Port
Lucie - Erik Botta believes he's done right by his country.
being called for a fifth tour.
|
Casualties of War
By Claire Duffett New York Lawyer
When Sergeant First Class Norris Galatas drove over an improvised explosive device in Iraq in May 2006, it took less than a second for shrapnel to tear all of his organs other than his heart. Only after months of treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., could Galatas eat solid foods again. And it wasn't until two years later that the Army agreed that Galatas's injuries earned him disability benefits.
In that respect, Galatas was lucky. Because he had legal representation throughout his medical evaluation board hearings, the Army changed Galatas's disability ranking from 10 percent, which provides a small loan, to 90 percent, which provides lifetime benefits for him and his wife. "We made enough noise so they focused on it, and the doctors reevaluated the records," says Ehran Halse-Stumberg, a King & Spalding associate who represented Galatas.
Attorneys advising clients in administrative proceedings may sound like nothing new, but in the past, big-firm lawyers rarely provided this sort of representation to disabled veterans. After The Washington Post exposed poor conditions at Walter Reed about a year ago, though, large firms began a concerted effort to provide services to them.
Three advocacy tactics soon emerged. Some firms, such as Morrison & Foerster, sought to challenge systemic problems in how the military and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) treat disabled veterans. Others, such as King & Spalding, focused on helping newly returning service personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan avoid filing errors that can stall applications for years. Still others, such as Covington & Burling, opted to help clear a long backlog of claims by representing veterans from prior wars. These categories are not rigid. Many firms are engaged in combinations of these activities, or all three. But they all have the same purpose-to mitigate the nation's failure to support its injured service people. The VA's current backlog is estimated to be 1 million claims. Many claimants await their rulings on the streets: Former service members are believed to make up about a third of the nation's homeless, the VA says.
A series of missteps created and prolongs the veterans' plight, says Gordon Erspamer, senior counsel at Morrison & Foerster. For one, he says, the military regularly mislabels victims of combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and depression as suffering from a preexisting "personality disorder" so they can be dismissed from duty without access to free health care or disability benefits. In July 2007 Erspamer filed a class action on behalf of several veterans' advocacy groups in federal district court in San Francisco. The suit asks the court to require that the VA immediately spend $60 million to help process roughly 600,000 claims by class members. The trial ended May 2; a ruling has not yet been announced. (Update since publication of this issue: On June 25, U.S. district court judge Samuel Conti ruled that Iraq veterans suffering from post traumatic stress disorder should seek relief from Congress, not the judiciary. The Am Law Daily reported on the decision and the case.) "It's like trying to change the direction of a battleship," Erspamer says of his efforts to institute systemic reform. "There's so much inertia in one direction."
If that's the case, Covington senior counsel James McKay, 91, has been turning the wheel longer than anyone. When the VA established a special U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 1988, McKay - a World War II veteran - was one of the first lawyers appointed to represent clients. At that time, the appeals level was the first place a veteran saw an attorney: A Civil War-era federal statute prohibited veterans from paying for legal counsel. Although pro bono representations were permitted, the statute created a dynamic in which nonlawyer advocates provided representation, or veterans proceeded pro se. "It just wasn't on [firms'] radar," says William Mailander, general counsel of Paralyzed Veterans of America. The ban on paid legal representation stayed on the books until 2006, when Congress repealed it, in part due to lobbying from McKay.
Now that they see the need, most lawyers opt to address claims individually rather than tackle the system itself. With the help of his lawyers, Galatas's case was resolved in two years. But it takes an average of five years for disability rankings to be considered. If the case is remanded, the process usually takes longer. And if the claim lacks proper medical evaluations or is filed incorrectly, the chance that a service member will ever receive compensation virtually disappears.
Having a lawyer to oversee a veteran's claim maximizes efficiency, Mailander says. In December the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) began organizing a pro bono network, Lawyers Serving Warriors, to provide counsel to returning soldiers as soon as they leave the military. (The project was officially announced in late June.) The group has trained more than 400 attorneys from 60 firms. Although it has placed only 15 cases, it is preparing to assign another 70.
In addition, lawyers from King & Spalding, Foley & Lardner, and Dewey & LeBoeuf have formed a separate coalition aimed at helping returning soldiers from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other current conflicts. The firms came together in June 2007 through a partnership with another nonprofit, Disabled American Veterans, to provide free legal representation for injured soldiers at Walter Reed.
