, fatigue and history of any head injury.
Congress passed the test order in January 2008. Ward Casscells, then the military's top medical officer, ordered in May 2008 that the ANAM test be given pre-deployment while military experts studied it and other tests for both pre- and post-deployment use. That study is not expected to be completed until 2013.
In November 2008, Schoomaker barred post-deployment screening with ANAM.
About 575,000 pre-deployment tests have been gathered at a cost of about $30 each. Only 12,000 to 13,000 tests have been used for follow-up comparisons, most for a study at Fort Campbell, Ky.
The military relies largely on self-reporting symptoms in diagnosing mild TBI suffered in combat. About 5% to 15% suffer persistent problems.
Reposted from USAToday
More than 562,000 tests of troops taken before they deployed have not been readministered on their return by military health officials, the records show. That means the Pentagon could be missing thousands of cases of brain injury, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., who helped write the 2008 order.
"This is a total failure," says Pascrell, co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Brain Injury Task Force. "We're failing to find TBI (traumatic brain injury) and post-traumatic stress disorder in an era when the military is trying to find and assist folks who need it."
Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, and other Army officials say the test is flawed and no better than a "coin flip."
The test, called the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM), produces too many false positive results, said Lt. Col. Michael Russell, head of the Army's ANAM program.
The test "was promised ... as a sort of 'pregnancy test' for (mild) TBI. It has failed to deliver," says Russell, adding that false results could be triggered by medication, such as Benadryl.
BRAIN DAMAGE: Two wars produce unique and puzzling injuries
MILITARY: Mental health stays rising
FAITH: Ministries pave a spiritual path to help veterans with PTSD
This misrepresents the test, which is designed only to alert doctors that a soldier's thinking process has declined and further evaluation is necessary, says Tresa Roebuck-Spencer, a neuropsychologist with the University of Oklahoma, which develops and distributes the testing program for the Army. She says research shows that false positives drop significantly when the post-deployment test is compared with the original exam.
In that role, this kind of test would be a useful tool for screening all returning troops as Congress intended, say two military neurologists, Air Force Col. Michael Jaffee, director of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and Cmdr. Jack Tsao, director of TBI programs for the Navy and Marines.
"Anything that would help us to better diagnose ... servicemembers who may need further care or follow-up is welcome," Tsao says.
ANAM is a roughly 20-minute computerized test that scores areas such as reaction time, learning speed, short-term memory and mathematical processing. It also gauges a servicemember's mood, fatigue and history of any head injury.
Congress passed the test order in January 2008. Ward Casscells, then the military's top medical officer, ordered in May 2008 that the ANAM test be given pre-deployment while military experts studied it and other tests for both pre- and post-deployment use. That study is not expected to be completed until 2013.
In November 2008, Schoomaker barred post-deployment screening with ANAM.
About 575,000 pre-deployment tests have been gathered at a cost of about $30 each. Only 12,000 to 13,000 tests have been used for follow-up comparisons, most for a study at Fort Campbell, Ky.
The military relies largely on self-reporting symptoms in diagnosing mild TBI suffered in combat. About 5% to 15% suffer persistent problems.
Reposted from USAToday
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Mental care stays are up in military
WASHINGTON — Mental health disorders caused more hospitalizations among U.S. troops in 2009 than any other reason, according to medical data released recently by the Pentagon. This historic high reflects the growing toll of nearly nine years of war.
Last year was the first in which hospitalizations for mental disorders outpaced those for injuries or pregnancies in the 15 years of tracking by the Pentagon's Medical Surveillance Monthly report.
Hospitalizations for mental disorders have increased significantly among troops since 2005, said Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, surgeon general for the Army. "War is difficult. It takes a toll," he said.
Mental health treatment expenses are helping drive up the overall cost of military health care, USA TODAY reported last month. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a speech that "health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive." Schoomaker said the Army's increased attention to mental health issues is another reason for the rise in hospital admittances.
In 2009, there were 17,538 hospitalizations for mental health issues throughout the military, the study shows. That compares with 17,354 for pregnancy and childbirth reasons, and 11,156 for injuries and battle wounds.
MILITARY APPRECIATION MONTH: How to celebrate
PTSD: One-man army fights war's stresses
CAREGIVING: Families of severely injured veterans feel strain
FAITH: Ministries try to help veterans with PTSD
ART: Stressed troops take cues from ancient plays
In 2007, there were 18,201 pregnancy and childbirth hospitalizations, 13,703 for mental health and 12,531 for injury and battle wounds, statistics show. In 2005, mental health was the third leading cause with 11,335.
