Sole surviving son cut off...

[phrogpilot73]

Saw this on AOL this morning. Does anyone know the ins and the outs of the policy requiring him to be discharged? Was he given the option to get out, or was he required to get out? It just seems that there's probably more to this story. Either way, I think requring him to repay the $6K and cutting him off from the GI Bill is AFU, especially if his discharge says "honorable".

 

[nittany03]

Easy explanation. The bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

 

[FLYTPAY]

Saw this on AOL this morning. Does anyone know the ins and the outs of the policy requiring him to be discharged? Was he given the option to get out, or was he required to get out? It just seems that there's probably more to this story. Either way, I think requring him to repay the $6K and cutting him off from the GI Bill is AFU, especially if his discharge says "honorable".

Unsat......

 

[Brett327]

Saw this on AOL this morning. Does anyone know the ins and the outs of the policy requiring him to be discharged? Was he given the option to get out, or was he required to get out? It just seems that there's probably more to this story. Either way, I think requring him to repay the $6K and cutting him off from the GI Bill is AFU, especially if his discharge says "honorable".

The article says "Under California military rules," so I suspect he might be in the Guard. I'm not aware of any Federal rules which mandate the separation of anyone who happens to be the last surviving family member, but someone could probably request it based on the whole "undue hardship" concept. Regardless, if the guy didn't fulfill the obligations of his contract WRT GI Bill or anything else, I don't know why he would expect to enjoy the benefits without fulfilling his part. Nobody else gets to keep their medical benefits after separating, so why does this guy expect anything different? Just because the guy made a combat deployment (who hasn't these days?)doesn't mean he gets a freebie for everything else.

Brett

 

[SWCS242]

Yeah Brett, but the guy had to bury his 2 brothers who were killed in combat. I don't feel like he would be getting a freebie. But that is just my opinion for what it's worth, I do understand what you are saying though.

 

[Brett327]

Yeah Brett, but the guy had to bury his 2 brothers who were killed in combat. I don't feel like he would be getting a freebie. But that is just my opinion for what it's worth, I do understand what you are saying though.

We can all feel sorry for him, but that still doesn't entitle him to get additional benefits above and beyond every other service-member. Are we just going to start giving benefits and free money to everyone who has lost a relative in combat? His brothers' families received the appropriate death benefits and that's the way the system is supposed to work. From the details in the story, it sounds like he subsequently knocked up his wife, then went crying to his congressman when he couldn't get health benefits. Again, I can acknowledge his severe loss, but he's trying to scam the Gov't by playing the "pity me" card and I think that that's unconscionable.

Brett

 

[loadtoad]

Again, I can acknowledge his severe loss, but he's trying to scam the Gov't by playing the "pity me" card and I think that that's unconscionable.

Brett

I agree with Brett IF this is the case and he left on his own. However, if it is not and he really was forced to leave then it's AFU. California is a jacked up state when dealing with military so I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Malo83]

http://www.fresnobee.com/641/story/531597.html

 

[villanelle]

Now that congressman, Rep. Devin Nunes, is leading an effort to pass a bill that would ensure basic benefits to all soldiers who are discharged under an Army policy governing sole surviving siblings and children of soldiers killed in combat. The rule is a holdover from World War II meant to protect the rights of service people who have lost a family member to war.

It makes more sense to me to make it optional to leave the service after losing all your siblings. If you want to keep the bennies (or if you just want to continue to serve), it seems like you should be allowed to chose to do so, while also being offered the opportunity to leave (and lose the benefits, just like anyone else who choses to leave). The problem here doesn't seem to be that this guy lost his benefits when he got out; it's that it sounds like he was forced to leave and therefore didn't have the opportunity to weigh the risk of being a sole surviving sibling going into harms way vs. keeping his job and benefits.

 

[Brett327]

It makes more sense to me to make it optional to leave the service after losing all your siblings. If you want to keep the bennies (or if you just want to continue to serve), it seems like you should be allowed to chose to do so, while also being offered the opportunity to leave (and lose the benefits, just like anyone else who choses to leave). The problem here doesn't seem to be that this guy lost his benefits when he got out; it's that it sounds like he was forced to leave and therefore didn't have the opportunity to weigh the risk of being a sole surviving sibling going into harms way vs. keeping his job and benefits.

I tend to agree, but I'm not entirely convinced that the guy was sent back on the streets kicking and screaming. It's like the old urban legend that you'll be discharged if you win the lottery with no questions asked. I suspect they might give you the option (or maybe not), but I think in either case, you could stay if you wanted to. Probably the same with this guy.

IRT this legislation, where do we draw the line? Does everyone who's involuntarily separated get to keep their benefits? For how long? You can see where I'm going with this.

Brett

 

[phrogpilot73]

The article says "Under California military rules," so I suspect he might be in the Guard. I'm not aware of any Federal rules which mandate the separation of anyone who happens to be the last surviving family member, but someone could probably request it based on the whole "undue hardship" concept. Regardless, if the guy didn't fulfill the obligations of his contract WRT GI Bill or anything else, I don't know why he would expect to enjoy the benefits without fulfilling his part. Nobody else gets to keep their medical benefits after separating, so why does this guy expect anything different? Just because the guy made a combat deployment (who hasn't these days?)doesn't mean he gets a freebie for everything else.

I agree with you, but every article I've read has either said "California military rules" or "Army regulations". That's why I was curious if anyone knew any more about it. If the kid was given the option to get out early (and did) because of the loss of his siblings, cry me a river. If he was not allowed to finish his contract because he was involuntarily separated (but still with an honorable discharge), then I think he should not have to repay his bonus, and should reap the benefits of the GI Bill. The key point is, was he willing and able to serve through the remainder of his contract?

 

[Thisguy]

Army Spc. Jason Hubbard helps carry the casket of his brother Nathan Hubbard on Aug. 31 in Fresno, Calif. Military rules forced Jason Hubbard out of the service after both his brothers died in Iraq. Then the military cut off his family's medical benefits, stopped his education subsidies and tried to force him to repay his $6,000 enlistment bonus.

I hope no one pulled "California military rules" from the above caption...

 

[phrogdriver]

Saw this on AOL this morning. ".

More importantly....

Someone still uses AOL?

 

[squorch2]

ZOOOOMBIE THREEEAAAADDDD

 

[phrogdriver]

Tapatalk brings up some weird things under "latest."