Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Vets charged for lost & damaged gear (including their uniforms)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:46 PM
Original message
Vets charged for lost & damaged gear (including their uniforms)
Edited on Wed Feb-28-07 02:47 PM by babylonsister
Do the abuses to the soldiers ever end?

Edit to add link:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=9315

Vets charged for lost & damaged gear

By Jim Hoffer / WABC

Imagine fighting for your country in Iraq, risking life and limb, only to be billed for your lost or damaged uniform. That's what is happening to some soldiers returning from Iraq.

The Eyewitness News Investigators has been looking into this for some time.

They served bravely and are now being slapped with a bill from Uncle Sam. The men you are about to hear from are being charged for the uniforms they served in -- one of them damaged on the battlefield, others lost in the confusion of war.

Are these careless soldiers or victims of a stingy military?

They dodge roadside bombs and bullets for a year in Iraq, but for some soldiers there are no handshakes at their homecoming. Instead, they're handed a bill for damaged or missing equipment.

"I'm so proud to be in the military ... at the same time I just could not believe that when I got back after sacrificing so much that I owed the Army money," the soldier said.

This soldier got a bill for about $500 dollars for lost gear. Another soldier had to pay nearly $800 dollars for items such as trousers, a coat, a helmet which he lost during a year spent in some of Iraq's most dangerous towns.

"Maybe you were lying down with a coat behind your head and you come under fire. Your first reaction isn't to grab coat fold it neatly and make sure it's properly stowed when you're being shot at," another soldier said.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. The hits just keep on coming.
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Just another example of how this administration
"Supports the Troops"

Absolutely disgusting, and it's been going on for quite some time - I remember Randi Rhodes railing against it at least a year ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I'll never forget that Junior cut VA benefits THE DAY we invaded Iraq.
Motherfucker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. is there a link to that?
I try to shed light on another board but don't have a lot of time to do research, and when I do, it doesn't work as well as I hoped it would. The latest is the cut in VA benefits after 2009, once that was posted, all I heard was silence. Could you give me a link to when that bill was passed. Thanx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. I don't have one but I'll look.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monkeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Your so angry you forgot link
I think some major butts need to be kicked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Angry ain't the word. Link's up now; thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Maybe he didn't lose or damage anything. And welcome to DU. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. Outprocessing is a bitch
I can't remember if they really checked to see if we had 4 "serviceable" uniforms but clearing TA50 was next to impossible. Buying wetweather gear (slickers and galloshes) was almost a given as well as a helmet liner and cover.

I didn't know that they did that with guys who had been in the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w8liftinglady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. I SO see my next LTTE coming
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. unbelievable. and the bill we should be handing to halliburton?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. The cheap bastard Bush administration
All in the name of giving tax cuts to millionaires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cabcere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
13. What. The. Fuck.
:grr: :puke: :grr: :puke: :grr: There are no words. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. Oldest story in the world, sadly
They've been doing this to vets since the Revolution I'd imagine; they certainly hit my dad and granddad for damaged gear (and, yes, me too).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Really? This has gone on before??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I remember reading a few years ago about a soldier
who's parents got a bill for his missing equipment after he was killed in action. I'll see if I can find it again..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Didn't find the same story but I found a few others:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. Remember that Supply Clerk Jones doesn't know anything about PFC Smith
All he knows is that PFC Smith's stuff didn't get returned, and that means his depot is out $2000, so he wants to recoup that. He doesn't always get told why PFC Smith's stuff is gone (eg, it got blown up) or whether PFC Smith himself is still around (eg, while he was wearing it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Yeah well it's not Supply Clerk Jones that is sending collection
agents after soldiers... And for the kind of money we're pissing away I think we could be a little understanding that a soldier might lose something in a war zone..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
37. Ummmm........yeah
Soldiers sign a receipt when TA-50 is issued. That means that a soldier is RESPONSIBLE for that item. This is not a Bush thing or Clinton thing. This has gone on longer than I've been in the army (13 years). Many items can be written off as "field loss" i.e. paperwork can be filled out and the items can be counted as lost due to "mission impediments". However there are many items that are not allowed to be called field loss. In my 13 years I have probably paid out close to 1000 dollars in lost equipment. Hey I signed for it, if I count keep hold of it, then I deserve to be charged for taxpayer property that I lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Without endorsing what's happened here, let me agree with sanskritwarrior
I mean, this is our stuff these guys are carrying; we paid for it. The problem with just letting everybody who loses shit off is that then people will take stuff and sell it at the surplus store. Hell, I still have a flak jacket you all paid for.

Now, sending a bill to a dead guy means there is a screw-up somewhere in the system, but the basic idea is still sound, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. Yep.
Edited on Wed Feb-28-07 05:20 PM by TahitiNut
Unless the records show a loss due to enemy action (good luck) then the grunt gets dinged. It happened during Viet Nam, too, afaik. It depended on how anal the clerk was being, iirc. I don't remember that it included uniforms, though. I gave my Class-A blouse to my cousin who was in high school - she thought it was 'cool.' I believe there were some fatigues and boots in my foot locker (shipped home) but I never opened it - it was thrown out with the trash many years later.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
15. They are running this war
Edited on Wed Feb-28-07 03:16 PM by DearAbby
like a business. Never before has war been ran in such a manner. The only reason why they would, is for profit. What other reason would there be?