Mental health care accounted for almost 40% of all days spent in hospitals by servicemembers last year, the report said. Of those hospitalizations, 5% lasted longer than 33 days. For most other conditions, fewer than 5% of hospitalizations exceeded 12 days, the report said.
Psychological issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder exact a toll in lost manpower, the study said. Four mental health issues — depression, substance abuse, anxiety and adjustment problems such as PTSD — cost the Pentagon 488 years of lost duty in 2009.
That's "the equivalent of 488 soldiers spending an entire year in the hospital for mental disorders," said Army Col. Robert DeFraites, director of the office which produced the study.
The Pentagon is learning that mental health issues can take months or years to develop, he said. "Mental disorders are a trailing indicator of health issues to a prolonged period of war fighting, and these figures reflect that," DeFraites said.
"Our troops are facing multiple deployments and experiencing psychological stress due to prolonged exposure to combat," said Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, director of the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury.
The Army, which has 138,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, had 10,222 mental health hospitalizations last year. They accounted for almost 19% of all Army hospitalizations.
Ten percent of Marine hospitalizations were for mental health reasons, while they were about 8% for the Navy and 7% for the Air Force.
The costs of treating mental disorders will only grow, said Christine Eibner, an economist with the RAND Corp. A night in a military hospital cost $3,000 in 2009, said Austin Camacho, a spokesman for the military health care program. When the Pentagon pays for private hospital care, the average daily cost is about $1,300, he said.
Reprinted from USAToday
Last year was the first in which hospitalizations for mental disorders outpaced those for injuries or pregnancies in the 15 years of tracking by the Pentagon's Medical Surveillance Monthly report.
Hospitalizations for mental disorders have increased significantly among troops since 2005, said Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, surgeon general for the Army. "War is difficult. It takes a toll," he said.
Mental health treatment expenses are helping drive up the overall cost of military health care, USA TODAY reported last month. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a speech that "health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive." Schoomaker said the Army's increased attention to mental health issues is another reason for the rise in hospital admittances.
In 2009, there were 17,538 hospitalizations for mental health issues throughout the military, the study shows. That compares with 17,354 for pregnancy and childbirth reasons, and 11,156 for injuries and battle wounds.
MILITARY APPRECIATION MONTH: How to celebrate
PTSD: One-man army fights war's stresses
CAREGIVING: Families of severely injured veterans feel strain
FAITH: Ministries try to help veterans with PTSD
ART: Stressed troops take cues from ancient plays
In 2007, there were 18,201 pregnancy and childbirth hospitalizations, 13,703 for mental health and 12,531 for injury and battle wounds, statistics show. In 2005, mental health was the third leading cause with 11,335.
Mental health care accounted for almost 40% of all days spent in hospitals by servicemembers last year, the report said. Of those hospitalizations, 5% lasted longer than 33 days. For most other conditions, fewer than 5% of hospitalizations exceeded 12 days, the report said.
Psychological issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder exact a toll in lost manpower, the study said. Four mental health issues — depression, substance abuse, anxiety and adjustment problems such as PTSD — cost the Pentagon 488 years of lost duty in 2009.
That's "the equivalent of 488 soldiers spending an entire year in the hospital for mental disorders," said Army Col. Robert DeFraites, director of the office which produced the study.
The Pentagon is learning that mental health issues can take months or years to develop, he said. "Mental disorders are a trailing indicator of health issues to a prolonged period of war fighting, and these figures reflect that," DeFraites said.
"Our troops are facing multiple deployments and experiencing psychological stress due to prolonged exposure to combat," said Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, director of the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury.
The Army, which has 138,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, had 10,222 mental health hospitalizations last year. They accounted for almost 19% of all Army hospitalizations.
Ten percent of Marine hospitalizations were for mental health reasons, while they were about 8% for the Navy and 7% for the Air Force.
The costs of treating mental disorders will only grow, said Christine Eibner, an economist with the RAND Corp. A night in a military hospital cost $3,000 in 2009, said Austin Camacho, a spokesman for the military health care program. When the Pentagon pays for private hospital care, the average daily cost is about $1,300, he said.
