PDA

View Full Version : Military Denied Benefits to Surviving Son


SOFcentric
17 April 2008, 12:45
Hard to believe that the rules haven't been changed by now!

A good number of us know someone on active duty right now who has multiple brothers/sisters serving at the same time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Denied Benefits to Surviving Son
By GARANCE BURKE,
Posted: 2008-04-17 12:26:22
Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News

FRESNO, Calif. (April 17) - 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.

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.

It wasn't until Hubbard petitioned his local congressman that he was able to restore some of his benefits.

Now that congressman, Rep. Devin Nunes, plans to join three other lawmakers in introducing 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.

"I felt as if in some ways I was being punished for leaving even though it was under these difficult circumstances," Hubbard told The Associated Press. "The situation that happened to me is not a one-time thing. It's going to happen to other people, and to have a law in place is going to ease their tragedy in some way."

Hubbard, 33, and his youngest brother, Nathan, enlisted while they were still grieving for their brother, Marine Lance Cpl. Jared Hubbard, who was 22 when he was killed in a 2004 bomb explosion in Ramadi.

At their request, the pair were assigned to the same unit, the 3rd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii, and deployed to Iraq the next year.

In August, 21-year-old Cpl. Nathan died when his Black Hawk helicopter crashed near Kirkuk. Jason was part of the team assigned to remove his comrades' bodies from the wreckage.

Hubbard accompanied his little brother's body on a military aircraft to Kuwait, then on to California. He kept steady during Nathan's burial at Clovis Cemetery, standing in dress uniform between his younger brothers' graves as hundreds sobbed in the heat.

But Hubbard broke his silence when he found his wife, pregnant with their second child, had been cut off from the transitional health care the family needed to ease back to civilian life after he was discharged in October.

"This is a man who asked for nothing and gave a lot," said Nunes, R-Calif., who represents Hubbard's hometown of Clovis, a city of 90,000 next to Fresno. "Jason is one person who obviously has suffered tremendously and has given the ultimate sacrifice. One person is too many to have this happen to."

Hubbard went to Nunes, who began advocating for the former soldier in December, after hearing the Army was demanding that he repay $6,000 from his enlistment bonus and was denying him up to $40,000 in educational benefits under the GI bill.

After speaking with Army Secretary Pete Geren, Nunes got the repayment waived, and a military health policy restored for Hubbard's wife.

But the policy mandated that she be treated at a nearby base, and doctors at the Lemoore Naval Air Station warned that the 45-mile trip could put her and the fetus in danger. Hubbard said doctors offered alternative treatment at a hospital five hours away.

Meantime, Hubbard and his two-year-old son went without any coverage for a few months.

The Hubbard Act, scheduled to be introduced Wednesday, would for the first time detail the rights of sole survivors, and extend to them a number of benefits already offered to other soldiers honorably discharged from military service.

The bill - co-sponsored by Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. - would waive payback of their enlistment bonuses, allow them to participate in G.I. educational programs, give them separation pay and access to transitional health care.

Meanwhile, Hubbard, his wife Linnea and his son Elijah, have permanent health coverage now that he is once again working as a Fresno County sheriff's deputy, the job he left in 2004 to serve in Iraq.

The Army will adopt to any changes in policy springing from the legislation, said Army spokesman Maj. Nathan Banks.

"Foremost the Army itself sympathizes with him for the loss of his brothers," Banks said. "We will do everything within our means to rectify this issue. He is still one of ours."

Hubbard's father, Jeff, said that resolving the family's bureaucratic difficulties would provide some comfort, but would not help lessen their pain.

"We're still very much deeply involved in a grieving process. We're pretty whacked," he said. "This doesn't relate back to the loss of our boys, it can't, but we would consider it a positive accomplishment."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Tracy
17 April 2008, 13:20
...The Army will adopt to any changes in policy springing from the legislation, said Army spokesman Maj. Nathan Banks.

"Foremost the Army itself sympathizes with him for the loss of his brothers," Banks said. "We will do everything within our means to rectify this issue. He is still one of ours."...

That's why it took legislation and elected officials to intervene on Hubbard's behalf. I really, really, despise people and organizations that spout this type of rhetoric. You'd think the "Fighting Sullivans" from WW2 would have been a clue.

RetPara
17 April 2008, 14:24
If we had really learned from the Sullivan Brothers we would NEVER allow spouses in the same battalion, let alone company. Its only a matter of time before a married service couple, deployed at the same time, die in the same battle or within a short space of time leaving war orphans. When that happens the hue and cry will be even louder than after the Sullivans or the Nilands.

RedDawg_03
17 April 2008, 14:35
"Foremost the Army itself sympathizes with him for the loss of his brothers," Banks said. "We will do everything within our means to rectify this issue. He is still one of ours."



I hope the right thing is done by this troop.

BigNickT
17 April 2008, 17:48
Simply going by the article it seems to me that the Army is being painted as the villian, and I'm not sure that's fair.

Siblings aren't required to serve in a combat zone at the same time. One of them can request non-combatant duties out of harm's way. Thes brothers volunteered to serve together. So the "Sullivan's" argument doesn't really apply except in the sense that I personally don't think siblings should be given the option to serve ion combat at the same time.

When I got out of the service my "transitional benefits" consisted of a 3 day class and an offer of Cobra health coverage to the tune of $800 a month. I don't know what the military offers as a standard transitional package presently, but the article paints the picture that this soldier lost both of his brothers and was then kicked to the curb.