When this this start? The First Gulf War? Vietnam war? Bosnia? Why now? (Money trumps Peace)Iraq has always been business.


These people make me sick.

I had just finished "Hubris". In that Book they made the claim that Cheney respects and reveres General William Tecumseh Sherman.

I found this quote:

"The world cannot continue to wage war like physical giants and to seek peace like intellectual pygmies." General William Tecumseh Sherman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. Terrible, but nothing new. They actually charged returning vets who had written their
last names on their vests (because someone might take them since they were in short supply) and camelbacks since they drink from them. When they got back to Ft. Benning and turned their gear in they were told they would be charged for what they had written on....but wait....the gear was actually being sold off to a surplus place so not only did they make money from selling the used supplies, they charged the soldiers to replace the gear. Truly unbelievable, huh?!?!?!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
18. They have to charge the soldiers
I mean, you can't expect Paris Hilton to pay more in taxes, can you, you bunch of heartless bastards? Won't someone please think of the billionaires, who have to have their tax cuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
19. Pay as you Blow up plan
These bastards are just unfreaking believable :mad: :thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. It's more like pay when you get blown up
see my links above..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. That's what I meant
actually.... But I can see how you would read it that way..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I see it now.. sorry
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
21. This has been happening since day one
and please believe the "lost" gear is often times stolen by other soldiers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
25. A million years ago when I was in you had to return field gear but
your uniform was yours. I still have several of mine in fact...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
26. What...The... Fuck...
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
30. So if someone gets his arm blown off
he has to pay for damage to his uniform?

Unreal. And very sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
33. Charging for uniforms? Let me explain
First, this is fucked up. There is a way this could be ended, but Bush won't allow it.

Yes, folks, it's time for a Five Minute Block of Instruction on Common Table of Allowances 50-900, "Clothing and Individual Equipment."

CTA 50-900 goes along with CTA 50-909, "Field and Garrison Furnishings and Equipment" and CTA 50-970, "Expendable/Durable Items," in making every unit a happy home.

I'm sorry to sound like a smartass here, but understanding the provisions of this CTA is crucial to knowing what the hell is going on here.

CTA 50-900 is broken into two major parts, individual issue and organizational issue. Individual issue is also called Clothing Bag. When I left the service in 1994, in the Clothing Bag for males were:

UTILITY UNIFORMS
Two sets temperate-wear BDUs
Two sets Hot Weather BDUs
Two BDU caps
Two pair combat boots
Four brown t-shirts
Six pair brown undershorts, soldier's choice of briefs or boxers
Six pair black wool socks
One belt with black buckle
Two field jackets
One pile cap
One duffel bag

SERVICE UNIFORMS (also known as dress greens)
One AG 344 service jacket
Two pair AG 344 service pants
Two garrison caps
Two long-sleeve shirts
Two short-sleeve shirts
One pair low quarters
One black necktie
Two white t-shirts
One overcoat
One belt with brass buckle
Two nameplates
One pair "US" insignia
One branch of service insignia

The female issue differed in the service uniform category--in there were two pair slacks, two skirts, a neck tab, two different kinds of service caps and a purse.

That's your Individual Issue. You get this in basic training. There are some items on the individual-issue list that are specific--for instance, most soldiers will never receive an MP brassard (the big leather armband that says MP on it that MPs wear) or an MP badge because they have no need for them. But they're in CTA 50-900.

Organizational issue is handled by the permanent-party unit you belong to. The list of all the crap that CAN be in here is long and you won't ever get all of it. Most soldiers have a sleeping bag. Most soldiers have a helmet. These days, most soldiers are at least supposed to have body armor. There are several duty uniforms on this list--mechanics' coveralls, flight suits, cooks' whites, desert camouflage. These must be turned in when no longer needed--in the case of the desert BDUs, that's as soon as they redeploy because someone else needs those uniforms.

(A sick little story about desert BDUs: My unit in Berlin sent four soldiers to Desert Storm. When the war ended, three of them came back within weeks, but my guy, who we'll call Bob, didn't get to come home. We called the headquarters Bob was assigned to and got him on the phone. "They won't let me come home. I don't have a desert uniform." You remember all the television footage of soldiers getting off airliners after Desert Storm, and it being just this sea of tan uniforms? Well...whoever in fuck was in charge of redeployment didn't want anyone showing up on television in a green uniform because it would have indicated that we weren't quite as prepared to go to war as Bush 41 said we were. So you had to have a desert uniform to come home. Bob spent the whole war at CENTCOM Headquarters Forward writing the daily intel summary which was presented to General Schwarzkopf. He didn't need a desert uniform because he never left the compound the entire time he was there. But they wouldn't let him go home without one. We put out a message to the intel community: Help us rescue our friend by loaning us a set of desert BDUs; you'll get them back just as soon as we get Bob back. Someone at Fort Meade had a set, and he sent them to us. (The commander of 3rd MI in Korea sent us a message, "if you want, I'll just fly an Improved Guardrail V (a Beechcraft King Air B200 with a LOT of electronics in the back) down there and get him," but we figured that was pushing it. We also knew the commander of 3rd Mi was very fond of Bob's skills, and we were afraid we wouldn't get him back.) The set we got was big enough to hold Bob and a friend, but they did what they were supposed to. We got Bob back intact, Bob sent the borrowed uniform back, all was well...until the Army sent Bob a bill because he didn't turn in the borrowed uniform.)

