Friday, April 10 2015 @ 08:51 am PDT
Contributed by: WatchCat
I read this 24 hrs ago and I still can't wrap my head around it. I can only hope that it's a case of policy-in-progress and not a final decision. What possible logic could support this?
The most recent document cited in the article states, "Nowhere in the act, however, does it offer combat benefits for service members permanently disabled in attacks inspired or motivated by foreign terrorist organizations. Although subsequent legislation and guidance may change, currently, the Board has no authority to award V1/V3 (service related) designation to soldiers disabled during the Fort Hood attack."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we provide full benefits to those injured at the Pentagon on 9/11?
Also from the article: It [2012 statement] went on to state Manning’s injuries were not caused by an “instrumentality of war” because Hasan’s “weapon was a private semi-automatic pistol. The army did not issue this weapons to the soldier.”
757s aren't Army-issued either.
I never thought I'd miss 2002 this much. Can somebody please find a presidential candidate who can fix this mess of a government?