Why would the Army try to take back his enlistment bonus and deny the GI Bill? Only if he didn't finish his enlistment. Was it a compassionate discharge? Sounds like it. So the Army is treating this soldier according to policy. If he had chosen to finish his enlistment he could have taken the "sole survivor" option and stayed out of danger.

If the policy is fucked up then change the policy. Don't make it look like the military singled this guy out for a screwing.

I applaud Spc. Hubbard's service and his family's sacrifice.

Tax out

Johan
17 April 2008, 17:55
I hear his Father speak on radio this morning while driving.

What Father mention is that on his discharge documents, it is hand written that he is to be given all normal compensation- health care for Soldier and Family, education benefit, etc.

But at some later point of process, this hand writing is not respected by some other office persons.

Father was very supportive of US Army, says he consider it to be bureaucratic mistake, makes point to tell reporter during interview that his Family is in no way angry with US Army.

After he lose 2 Son in battle- Father is a great man.

Regards,

TPD1280
17 April 2008, 20:54
Military rules forced Jason Hubbard out of the service after both his brothers died in Iraq.

From the tone of the article, it would appear that staying in was not an option he had.

If the Army made the decision for him to be discharged, he should incur no penalty.

He met all of the obligations on his half of the contract, the Army is the party that wants out.

Thank you Spc Hubbard for your service and your sacrifice.

BigNickT
17 April 2008, 21:26
If the Army made the decision for him to be discharged, he should incur no penalty.

I agree absolutely. I'm just not sure that he was forced to end his service. I don't know what the Army's policy is in that regard, but I never heard of anyone being forced out because they had lost family members.

Also, if as Johan says, the father views it as a admin screwup then it really isn't all that newsworthy, and there doesn't need to be a new law to ensure that people in Spc. Hubbard's position get " a number of benefits already offered to other soldiers honorably discharged from military service." It seems to me that sole survivors being discharged do get the same benefits as other soldiers, and this was a snafu that is not the norm.

The article makes it sound like DOD has a policy to strip sole survivors of their benefits. Thus requiring a new law to make sure the Army pays up. I find that very doubtful.

Tax out

BigNickT
17 April 2008, 21:37
I went looking just because I'm interested, and found this.

The present law provides a peacetime exemption for anyone whose parent or sibling was killed in action, died in line of duty, or died later as a result of disease or injury incurred in line of duty while serving in the armed forces of the United States.

Also included are those whose parent or sibling is in a captured or missing status as a result of service in the armed forces during any period of time. This is known as the "surviving son or brother" provision. A man does not have to be the only surviving son in order to qualify; if there are four sons in a family and one dies in the line of duty, the remaining three would qualify for surviving son or brother status under the present law.

The surviving son or brother provision is applicable only in peacetime. It does not apply in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress.

The original law, passed in 1948, exempted the sole surviving son of a family where one or more sons or daughters died as a result of military service. No restriction existed at that time to limit the exemption to peacetime. The provision was intended to protect families which had lost a member in World War II.

In 1964, recognizing that sons of World War II veterans were reaching draft age, Congress changed the law to include the sole surviving son of a family where the father, or one or more sons or daughters, died as a result of military service. At this time the peacetime-only restriction was also added to the law.

A further change was made in 1971, expanding the exemption to any son, not necessarily the sole surviving son, of a family where the father, brother or sister died as a result of military service. This provision was recently expanded to include mothers.


Military Discharges
In addition to peace-time draft deferrment, the Department of Defense authorizes discharges for any son or daughter in a family in which the father or mother or one or more sons or daughters:

Have been killed in action or have died when serving in the U.S. Armed Forces from wounds, accident, or disease.

Are in a captured or missing-in-action status.

Have a permanent 100 percent Service-related disability (including 100 percent mental disability), as determined by the Veterans' Administration or one of the Military Services, and are not gainfully employed because of the disability.

Under the provisions of DOD Directive 1315.15, this is a voluntary separation procedure which must be initiated by the service member. It does not apply during times of War or National Emergency declared by Congress.

This was from:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/a/solesurviving.htm

I also went to the Selective Service website and they have the same thing in less detail.

This certainly doesn't mean that Big Army didn't tell Spc. Hubbard that they'd really rather he got out, but that's not the official policy.

Tax out

Mephisto
17 April 2008, 22:35
Why couldn't the Army have kept him in and made him non-deployable?

I saw plenty of career senior enlisted in the military who'd been non-deployable since they were E-5's.

Anyway I think since the legislation is on the table they should add that states should pay a war bonus to their soldiers like they used to and force them to cover masters degrees from books to tuition for those who use up their GI Bill and want to go further and can except for lack of $$$.

I just got done writing a BIG check to the Feds, and the State.If they are going to force me to participate in their Marxist redistribution of wealth schemes I'd like people who deserve my hard earned money to get it rather than it go to another raise for worthless politicians.

Mrswildweasel
18 April 2008, 19:59
MA does pay a servicemember a Welcome Home bonus.

ussfpa
19 April 2008, 13:44
There has got to be more to this story...
There is no reason for him to not be able to finish his enlistment in the comfort of the US of A. My bet is he CHOSE to leave the service. He CHOSE to join up and deploy until his brother was (unfortunately) killed and then decided this wasn't for him and he wanted out the fastest way possible. He saw an out, he took it.
There is no reason for him to KEEP his enlistment bonus for an obligation he failed to fulfill. Same with his GI Bill / educational / or any other benefits.

My opinion only...

PA

JRB11
19 April 2008, 14:07
Make that BROTHERS. I don't know why he got out, but I wouldn't surmise it was because he suddenly realized "it wasn't for him". This family, a mom and dad, lost 2 sons in Iraq. Damn thats sad.