Other firms have targeted veterans with claims pending from prior wars, some of whom have waited decades for disability benefits. Last fall, attorneys from Covington; Mayer Brown; Howrey; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr were trained by an affiliate of The Bar Association of the City of New York to help Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, which had an existing veterans pro bono program. The firms assisted Womble in representing an initial 60 service people from previous conflicts. About 250 lawyers from 30 firms subsequently joined the effort, and the group continues to place cases, says Carol Bockner, pro bono director for the bar association.
Still, the need for pro bono lawyers far outstrips the supply. Reed Smith counsel Jesse Miller, an Army National Guardsman who represents service personnel returning from Iraq, estimates that only 1 percent of veterans currently have an attorney. With more lawyers signing on to help, he expects this percentage to increase, albeit slowly.
NVLSP director Ron Abrams says that despite the push from firms, widespread resolution of claims will happen only when major changes to the system are implemented. In May 2007 Abrams testified before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs that the VA's work measurement system encourages premature adjudication of claims without proper analysis. The VA provides a reward system that grants points for various actions, leading its employees to remand or dismiss claims rapidly. Abrams testified that the speed correlates inversely with quality. "A manager is happy when the worker denies a claim three times and takes three work credits," he says. "Temporarily you've cut the backlog down, but because there are so many appeals from the premature denials, they come back in some shape or form."
Balancing speed with thoroughness is a constant challenge for a system overwhelmed by claims, says Mailander, who before joining the nonprofit in the mid-nineties held positions as an attorney with the Board of Veterans' Appeals, the Coast Guard Chief Counsel's Office, and the Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel's Office.
"There's a tremendous amount of interest in the pro bono community to help, but there are a million claims," Mailander says. "The lawyers are going to help individuals, but in terms of improving the system overall, I don't think they're really going to make a dent."
For now, outcomes like Galatas's will remain the exception, not the rule.
Injured Iraq War Veterans Sue VA Head
Hope Yen Associated Press Writer July 23, 2007
(AP) - WASHINGTON-Frustrated by delays in health care, a coalition of injured Iraq war veterans is accusing VA Secretary Jim Nicholson of breaking the law by denying them disability pay and mental health treatment.
The class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, filed Monday in federal court in San Francisco, seeks broad change in the agency as it struggles to meet growing demands from veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Suing on behalf of hundreds of thousands of veterans, it charges that the VA has failed warriors on several fronts - from providing prompt disability benefits, to adding staff to reduce wait times for medical care to boosting services for post-traumatic stress disorder. The lawsuit also accuses the VA of deliberately cheating some veterans by allegedly working with the Pentagon to misclassify PTSD claims as pre-existing personality disorders to avoid paying out benefits. The VA and Pentagon have generally denied such charges.
VA spokesman Matt Smith said Monday he could not comment on a pending lawsuit. But he said the agency is committed to meeting the special needs of Iraq war veterans.
"Through outreach efforts, the VA ensures returning Global War on Terror service members have access to the widely recognized quality health care they have earned including services such as prosthetics or mental health care," he said. "VA has also given priority handling to their monetary disability benefit claims."
The lawsuit comes amid intense political and public scrutiny of the VA and Pentagon following reports of shoddy outpatient care of injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and elsewhere.
"Unless systemic and drastic measures are instituted immediately, the costs to these veterans, their families, and our nation will be incalculable, including broken families, a new generation of unemployed and homeless veterans, increases in drug abuse and alcoholism, and crushing burdens on the health care delivery system," the complaint states.
It asks that a federal court order the VA to make immediate improvements that would speed disability payments, ensure fairness in awards and provide more complete access to mental health care.
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in San Francisco issued a strong rebuke of the VA in ordering the agency to pay retroactive benefits to Vietnam War veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and contracted a form of leukemia.
"The performance of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs has contributed substantially to our sense of national shame," the opinion from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals read.
Nicholson abruptly announced last week he would step down by Oct. 1 to return to the private sector. He has repeatedly defended the agency during his 2 1/2-year tenure while acknowledging there was room for improvement.
More recently, following high-profile suicide incidents in which families of veterans say the VA did not provide adequate care, Nicholson pledged to add mental health services and hire more suicide-prevention coordinators.
Some veterans say those measures aren't enough. In the lawsuit, they note that government investigators warned as early as 2002 that the VA needed to fix its backlogged claims system and make other changes.
Yet, the lawsuit says, Nicholson and other officials still insisted on a budget in 2005 that fell $1 billion short, and they made "a mockery of the rule of law" by awarding senior officials $3.8 million in bonuses despite their role in the budget foul-up.