Reprinted from USAToday
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Battlefield stress and the overall stress of war
Whether you wear a medal on your chest or just courage in your heart, the effects of war are real. Service members should never be ashamed to seek mental health counseling. There is no shame in recognizing that you are having problems dealing with the effects of your combat deployment. In fact, it is honorable and shows a great deal of courage for you to seek out and get the treatment you need, deserve and have earned to succeed. In the past seeking mental health counselling may have affected your ability to obtain or keep a security clearance or even certain jobs in the military. Recently there have been changes on security clearance application procedures. You are now allowed to check the "no" block when asked if you have any mental health issues as long as you are seeking and undergoing treatment with a mental health provider.
As l look back over the two years I spent deployed to the Iraq war theater of operations, I am amazed at the many experiences I have had. I have held positions that helped service members return home for much needed Rest and Recuperation (R&R) as the Deputy Chief of USARCENT's R&R Program. The R&R program, with nearly a billion dollar per year budget, did just that. I also on a more relevant note to this book held the position of S1/Adjutant. However for me by the end of my deployment I learned that the truly most important thing in life was the connection you have with family and friends. Remember when you serve, your entire family serves with you. When you are under stress so is your family. It took a combat deployment for some to realize this fact.
If you are suffer from stress associated to your deployment contact your base mental health provider or the Veterans Administration. They are well equipped to assist you as you navigate on your road to recovery and mental health bliss.
As l look back over the two years I spent deployed to the Iraq war theater of operations, I am amazed at the many experiences I have had. I have held positions that helped service members return home for much needed Rest and Recuperation (R&R) as the Deputy Chief of USARCENT's R&R Program. The R&R program, with nearly a billion dollar per year budget, did just that. I also on a more relevant note to this book held the position of S1/Adjutant. However for me by the end of my deployment I learned that the truly most important thing in life was the connection you have with family and friends. Remember when you serve, your entire family serves with you. When you are under stress so is your family. It took a combat deployment for some to realize this fact.
If you are suffer from stress associated to your deployment contact your base mental health provider or the Veterans Administration. They are well equipped to assist you as you navigate on your road to recovery and mental health bliss.
Monday, May 3, 2010
What happens IF you die while serving in a combat zone...
Once the word got out that I was a licensed attorney in the state of Michigan it seemed that I was appointed to any assignment that remotely dealt with law, investigations or legal matters. One such appointment dealt with being selected and appointed as a Casualty Officer. That required attendance to a week long training seminar located at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait were I learned the ends and outs of notification of the death of service members to families as well as the death benefits that are provided to the surviving family. During my deployment, I was was assigned to investigate the death of a soldier and make "a line of duty" or LOD determination as to cause of death. My investigation could have resulted in a recommendation that the deceased service member did not die "in the line of duty" and as such was not entitled to the benefits afforded to service members who are killed or die while serving. My findings could have resulted in the non-payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the surviving families. However, as a result of my investigation, I recommended and my recommendation was accepted that death benefits should be paid to the beneficiary.
So what happens if you die while serving in a combat zone? Well if that happens, all I can say is it sucks to be you! However, if you prepared adequately, your loved ones will be better prepared to move on with their lives. One of the first things you should be aware of is that within 72 hours of your death in a combat zone your family will receive check sent via electronic funds transfer to the their bank account in the amount of $100,000. That money should be used to take care of the survivors affairs until the Service Member's Group Life Insurance or SGLI is paid usually that take place within 30 days. Unless otherwise selected, the policy will pay $400,000. (This amount is in addition to the $100,000 already received in the first 24 hours) In addition to those money paid to the beneficiary or beneficiaries, there are more entitlements that would be paid upon your death. In my book, I go into detail about those other death benefits.
Upon your death, your next of kin must be notified within within 24 hours of your death. The notification is made by someone of the same or higher rank and usually that person is accompanied with a Chaplin. The sole purpose of the notification is to inform the next of kin and let them know that a family military advisor will be appointed to assist with the rest of the process in addition to the explanation of other benefits to assist the family.
As it relates to the cause of death, there will be no speculation given. The lessons learned from the death of famed football player turned soldier Pat Tillman are many. Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire. However, much of the information was put out early on was wrong and some have even claimed intentionally distorted to make the military "look good".
With regard to property, you should know that all of your property will inventoried and shipped to the next of kin. A little known fact, if you have a computer, that computer will be shipped to a location were it will be scanned for anything that may be offensive to the next of kin, such as a spouse. The rational for this is simple. If something like a love letter to anyone other then the spouse is discovered that letter will be deleted from the system. This is said to be done to protect the entrust of all concerned. For more information surrounding the events that take place upon your death in a combat zone refer to my new book. "The Service Member's Guide to Deployment."
