Posted by Hazel Stone | Filed under Buttinskis
The military’s Sole Survivor policy is generally a good thing, I believe. Even though we have an all-volunteer military, the negative psychological effect of a family losing *all* its children is not be discounted. They shouldn’t be quite such chinchy bastards about it, however:
Forced to leave the combat zone after his two brothers died in the Iraq war, Army Spc. Jason Hubbard faced another battle once he returned home: The military cut off his family’s health care, stopped his G.I. educational subsidies and wanted him to repay his sign-up bonus.
Um, what? If he had come to the end of his hitch, and not elected to re-up, his discharge would have been the same status, and he would have retained all benefits. So, by virtue of first losing two brothers, and then being discharged due to a policy whose entire raison d’etre is compassion, it somehow made sense to NOT continue to provide the bennies advertised?
No, doesn’t make sense at all. Good on the young gentleman for contacting his Congresscritter, and double good on the Congresscritter for A) getting his benefits reinstated, and B) introducing legislation that will prevent some overzealous ledger-checker from doing same in the future.