Injured veterans engaged in new combat From the Los Angeles Times - November 25, 2008
By David Zucchino
Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb and a
land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a dislocated hip
and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while
diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip
replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries.
In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not
combat-related.
In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's definition of
combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans
thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering outrage from veterans'
advocacy groups.
The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when it passed
a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was
necessary to preserve the "special distinction for those who incur disabilities
while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured
otherwise," William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter
to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.
The group, which has called the policy revision a "shocking level of disrespect
for those who stood in harm's way," is lobbying to have the change rescinded.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the
Pentagon's "more conservative definition" limited benefits for some veterans.
"That was not our intent," Levin said in a statement.
He added: "When the disability is the same, the impact on the service member
should be the same no matter whether the disability was incurred while training
for combat at Ft. Hood or participating in actual combat in Iraq or
Afghanistan."
Pentagon officials argue that benefits should be greater for veterans wounded in
combat than for "members with disabilities incurred in other situations (e.g.,
simulation of war, instrumentality of war, or participation in hazardous duties,
not related to combat)," Carr wrote.
But veterans like Dixon and Meshell said their disabilities were a direct result
of wounds suffered in combat.
Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought the
Pentagon and won a reversal of his noncombat-related designation.
"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?" Dixon
said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."
Meshell, who is appealing her status, estimates she is losing at least $1,200 a
month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone during an enemy mortar
attack, she said, her wounds would be considered combat-related only if she had
been struck by shrapnel.
Meshell said the military had suggested that at least some of her disability was
caused by preexisting joint deterioration. "Before I went over there, I was fine
-- I was perfectly healthy," Meshell said. "This whole thing is causing me a lot
of heartache."
Kerry Baker, associate legislative director of Disabled American Veterans, has
accused the Pentagon of narrowing the definition of combat-related disabilities
to save money. He said the change would reduce payments for tens of thousands of
veterans -- those already wounded and those injured in the future.
"This is going to hurt a lot of people," Baker said. "It's one of those things
that when you first look at it, you think: 'Wow. How can this be?' "
In a letter to members of Congress, the Disabled American Veterans accused the
Pentagon of "mutilating" the statutory definitions of combat-related
disabilities as part of a "deliberate manipulation of the law."
The January legislation was aimed at allowing troops wounded in combat and
combat-related operations to collect disability severance from the military and
disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Disability severance is based on past service. Disability compensation is based
on future loss of earning potential. Previously, veterans with combat-related
disabilities received reduced monthly VA compensation until their severance
money was recouped. That is still the case for those whose injuries are not
deemed combat-related.
Years ago, Congress adopted a detailed definition of combat-related
disabilities. It included such criteria as hazardous service, conditions
simulating war and disability caused by an "instrumentality of war." Those
criteria were not altered in the January legislation.
The Pentagon, in establishing an internal policy based on the legislation, in
March unlawfully stripped those criteria from the legislation, the Disabled
American Veterans said.
"We do not view this as an oversight," Baker testified before Congress in June.
"We view this as an intentional effort to conserve monetary resources at the
expense of disabled veterans."
The Pentagon changes focused on "tip of the spear" fighters, or those "in the
line of duty in a combat zone," said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman. They
comprise "a very special, yet limited, subset of those who matriculate through
the Disability Evaluation System," Lainez wrote in an e-mail response to a
request for comment.
In many cases, veterans say, they are not told why their disabilities are not
considered combat-related.
Dixon said he did not realize he had been put in a noncombat-related category
until he began questioning his disability payments. It took more than six months
of phone calls, letters and appeals -- plus help from the Disabled American
Veterans and a member of Congress -- to overturn his designation.
Navigating the Pentagon's bureaucracy was made more difficult because Dixon's
brain injury resulted in short-term memory loss. He had to write everything down
in notebooks and calendars.
"It was a nightmare," Dixon said. "Most veterans don't know how the system
works, or how to fight it. They don't realize all the obstacles they put in your
way to keep you from getting what you deserve."
Meshell said the military disability system was so complex that few veterans
were equipped to navigate it.
"I'm a college graduate. I'm not a dumb person. But honestly, I can't begin to
explain some of this stuff," she said.
After five years of active duty, a combat tour in Iraq and 12 years in the
National Guard and Reserves, she thinks she deserves the full disability
benefits authorized by Congress for veterans injured in combat.
"I earned them," she said. "I went to Iraq. I was in combat. I got injured."
Zucchino is a Times staff writer.
david.zucchino@latimes.com
You can Comment at Hearlink Blog
Go to Ascension - Solutions