So what happens if you die while serving in a combat zone? Well if that happens, all I can say is it sucks to be you! However, if you prepared adequately, your loved ones will be better prepared to move on with their lives. One of the first things you should be aware of is that within 72 hours of your death in a combat zone your family will receive check sent via electronic funds transfer to the their bank account in the amount of $100,000. That money should be used to take care of the survivors affairs until the Service Member's Group Life Insurance or SGLI is paid usually that take place within 30 days. Unless otherwise selected, the policy will pay $400,000. (This amount is in addition to the $100,000 already received in the first 24 hours) In addition to those money paid to the beneficiary or beneficiaries, there are more entitlements that would be paid upon your death. In my book, I go into detail about those other death benefits.
Upon your death, your next of kin must be notified within within 24 hours of your death. The notification is made by someone of the same or higher rank and usually that person is accompanied with a Chaplin. The sole purpose of the notification is to inform the next of kin and let them know that a family military advisor will be appointed to assist with the rest of the process in addition to the explanation of other benefits to assist the family.
As it relates to the cause of death, there will be no speculation given. The lessons learned from the death of famed football player turned soldier Pat Tillman are many. Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire. However, much of the information was put out early on was wrong and some have even claimed intentionally distorted to make the military "look good".
With regard to property, you should know that all of your property will inventoried and shipped to the next of kin. A little known fact, if you have a computer, that computer will be shipped to a location were it will be scanned for anything that may be offensive to the next of kin, such as a spouse. The rational for this is simple. If something like a love letter to anyone other then the spouse is discovered that letter will be deleted from the system. This is said to be done to protect the entrust of all concerned. For more information surrounding the events that take place upon your death in a combat zone refer to my new book. "The Service Member's Guide to Deployment."
Friday, April 16, 2010
Extra SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT for those with active duty between January 1957 to December 31, 2001
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT Please share this with anyone who had
active duty service between January 1957 to December 31, 2001 and planning
for retirement. In a nutshell it boils down to this:
You qualify for a higher social security payment because of your Military
service, for active duty any time from 1957 through 2001 (the program was
done away with 1 January 2002). Up to $1200 per year of earnings credit
credited at time of application - which can make a substantial difference in
social security monthly payments upon your retirement. You must bring your
DD-214 to the Social Security Office and you must ask for this benefit to
receive it!
How You Get Credit For Special Extra Earnings
The information that follows applies only to active duty military service earnings from 1957 through 2001. Here's how the special extra earnings are credited on your record:
Service in 1957 Through 1977
You are credited with $300 in additional earnings for each calendar quarter in which you received active duty basic pay.
Service in 1978 through 2001
For every $300 in active duty basic pay, you are credited with an additional $100 in earnings up to a maximum of $1,200 a year. If you enlisted after September 7, 1980, and didn't complete at least 24 months of active duty or your full tour, you may not be able to receive the additional earnings. Check with Social Security for details.
Soc Sec website: http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/military.htm
This is something to put in your files for when you apply for Social
Security down the road.. It is NOT just for retirees, BUT anyone who has
served on active duty between January 1957 to December 31, 2001.
FYI - this benefit is not automatic, you must ask for it! We've all been on
active duty between 1957 and 2001 or know someone who has.
Passing on good information for all you military folks when you apply for
social security. I know this may be too early for some of you to think about
social security but, keep living and you will get there...
active duty service between January 1957 to December 31, 2001 and planning
for retirement. In a nutshell it boils down to this:
You qualify for a higher social security payment because of your Military
service, for active duty any time from 1957 through 2001 (the program was
done away with 1 January 2002). Up to $1200 per year of earnings credit
credited at time of application - which can make a substantial difference in
social security monthly payments upon your retirement. You must bring your
DD-214 to the Social Security Office and you must ask for this benefit to
receive it!
How You Get Credit For Special Extra Earnings
The information that follows applies only to active duty military service earnings from 1957 through 2001. Here's how the special extra earnings are credited on your record:
Service in 1957 Through 1977
You are credited with $300 in additional earnings for each calendar quarter in which you received active duty basic pay.
Service in 1978 through 2001
For every $300 in active duty basic pay, you are credited with an additional $100 in earnings up to a maximum of $1,200 a year. If you enlisted after September 7, 1980, and didn't complete at least 24 months of active duty or your full tour, you may not be able to receive the additional earnings. Check with Social Security for details.
Soc Sec website: http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/military.htm
This is something to put in your files for when you apply for Social
Security down the road.. It is NOT just for retirees, BUT anyone who has
served on active duty between January 1957 to December 31, 2001.