Today, the VA's backlog of disability payments is now between 400,000 and 600,000, with delays of up to 177 days to process an initial claim and an average of 657 days to process an appeal. Several congressional committees and a presidential commission are now studying ways to improve care.
"While steps can and will be taken in the political arena, responsibility for action lies with the agency itself," said Melissa W. Kasnitz, managing attorney for Disability Rights Advocates, in a telephone interview. Her group is teaming up with a major law firm, Morrison & Foerster, to represent the veterans.
"We don't believe the problems will be fixed by the VA if we wait for them," she said. "In the meantime, it is veterans who risk their lives for our country who are suffering the consequences."
The lawsuit cites violations of the Constitution and federal law, which mandates at least two years of health care to injured veterans.
The veterans groups involved in the lawsuit are Veterans for Common Sense in Washington, D.C., which claims 11,500 members, and Veterans United for Truth, based in Santa Barbara, Calif., with 500 members.
Reservist
Fighting His Fifth War Call-up By Amy Driscoll Days after 9/11, as a young Army reservist, he volunteered to go to war. He was soon in Afghanistan. The next year, he was sent
out again, this time to Iraq, part of a Special
being called for a fifth tour.
He thought he was done. But now, the Army wants Sgt. Botta one more time. The 26-year-old Port St. Lucie man has been ordered to report to Fort Jackson, S.C., on July 15 for his fifth deployment. And that has compelled Botta, a first-generation American who counts himself a quiet patriot, to do something he never thought he'd do: sue the Army. ''I'm proud of my service,'' he said. ``I never wanted it to end like this.'' Nearly seven years into his eight-year commitment to the reserves, the personal costs are higher for Botta. He could lose his home. His job at Sikorsky, working on the Black Hawk military helicopter, could be on the line. He's halfway to his electrical engineering degree, planning a career in defense work, but his professors say he'll suffer a significant setback if he is deployed. He doesn't mention the danger another deployment would bring, but his wife and parents do. ''I'm proud of being in the Army,'' he said. ``They taught me responsibility. They taught me maturity. And they gave me a good toolbox of technical skills to work with. I think I'd be more valuable to my country at this point by being here, getting my degree and working at Sikorsky.'' In a lawsuit he expects to file this week in federal court in Florida, Botta says he will ask for an exemption or delay so that he can complete his engineering studies. He will also ask the court to prevent the Army from requiring him to report for duty until the legal questions are settled. His attorney, Mark Waple -- a West Point graduate and former military judge advocate who practices in Fayetteville, N.C. -- says Botta's case shows that the Army is inconsistent in its decisions when selecting reservists for involuntary mobilization, over and over. ''This is an arbitrary decision by the Army Human Resources Command with no rational basis,'' Waple said. THE CONSEQUENCES Deployment now would mean that he could no longer afford his house -- his wife would probably have to move in with her parents. Plans to start a family would be on hold. He would probably have to repeat some engineering courses after his return, and he might even lose the job he just landed about a month ago. Previously, he worked at Pratt & Whitney in the Joint Strike Fighter and Raptor engine programs. ''This is no peace protester,'' Waple said. ``I wouldn't have touched this case with a 10-foot pole if it was. He's put the boots on and been in combat.'' Although Botta knew there was a risk that he would be called to duty again, he assumed that it was very slight, given his four combat deployments, pursuit of an engineering degree and employment with military contractors, he said. ''The world pretty much stopped when I got the notice,'' said Botta, weighing each word. ``I've sacrificed a lot for the military. I didn't want to end with litigation, but I feel I've done my service to my country. I've done what I signed up for in more ways than one.'' The Army doesn't agree. It turned down one appeal, with another pending but unofficially denied. Last year, it granted Botta a 287-day delay, pushing his deployment date to this month, after an inquiry by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. ''This is something we're starting to see more of,'' Bryan Gulley, Nelson's spokesman, said about repeat deployments. ``It's one of the reasons Nelson has been saying we have to stop relying so heavily on the [National] Guard and the Reserve.'' Army spokeswoman Maj. Cheryl Phillips issued a statement Friday regarding Botta's case, saying in part that the Army evaluates ``each request independently to determine if the mobilization will cause undue hardship for the soldier or the family. We appreciate the sacrifice our citizen soldiers and their families make when called to active duty.'' The Army has granted 87 percent of delays requested by soldiers -- most are 90 days or less -- and 54 percent of exemptions, the statement said. It did not comment on Botta's case, but the Army said in a letter sent to him regarding one of his