The Ming Report

NOT RELATED TO YOUR MILITARY SERVICE

March 22, 2007 - Garrett Anderson is 30 years old. He lives in Champaign, Illinois. He is 30 years old, married with one child. He was a member of the Recon platoon of the 2nd Battalion of the 130th Infantry Illinois National Guard. He was sent to Iraq. On October 15, 2005 he was on patrol when an improvised explosive device destroyed his right arm, peppered him with shrapnel and injured his face. From the time of the explosion Garrett’s memory is clouded. He was treated in a field hospital in Iraq, shipped to Germany, and then transferred to Walter Reed in Washington. He simply doesn’t know when or where his right forearm was amputated. He received his hook at Walter Reed.

On March 5, 2007 Garrett received a form letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The subject was his application for disability benefits. It read in part: “We determined that the following condition(s) was/were not related to your military service, so service connection couldn’t be granted:” It then listed the medical description of the injuries that the Department of Veterans Affairs had determined were not service connected: “low back strain”;”three broken teeth upper and lower”; “shrapnel wounds, all over body”. He jokes that he must have suffered those injuries on North Prospect Avenue, Champaign’s main commercial street, but it is no laughing matter. For Garrett and his wife Sam it is the difference between a partial disability award and maximum benefit available. For more of Garrett’s story: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/03/22/champaign_veteran_fighting_disability_battle_with_va

It is hard to understand how the Department could have reached the conclusion that “shrapnel wounds all over the body” were unrelated to Garrett’s military service. Hard to understand, that is, unless you take into account the Bush Administration’s cuts in the money available to fund veterans’ benefits. It is endemic. First the Pentagon rushed the injured troops through its system and off its budget passing the soldier and the costs off to the Department of Veterans Affairs. That callous policy of: “Call ‘em up. Use ‘em up. Then throw them out.” is one more mockery of the President’s repeated call for us to “support the troops.”

What kind of support is it that engages in that patently fraudulent determination just to save budget money? The difference is that if those injuries suffered on patrol in Iraq were determined to be connected with his military service Garrett Anderson, his wife, and their daughter would qualify for educational benefits. “Shrapnel wounds all over body” is not a service connected injury? What civilian occupation or pursuit exposes the body to shrapnel? Collateral damage maybe? Give me a break.