FYI - this benefit is not automatic, you must ask for it! We've all been on
active duty between 1957 and 2001 or know someone who has.
Passing on good information for all you military folks when you apply for
social security. I know this may be too early for some of you to think about
social security but, keep living and you will get there...
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Financial Benefits of Deploying to a War Zone…
There seems to be a great debate among the service members that are deployed in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. The debate centers around the belief by those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that service members serving in Kuwait are less deserving of Rest and Recuperation Leave and that their service is less dangerous and thus not worthy of receiving all the benefits of those serving in a combat zone. (Despite the fact that service in Kuwait is considered service in a combat zone!)
The fact of the matter is those serving in Kuwait, Qatar and other locations in the region but outside of Iraq and Afghanistan are just as vulnerable to being attacked and killed as those service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those serving in Kuwait may get a false sense of security, as they are not being shot at daily. But all must rest assure that even in Kuwait, that boarders Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as those serving in Qatar home to the media conglomerate Al Jazeera that has been viewed by some as very pro Islamic extreme, have forces living within their borders that would love to do serious harm to the American way of life as well as kill service members.
The bottom line is, never let anyone tell you that you are less of a combat soldier and not deserving to wear the combat patch nor receive the benefits of being in a war zone. The truth of the matter is we are all in this war on terrorism together and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan could not succeed without the support and service of those serving in Kuwait as well as others around the world.
Moreover, we are all away from family, friends and love ones and regardless of where you serve you feel the separation.
There are many financial and other benefits that service members have as a result of their deployment in the combat zone. As discussed earlier, they will receive certain tax benefits as well as additional money as a result of their service in a combat zone. There are also various savings and investment programs that should be considered. Here are a couple for you to think about. In my book, “The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed." I go into great detail outline and discussing the major programs.
The fact of the matter is those serving in Kuwait, Qatar and other locations in the region but outside of Iraq and Afghanistan are just as vulnerable to being attacked and killed as those service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those serving in Kuwait may get a false sense of security, as they are not being shot at daily. But all must rest assure that even in Kuwait, that boarders Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as those serving in Qatar home to the media conglomerate Al Jazeera that has been viewed by some as very pro Islamic extreme, have forces living within their borders that would love to do serious harm to the American way of life as well as kill service members.
The bottom line is, never let anyone tell you that you are less of a combat soldier and not deserving to wear the combat patch nor receive the benefits of being in a war zone. The truth of the matter is we are all in this war on terrorism together and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan could not succeed without the support and service of those serving in Kuwait as well as others around the world.
Moreover, we are all away from family, friends and love ones and regardless of where you serve you feel the separation.
There are many financial and other benefits that service members have as a result of their deployment in the combat zone. As discussed earlier, they will receive certain tax benefits as well as additional money as a result of their service in a combat zone. There are also various savings and investment programs that should be considered. Here are a couple for you to think about. In my book, “The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed." I go into great detail outline and discussing the major programs.
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Power of a Power of Attorney
When considering securing a power of attorney, know that there are two types. A Special power of attorney and a General power of attorney. A general power of attorney gives another person broad and far reaching authority to handle your affairs. A special power of attorney only provides for specifically limited handling of your affairs such as selling your vehicle or preparing your taxes. Regardless of the type of power of attorney you give, there should be a specific termination date. As an attorney, I recommend powers of attorney terminate after one year has passed.
Case Scenario 1:
“Service Member” was ordered to active duty to be deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 18 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.
“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse”was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.
Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, due to the “Service Member” not fully understanding the difference between a general power of attorney and a special power of attorney, “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a general power of attorney.
What do you think happened?
Case Scenario 2:
“Service Member” was order to active duty to be deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 5 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.
“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse” was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.
Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, prior to deploying to Afghanistan, “Service Member” reads the book The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; what every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2008 “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a special power of attorney.
What do you think happened?
To find the answers to these “Case Scenarios” and other fascinating questions, read the book, The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2009
Case Scenario 1:
“Service Member” was ordered to active duty to be deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 18 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.
“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse”was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.
Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, due to the “Service Member” not fully understanding the difference between a general power of attorney and a special power of attorney, “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a general power of attorney.
What do you think happened?
Case Scenario 2:
“Service Member” was order to active duty to be deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 5 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.
“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse” was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.
Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, prior to deploying to Afghanistan, “Service Member” reads the book The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; what every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2008 “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a special power of attorney.
What do you think happened?
To find the answers to these “Case Scenarios” and other fascinating questions, read the book, The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)