appeals that he did not ``meet the requirements for a hardship exemption/discharge.'' Botta joined the reserves in 2000 and asked to be activated in 2001 -- ''I felt like I had to do something'' after 9/11, he said -- and his tours of duty have lasted up to eight months. He left active duty at the end of 2004. Under his current reporting date, he might not even complete the semester; classes end in August. Attorney Waple says the Army has granted an exemption in at least one similar case, in 2005. A 24-year-old North Carolina enlisted Army reservist with two combat tours under his belt -- in Iraq and Kosovo -- was involuntarily mobilized while attending community college in Raleigh, pursuing a degree in chemical engineering. He had completed five of his eight years in the service, Waple said. The man's first appeal was denied, but after Waple filed a second appeal, he was given an exemption and honorably discharged, Waple said. Botta's case may be even stronger. He has completed more years of service and more combat tours, has a job in the defense industry while pursuing his engineering degree, and was granted a 287-day delay already, Waple noted. Botta has tried hard to avoid a suit, Waple said, filing every appeal available within the Army's justice system. Botta and his wife have sent letters to everyone from Sen. Nelson to the White House. His professors and employers have sent letters, too, on his behalf. ''It's an awkward thing for any serviceman,'' Waple said. ``He has a very strong sense of responsibility and duty to serve.'' In his own letters to the Army, Botta notes that he is attending school on the GI Bill, maintaining a 3.9 grade-point average, and is grateful that he can use his Army skills in his work with military contractors. ''If I was to go back to the Army at this juncture in my life, I could very well lose my house and be in considerable debt for years to come,'' Botta wrote. ``I am proud of the fact that I can still continue to serve my country with the knowledge that I have acquired from the U.S. Army.'' The Army's response during the appeals, Botta said, has been ``minimal communication.'' Carlos Botta, his father, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Argentina, said he applauded his son's military service -- until now. ``He served in Afghanistan. He served three times in Iraq. The odds are getting slimmer and slimmer for him. He might get hurt. Don't you think he has served the country enough already?'' WIFE'S CONCERNS Botta's wife, Jennifer, who married him between Iraq stints, said she can't face the idea of his returning to combat. Losing their house, painful as that would be, is the least of her worries. ''He's been over there four times. There's only so many times you can go over without something happening . . . .'' Her voice trailed off. During his deployments, she said, she would watch television news reports about bombings and then count the hours until he called. ''My cellphone was in my hand 24 hours a day,'' she said. ``I never let it go.'' For Erik Botta, who keeps his hair military-short, the last few months have played out as a struggle between his battle-hardened loyalty to the Army and an abiding sense of what's right. ''We were in a wartime situation,'' he said. ``I did what they asked me to do. I went over and did it. And then when I was leaving, they told me I could leave. They told me to get on with my life, and I did. Now it seems they've changed their mind.'' But he doesn't regret his service -- at all. ``I'm proud to be in the Army, and I'm proud -- cheesy as it might sound -- I'm proud to be an American.'' BigLaw Firms Unite in Pro Bono Effort for Wounded Soldiers By Tresa Baldas Wounded soldiers who allege that the government is downplaying their injuries and cheating them out of benefits have some new legal ammunition: three major law firms offering free legal services. Concerned that injured soldiers are getting a raw deal upon returning home, three firms — Foley & Lardner; Atlanta's King & Spalding; and New York's LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae — have offered to do pro bono work on behalf of veterans who are appealing low disability ratings made by the government. Those ratings dictate how much money injured veterans are entitled to, along with any medical and retirement benefits. According to attorneys, numerous veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have claimed that the military is underrating their injuries, thus shortchanging them of benefits they've earned. Ehren Halse, one of 15 King & Spalding attorneys who has volunteered to help the veterans, said, "it's outrageous to think that these people would suffer in the line of duty and then not be given their disability. "When I first heard these stories, I thought, 'You know what, there's got to be a role for lawyers here,' just to advocate and help these veterans through the process. " Halse, who has spoken with about 10 injured soldiers in the last week, noted that the beauracracy and administrative procedures that involve disability rankings are confusing enough for attorneys, let alone injured soldiers who may not even be aware of their rights. "A lot of the lawyers are coming into this with very little background," Halse said, adding that the firm has a training seminar dealing with disability rankings scheduled for June 20. Elizabeth Sandza, a partner in the