DoD Shafts Combat Wounded Vets to Protect the Bottom Line

by: Richard Allen Smith

Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST

CPL Dixon in Iraq -Dixon Family from LA Times

Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries.

In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not combat-related.

It seems that in a little known regulation change earlier this year, the Department of Defense has narrowed the definition of a combat related injury.  However, the Pentagon hasn't bothered to clarify the definition.  As best as anyone can tell, if you drive over an IED and receive a shrapnel wound, your injury is combat related.  However, if your buddy in the TC seat receives a concussion, his injury is not combat related.

We've seen talk of creating second-class Veterans before, but this is the first I've heard of actually denying benefits to those who were legitimately and indisputably injured as a result of enemy action.

My first question is how are these injuries not combat-related if the injury qualifies the individual for a Purple Heart.  The regulatory guidance is pretty clear on that award:

The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States and per 10 USC 1131, effective 19
May 1998, is limited to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under component
authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who
has die or may hereafter die after being wounded-

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States
are or have been engaged.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in
which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(4) As the result of an act of any such enemy of opposing Armed Forces.

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.

(6) After 28 March 1973, as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign
nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of Army, or jointly by the
Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

(7) After 28 March 1973, as the result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States
as part of a peacekeeping force.

(8) Members killed or wounded in action by friendly fire. In accordance with 10 USC 1129 for award of the Purple
20 AR 600-8-22 • 11 December 2006
Heart, the Secretary of the Army will treat a member of the Armed Forces described in (a), below, in the same manner
as a member who is killed or wounded in action as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States.

g. Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(1) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.
(2) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.
(3) Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent.
(4) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.
(5) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.

Both CPL Dixon and SGT Meshell are clearly entitled to a Purple Heart as a result of combat-related injuries. So why aren't their injuries deemed as such for medical purposes?  The simplest explanation is that the Purple Heart is a lot cheaper than disability benefits. Again, from the LA Times:

Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought the Pentagon and won a reversal of his noncombat-related designation.

"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?" Dixon said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."

Meshell, who is appealing her status, estimates she is losing at least $1,200 a month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone during an enemy mortar attack, she said, her wounds would be considered combat-related only if she had been struck by shrapnel.

Meshell said the military had suggested that at least some of her disability was caused by preexisting joint deterioration. "Before I went over there, I was fine -- I was perfectly healthy," Meshell said. "This whole thing is causing me a lot of heartache."

Kerry Baker, associate legislative director of Disabled American Veterans, has accused the Pentagon of narrowing the definition of combat-related disabilities to save money. He said the change would reduce payments for tens of thousands of veterans -- those already wounded and those injured in the future.

This is simply unacceptable.