Hurt Troops Often Denied Pay, Benefits
Guard and Reserve soldiers injured in combat face
financial and
medical 'friendly fire' once back in the U.S., officials say.
By John Hendren
Times Staff Writer
February 18, 2005
WASHINGTON — Hundreds of Army Reserve and National Guard troops
returning home after being wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone
months without pay or medical benefits they were entitled to receive,
military officials and government auditors said Thursday.
Because of a bureaucratic mistake, about 1,000 reservists and Guard
members were removed from the active-duty rolls once home, even though
their wounds entitled them to extended care, according to a Government
Accountability Office study released Thursday.
"This is the
equivalent of financial and medical 'friendly fire,' " Rep. Thomas M.
Davis (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, told
military officials at a hearing.
The disclosures represent the
latest in a list of problems confronting many returning war veterans,
including shortages of physicians, a lack of mental healthcare and
spotty medical treatment.
As the number of returning troops grows, Congress has increasingly
focused on addressing their problems.
Defense officials and the GAO blamed the wartime crush of wounded
part-time troops for overburdening a military health system that has
not seen such an onslaught since World War II.
"This is clearly
an example of not being able to handle the kind of operational tempo
that we have today," said Gregory D. Kutz, director of the GAO's
financial management and assurance office.
Lawmakers said they
were fielding many calls from wounded Reserve and Guard troops who
might have been wrongly denied their benefits. In one GAO sample of 38
wounded reservists who had trouble getting the Army to recognize them
as being entitled to benefits, 24 went weeks or months without pay and
benefits, according to the agency, the investigative arm of Congress.
They confront a "convoluted and poorly defined process" to obtain
benefits, the GAO said.
"A lot of the guys can't deal with the
bureaucratic problems," said Sgt. 1st Class John Allen of Blairstown,
N.J., wearing an eye patch and leaning on a cane as he testified at the
congressional hearing. "They give up somewhere in the process and just
go home."
Several wounded troops testified before the House
panel Thursday. A Special Forces soldier who lost a leg to a roadside
bomb in Afghanistan said he did not receive $5,000 in paychecks.
Another veteran with knee and back injuries said he was forced to move
in with his in-laws after missing paychecks totaling $3,886.
Allen, a 14-year Army veteran who serves with the National Guard's 20th
Special Forces Group, has a brain injury and other injuries to his
legs, back, neck and eyes resulting from a helicopter accident and a
grenade blast.
But Allen said it wasn't until he returned home for extended treatment
that his "real troubles began."
He had to reapply for coverage every 90 days and was at times denied
pay, medical coverage and access to his military base.
After visiting his family in New Jersey for a week after his yearlong
combat tour, his leave was cut short and he was ordered back to Ft.
Bragg, N.C., because a commander could not find his paperwork.
When his wife went into premature labor in August 2003, she was turned
away from a military hospital because his active-duty extension had not
yet been approved, Allen said.
Allen was sent to Walter Reed
Army Medical Center in January 2004 for continued care. Once there, he
was referred to an outside physician. Allen was about to run out of
coverage again in mid-December when he met Davis at Walter Reed. The
congressman offered to help the war veteran cut through red tape.
Eventually, the Army paid Allen more than $12,000 in overdue earnings.
Army officials told the House hearing that they had resolved many of
the problems cited in the GAO report related to benefit eligibility for
part-time troops. Daniel B. Denning, acting assistant secretary of the
Army for manpower and reserve affairs, said the influx of wounded was
"loading our system like it hasn't been loaded since World War II."
The Army's Human Resources Command processed 15,000 disabled Reserve
and Guard members in 2004, said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the
Army's head of personnel. That's more than at any time since the
Vietnam War.
In other problems cited at the hearing, one
soldier who injured his foot in combat said he was forced to use his
retirement savings to live on because the Army declined to pay him for
101 days. Another Afghanistan veteran who needed counseling for medical
and financial stress said he was repeatedly refused medical treatment.
For part-time soldiers who are not wounded, medical benefits stop after
their active-duty status ends. Soldiers requiring medical treatment are
granted extensions so they can qualify for continued benefits. However,
many soldiers were only extended for 30 days, then were required to
apply to renew those extensions. Many lost benefits awaiting processing
of their paperwork.
The GAO found the regulations for caring
for wounded Reserve and Guard troops murky. It said the Army lacked a
central means of tracking the wounded veterans, and many Army officials
lacked the training and education to help them navigate their way
through the system. Some soldiers and their families were forced to
travel long distances every 30 days to extend their service.
Army officials noted that they had recently begun automatic 179-day
extensions of pay and benefits for returning Reserve and Guard troops.
"As far as soldiers dropping off orders and dropping off pay, I believe
we have fixed those problems," said Chief Warrant Officer Rodger L.
Shuttleworth, head of the Reserve Component Personnel Support Services
Branch of the Army Human Resources Command. "We're about 90% there."
However, the GAO found that recent changes had not resolved underlying
management control problems. In September and October, for example, the
Army did not know how many soldiers were on medical extensions or how
many had returned to active duty, the study said.