Washington office of LeBoeuf Lamb who heads the pro bono program, said that her firm got involved after an associate learned of alleged problems with disability rankings at Walter Reed. "If veterans are not getting what they deserve, that's wrong," Sandza said. "We would like to right that wrong." Steven C Lambert, who chairs the pro bono practice in the Washington office of Foley & Lardner, said his firm runs training seminars to assist the injured veterans scheduled for June 19 and June 25. So far, about 20 attorneys have signed up to help. Lambert expects about 50 people from his office will take part in the pro bono project. Walter Reed, U.S. Army and U.S. Department of Defense officials were unavailable for comment. Discrepancies in the disability rating system came to light about a year ago, when the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), a nonprofit organization that guides injured veterans through the medical evaluation process, started spotting low ratings. The DAV investigation coincided with recent media reports that exposed poor conditions at Walter Reed, sparking a congressional investigation. High demand "The demand for our services has been very high," said Ronald Smith, deputy general counsel for DAV who has handled several disability claims on behalf soldiers. Smith said that to date, he knows of at least 30 cases at Walter Reed in which injured soldiers received substantially low ratings and are appealing their medical evaluations. Among those is Fred Ball, an explosion victim with two children who had a substantial part of his skull blown off in Iraq and a metal fragment embedded in his brain. According to Smith, the military should have given Ball a 100% disability rating, entitling him up to $2,471 a month. Instead, he got a 10% rating, entitling him to $337 a month. He's been declared unfit for duty, but not hurt enough to receive full benefits. "That I find extremely troubling," Smith said. Participating attorneys will focus much of their energies on helping injured soldiers appeal their low disability rankings. They'll appear with the veterans at formal hearings before what is known as the Physical Evaluation Board — the panel that actually gives out the ratings based on a medical evaluation by military doctors. If veterans disagree with the rating, they then request a formal hearing before the board. Some lawyers also plan to appeal the soldiers' cases directly to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, which has jurisdiction over disability ratings appeals. Among the key arguments that lawyers plan to make before the court is that the military is unlawfully operating outside the congressionally mandated Veterans Affairs disability-rating system, which dictates exactly how much soldiers will be compensated for their injuries or diseases. Under the existing guidelines, a 20% or lower rating entitles a veteran to one severance check and no other benefits. Ratings above 30% entitles a veteran and his family with lifetime benefits. School's Out For Gi By David Hafetz
Thomas Kelly joined the New
York Guard for a six-year stint while still at Yorktown HS in
Westchester based on a recruiter's promise that, in exchange, he
would get a state college education tuition-free, said his mother,
Denise Kelly. Under state law, Kelly's free tuition ends when his service does. The Armed Forces has not offered him an extension despite the fact he had to miss an extraordinary amount of school to serve his country during a time of war. He's "s--- out of luck," as one recruiter put it. "My kid is getting screwed," Denise said. "I'm sure he's not the only soldier getting penalized like this. It's a loophole in the law . . . It doesn't make any sense." Thomas joined the Guard in 1999 when he was 17. After graduating high school, he entered boot camp, which he completed in the fall of 2000. In January 2001 he enrolled at SUNY-Oneonta. His plan was to graduate in the fall of this year, but his studies were twice interrupted by calls to duty once by 9/11 and then by deployment to Iraq in May 2004. Kent Kisselbrack, a spokesman for the state's Division of Military and Naval Affairs, said 610 "soldier/students" enrolled in the tuition program last semester at a cost of $631,000 to the military. Kisselbrack said members can rejoin to stay in the tuition program. But Thomas isn't biting. He's "proud to be a soldier" but ready to come home, Denise said. She said her son told her the tuition benefit "was the reason I signed up for the National Guard, and now I'm not even getting that." "It's been one big nightmare," Denise said. "If they're looking for recruits, this is not the way to do it." Thomas already got stuck with a bill for one semester which Denise said runs more than $2,000 because the Guard didn't tell him what form to fill out, his mother said. The loss of the tuition benefit is "another slap in the face," she added. On Sept. 12, 2001, he was sent to help the Police and Fire departments at Ground Zero. Thomas later received a letter of praise from a Guard commander. "Your maturity and your dedication to duty are far beyond your rank," wrote Maj. Gen. Michael Van Patten. "Your exceptional leadership reflects greatly upon yourself, your unit, and the" New York Guard. Denise said her son has gotten caught in at least one ambush. "He doesn't tell me too
much because he's afraid I'll get upset," she said.