Back to the lesson: Soldiers are "pecuniarily liable for all organizational issue." Which is Army talk for "you break it, you buy it."

The Report of Survey is used to prevent soldiers from paying for battlefield losses. It works very simply: When a soldier loses or damages something, he can do one of three things: buy one just like it and turn that in, fill out a Statement of Charges and pay for it, or execute a Report of Survey. In the case of something you damaged on purpose or that's worth more than you make in a month, the Report of Survey is mandatory. The form is filled out by a Surveying Officer, who makes an investigation and recommends that either the soldier be held liable for the loss or that he not be held liable for it. In the case of these soldiers, were I the surveying officer I would write something like "SM (servicemember) participated in firefight 5km east of al-Ramadi, Iraq. SM was hit by three rifle bullets fired by Iraqi national and shrapnel from detonating mortar rounds. SM's uniform coat was pierced by the expended Iraqi ordnance, torn into strips by US Army medical personnel who used it as a field expedient tourniquet, and soaked with blood from SM's wounds. Recommend SM not be held pecuniarily liable." Problem is, Bush has kinda screwed the pooch plus the troops on this one: between tax cuts and the expense of this war, there's no money to replace the stuff that's getting shot up, so they almost have to charge these guys for the shit they destroyed in the war.

Now, the FUNNIEST report of survey I ever saw was one done on one of my guys at Fort Campbell. We were on a corps-level FTX. Fat Jack McMull, the corps commander, came up to Campbell to watch the proceedings. Fat Jack enjoyed driving himself around in the field. Unfortunately, on this exercise, one thing led to another..."SM's entire organizational issue was destroyed because I parked my jeep on it in the middle of the night. Recommend corps commander be held pecuniarily liable. /S/ John McMull, LTG, USA, Commanding."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #33
39. boy that brings back memories
Funniest Report of Survey I got to participate in:
a guy in the division Band in Korea, who accidentally dropped a glockenspiel out the open door of a blackhawk helicopter while in flight. All I could think of was the confused faces of the Koreans who happened to find it in their rice paddy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
35. Can it get any worse?
And how much worse does it have to get?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
36.  So do Haliburton's mercenaries have to deal with the same liabilities?
If they have their field gear which is likely supplied by Haliburton that has been paid for by the contracts us taxpayers pay Haliburton with, and that gear gets damaged, then who pays for that?

Does the Haliburton employee get dinged for it? Does Haliburton bill for us for it instead? Do they bill both the employee AND us (since we obviously don't do very good accounting on them!).

It seems like if we're being billed for that sort of thing by Haliburton and other contractors, then based on the rules that soldiers are liable for resources/uniforms losses and not us in the case of armed forces, that if we're asked to bear the cost of the same with contract soldiers, then that to me is the war contractor bilking us for costs they should have to incur, RIGHT? Otherwise, it's a clear example of war profiteering in my book!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Actually yeah
most contractors go to CRC at Fort Bliss for Iraq,

https://www.bliss.army.mil/387CRC/default.htm

and Fort Benning for Afghanistan.....

https://www-benning.army.mil/CRC/

99% of ALL CONTRACTORS go to these facilities and are issued the same CIF basic load that soldiers get. Contractors get all gear save ACU's and other items that might be subject to a shortage. All contractors sign for this stuff and are hand receipted just like the soldiers. Contractors must go through CRC upon redeployment from Iraq and turn in all gear in a clean and serviceable state. Contractors who lose items or fail to turn in items on the list are billed for those items just like a private is. I'm not taking up for halliburton but it's not like their people are not liable for gear they sign for. In Iraq contractors go to the unit they are supporting and request items that CRC might have had a shortage of. In 2005 we had two blackwater guys that were pulling convoy security for my battalion's fuel trucks to free us up to conduct combat patrols. Those two guys had to come to us for Pro mask canisters (filter for gas mask) and those items are toxic and accountable so they must be disposed of correctly. Well one of the guys lost his canisters and could not find them. We looked up the stock unit price, printed him out a bill for $67.75 and drove him to fiance so he could cash a check and pay us. He could not leave country until the bill was paid as we put his name in the MILAIR system as owing the military money for lost gear.

So yeah contractors get issued gear and if they want to leave Iraq they had better pay for it if they lose it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. I still wonder if Halliburton does creative financing...
... and when these losses occur, bill us for the losses and say something like they charged the soldier a reduced price of the real cost (perhaps not REAL cost) to them and bill the government for these losses too. Might be still worth checking.

At least in this case they are being equally unfair to soldiers as they are to the contractors. Not they should mind you. They should absorb those losses as a cost of doing business, like the coffee I get free at work every day, no matter how much I drink.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC