A Question

[purple]

I don't intend for this topic to become an argument. Just something I've been wondering for a very long time and want to get the opinion of others.

I know a vet who is receiving benefits at the 100% SC rate because this vet was in a severe vehicle accident while on duty. So far so good right? Here's the problem. This vet was drunk on duty. This vet's injuries were so severe that he was in a coma for weeks and has permanent brain injuries. He has admitted to several ppl (including me) that he crashed the military vehicle he was driving because he was drunk.

I don't believe he should be receiving benefits.

Thoughts?

[carlie]

My 2 tour RVN buddy, left for Vietnam a mere kid.

He came back a heroin addict.

When he got back he applied for SC for a foot problem

and a nervous condition. They approved his foot

problem SC at zero percent, they denied his nervous condition

as drug addiction, willful misconduct.

He's no longer a drugger but is diagnosed with PTSD

not SC'd yet.

In my opinion VA should have paid him SC compensation

for becomming a heroin addict, he has gone through hell.

The law said he had to go to Vietnam and he came back a heroin addict.

jmho,

carlie

[purple]

I do know this vet personally, I see him several times a year and I know how his brain injury has affected his life. He is my best friends husband. He is the Godfather of my children. So, yes....I do know him well.

I know he has admitted that he knows he was wrong.

I have views about alcohol and drug abuse that would piss off most people. I lived with an alcoholic, abusive husband for 7 years. I don't believe for a minute that alcohol and/or drug abuse is a "disease". I believe it's a choice...a bad choice. That's my belief.

[rentalguy1]

I believe that it starts off as a really bad choice, but then morphs into a disease. It is hard for even a strong willed person to get off booze when addicted to them. The body becomes physically (chemically) dependent upon the alcohol, and renders the user almost powerless to do anything about it. Not making excuses for a abusive drunk, merely stating the pathology of alcoholism.

For the vet friend; unless you see evidence of current, willful fraud, it's not worth the energy it takes to worry about it. If you see a vet that walks into a convenience store for something, and then see the same vet later at a C&P who is playing the part of a invalid (as was posted here some time ago), then get upset. It isn't worth the energy that you've put into worrying yourself about this guy.

[Ron II]

My 2 tour RVN buddy, left for Vietnam a mere kid.

He came back a heroin addict.

When he got back he applied for SC for a foot problem

and a nervous condition. They approved his foot

problem SC at zero percent, they denied his nervous condition

as drug addiction, willful misconduct.

He's no longer a drugger but is diagnosed with PTSD

not SC'd yet.

In my opinion VA should have paid him SC compensation

for becomming a heroin addict, he has gone through hell.

The law said he had to go to Vietnam and he came back a heroin addict.

jmho,

carlie

For once I have to respectfully disagree with you. Millions of young men (approximately 2.1M) were told they had to go to Vietnam. I was one of them. (And yes, there were some women there as well). I knew many drug abusers during my year there and heroin was the drug of choice for some of them. Mine happened to be alcohol.

None of the soldiers with whom I served in Vietnam were traumatized; they just chose to use drugs. It is an activity prohibited by the U.S. Manual for Courts Martial and the U.S Code of

Military Justice. Participating in that activity is considered "misconduct."

When I went to Germany the first time, in 1972, the barracks to which I was assigned looked like a billows with all the hashish smoke come out of it. The activity of those soldiers was considered misconduct, regardless of one's personal attitude toward soft drugs.

Drugs were in a lot of places, not just Vietnam and all of the military personnel assigned to those locations were "told" to go there. (i.e., ordered). Many of the people who decide to get off drugs suffer withdrawal symtoms and many suffer domestic and social consequences as well. Unfortunately, those problems were caused by misconduct.

Ron

[Commander Bob]

Pride, shame, the brag could be a defensive cover up. Who knows? With what you presented here, all things considered and giving your child's Godfather the VA's benefit of the doubt rule. I would go with Carlie on this one. Self-medication. [purple,

Let it go. There is also no way to know if this vet was

self-medicating with alcohol.

jmho,

carlie ]

Bob 92-93

[Pete53]

When I served in 1968-70 half the post were alcoholics and the other half were dopers. Even though their performances were usually outstanding by Army standards. I guess my point is that although this Veteran may have been impaired I still think that he deserves the benefits.

I know that when I served the families and the soldiers gave up a lot of freedom and in most cases cost them dearly. In 1968 I started out at 93 bucks a month plus 40 bucks for my wife and a free 10,000 life insurance policy.

If you give the VA a reason to deny a claim they will do it.

So I agree br grateful that your friends husband is being helped his service earned the benefits. And where would she be if the benefits were denied?