A $1 Billion Shortfall in
Veterans' Healthcare Serves By Brad Knickerbocker
But the pride and the bunting are also a reminder that the price
- and cost - of war go on many years after the fighting stops, that
"to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow
and his orphan," as Abraham Lincoln put it, is as much an issue of
national security today as are armored Humvees and Manuel J. Montano receives the Combat Action Badge after beingThe Senate got into a bipartisan snit over funding wounded in Iraq. Thousands of for veterans this week, Republicans and Democrats new vets will require billions of both raising alarms over a $1 billion shortfall for the dollars in services. Department of Veterans Affairs this fiscal year. HARAZ GHANBARI/AP On Wednesday, the Senate approved $1.5 billion in emergency funding for the VA. But the funding issue raises questions about the VA's ability to handle an increased workload as a result of the war. With nearly 240,000 employees, the VA is larger than all other federal departments except the Pentagon. But even before the "war on terrorism" began, it had to scramble in dealing with the needs of 7.5 million enrolled vets, including a large number of homeless - 33 percent of homeless men in the US are veterans. Now, thousands of Iraq war vets are being added to the rolls, including many who have been wounded and will require lifelong care. "Clearly, VA is not ready for this," says Dan Smith, a retired US Army colonel and Vietnam veteran. Since the US-led invasion of Iraq began, an average of 474 US service members a month have been wounded, injured, or become ill in the war zone. As of last week, the Defense Department put the total at 13,074. But the total number of vets who still need help is much larger than that, and it's growing. As of February, VA officials reported, 85,857 of the 360,674 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq who had separated from active duty - 24 percent - had sought healthcare from the VA. This included treatment for both physical injuries and mental health problems. "The bottom line is there is a surge in demand in VA services across the board," Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson told a House panel this week. Earlier this year, Mr. Nicholson told lawmakers the VA had used 2002 estimates when assuming that 23,553 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan would need medical care in 2005. Since then that number has been revised upward more than fourfold to 103,000. Part of the reason is the changing nature of war and the casualties it produces. As helicopters did so prominently in Vietnam, new means of transporting and treating the wounded in Iraq are saving lives. But this also means a higher portion of overall casualties will need extended government benefits. During the wars of the 20th century, the ratio of wounded to killed in action was about 3 to 1. In Iraq that ratio is more than 9 to 1. Another new factor is the relatively large number of women who've been in combat, who now face what some experts think are different kinds of post-traumatic stress disorder - called "soldier's heart" during the Civil War. "I'm no psychologist, but my understanding of the perceptual and psychological differences between men and women suggests the likelihood that PTSD reactions will be different, requiring nuanced treatment for a devastating condition when extensive clinical experience doesn't exist for women," says Colonel Smith, now a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington. "This in itself will add to costs." PTSD for all returning vets - men and women - may be of particular concern because of the nature of a counterinsurgency fought among, and in some cases against, civilians. Another unknown is the long-term effects of exposure to depleted uranium, suspected of causing the "Gulf War Syndrome" ailments experienced by veterans of the 1991 war in Iraq. Thousands of rounds of armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium were used by US and British forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Given that some 26 million Americans have served in the military, support for veterans comes from across the political spectrum. Liberal Senator Patty Murray (D) of Washington and her conservative colleague Larry Craig (R) of Idaho led the charge for more VA funding - the emergency $1.5 billion came at Sen. Murray's bequest. Groups from the American Legion to Vietnam Veterans Against the War have weighed in on the issue. At the same time, says national security analyst Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., "Veterans' benefits are like any other government program - that is, they are a result of politics." For example copayments on prescription drugs are lower through the VA than private health plans and Medicare. Others point to waste and abuse in an agency with a $68 billion annual budget meant to provide services for millions of people. "The Inspector General of the [VA] estimates that program overpayments exceed $800 million per year, mostly because of fraudulent benefit claims," notes a report by the Heritage Foundation. "While the VA is working to reduce these overpayments, significant opportunities remain. In addition, the VA has not been sufficiently diligent in collecting the $3 billion in debt owed to the department by loan program recipients." Since taking office President Bush has hiked spending for veterans' medical care by more than 40 percent. More veterans are enrolled in healthcare services, the waiting time for such care has been shortened, and the backlog of disability claims has been reduced. At the same time, the administration has attempted to reduce costs in certain areas. For example, it tried to double the copayment veterans are charged for prescription drugs (from $7 to $15), and impose a new $250 annual fee for using government health care services. Under pressure from veterans' groups, Congress refused to go along. |
Audio | Interview with Erik Botta
The
mother of a New York National Guardsman serving in Iraq says her son
is being robbed of a college education by a catch in state law.
Veterans
of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be much on the minds of
their countrymen this Independence Day weekend. Marching in town
parades. Lauded in speeches.