Veterans for Common Sense

February 10, 2008 – BAGHDAD – A U.S. Army sniper convicted of killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian and planting evidence on his body was sentenced Sunday to 10 years in prison.

Sgt. Evan Vela had faced a possible life sentence. Earlier Sunday, jurors found him guilty of murder without premeditation in the May 11 killing of an Iraqi man south of Baghdad.

Vela was also sentenced to forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and will receive a dishonorable discharge. His case is automatically referred to a military appeals court.

He will be transferred to a U.S. military base in Kuwait, where he will remain until the military decides on a permanent incarceration site in the United States.

Vela had previously been charged with premeditated murder, but that charge was changed during his court-martial in Baghdad. He was also found guilty of making a false official statement and of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

The defendant showed no emotion as the verdict was read. Two of his lawyers leaned over and gave him a light hug over the shoulders before leading him out of the courtroom on a U.S. military base in Baghdad.

Defense lawyers had claimed the killing of Genei Nasir al-Janabi was an accident, brought on by extreme exhaustion and sleep deprivation. But military prosecutors called it a simple case of murder.

“It’s a simple case,” said Capt. Jason Nef, one of two military prosecutors. “The reason is because Vela confessed on the stand that he lied. He confessed he killed an unarmed Iraqi.”

Vela, who is from St. Anthony, Idaho, wept on the witness stand Saturday as he described shooting al-Janabi after the Iraqi civilian stumbled upon a hiding place where Vela and five other Army snipers were sleeping near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad.

‘I don’t remember pulling the trigger’

“I don’t remember pulling the trigger. I don’t remember the sound of the shot,” Vela said in a near whisper, thumbing the hem of his camouflage jacket and looking straight ahead. “It took me a few seconds to realize that the shot came from my pistol.”

He testified that after he shot al-Janabi, he tried to shoot him again because “he was convulsing on the ground and I thought he might be suffering.”

“I just didn’t want him to suffer. It was something I’ve never seen and I got a bit scared,” Vela said. The second shot missed the man.

James Culp, Vela’s attorney, had unsuccessfully argued that Vela was too sleep deprived to know what he was doing.

“This was an accident waiting to happen,” Culp told the jury of seven men and one woman in his closing argument Sunday. “What happened on May 11 is clear: These men were extremely, extremely sleep deprived and nobody was thinking clearly.”

Vela and his sniper team had hiked through rough terrain and slept less than five hours in the 72-hours leading up to the killing, the defense said.

Culp also called two medical experts who testified that Vela was suffering from acute sleep deprivation and exhaustion. They said he later lied about the events in part because he suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome.

Ordered to kill

On Friday, Vela’s commanding officer testified that he ordered Vela to kill al-Janabi, saying that was the only way to ensure the safety of his men in hostile territory.

Sgt. Michael A. Hensley, who was a staff sergeant at the time of the killing but was later demoted, testified that he and the other members of the sniper team had all fallen asleep, then awoke to find al-Janabi squatting about three feet from them.

Hensley said he ordered the man to lie on the ground and was searching him when he saw “military-aged men” who he thought were carrying weapons about 100 yards away.

He said al-Janabi began yelling, and he decided that killing the man was the only way to keep the sniper hide-out from being discovered by what he believed was a group of approaching insurgents.

Hensley, of Candler, N.C., and Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval Jr., of Laredo, Texas have faced similar charges in al-Janabi’s killing as well as two other slayings. They were acquitted of murder but convicted of planting evidence on the dead Iraqis.

Sandoval was sentenced to five months in prison, his rank was reduced to private and his pay was withheld. Hensley was sentenced to 135 days confinement, reduced in rank to sergeant and received a letter of reprimand.

The soldiers were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, based at Fort Richardson, Alaska.

Vela testified at Hensley’s court-martial in late September, under a deal that bars his account of events from being used against him at his own court-martial.

February 8, 2008 – EUREKA, CA (KGO) — A Vietnam veteran escaped the war unharmed, but the financial scars left by his battle with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) over medical bills posed a more serious threat. So, he called for reinforcements and 7 On Your Side’s Michael Finney answered the call for help.

When a surgeon removed a tumor from James Hendryx colon, his fight was just beginning. The VA refused to pay his near $50,000 dollar medical claim. It’s an experience veteran advocates say is not uncommon.

Dr. Luther Cobb removed the tumor from Hendryx’ colon and says “it seemed to be an open and shut case. He clearly needed to have it done.”

20 months after the successful surgery, Hendrix is healthy but battle tested. He was rushed into surgery in March of 2006 at Mad River Community Hospital after becoming anemic and losing two thirds of his blood volume.

The bills from the surgery and the treatment quickly added up. He owed $5,900 dollars for the surgery itself, more than $1,000 a day for his hospital stay, along with various other hospital bills. For that, his total bill came out to around $40,000 dollars. Hendryx submitted his bills to his VA Medical Insurance.

“We sent them the bills and the letters and the doctors and social workers and stuff sent me letters back saying no, this is denied. This is not acceptable by our standards at the VA,” says Hendryx.

To understand why his claim was denied, you have to go back to October of 2005. That’s when his VA doctor sent him to the San Francisco for a colonoscopy. He says the technician suggested he get a sigmoidoscopy instead, because the examination of just the lower part of his colon would be less invasive.

Hendryx’ decision to get a sigmoidoscopy was a costly one. The procedure failed to detect the tumor and it’s also the reason the VA denied his insurance claim.

In its denial letter, the VA wrote: “Patient refused full colonoscopy against the recommendation of our staff, the request for payment is denied.”

Hendryx’ surgeon sits on the Executive Board of the California Medical Association. He says the VA misdiagnosed the case.

“He showed up at their facility and got a test that didn’t make the diagnosis. They didn’t follow it up. They missed the call,” says Cobb.

Hendryx spent the next 20 months after surgery fighting his claim denial.

“We try to pay our bills, and I didn’t have any way of knowing how I was going to pay up to $50,000 thousand dollars in medical bills. I was a little worried. I was afraid of losing everything we had over this,” says Hendryx.

Dr. Cobb says “it’s one of those outrageous insurance stories you just have to see to believe.” He says the denial was all about a budget strapped agency saving money.

Ken Swasey is the Outreach Coordinator at the VA. He says “I would categorically say that’s not how we look at it. First and foremost we have to get the services that veterans need.”

However, others say the influx of new veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has put a strain on the VA.

“Sometimes VA is using cheaper tests and waiting longer to give those tests. In that waiting period, the veterans condition gets worse,” says Paul Sullivan, Veterans for Common Sense.

“I would think there’s some confusion, misunderstanding about the VA’s ability to accommodate, not just returning veterans, but veterans in general. The VA has done incredible efforts to accommodate returning veterans,” says Ken Swasey, Veterans Administration.

Over the next year, Hendryx unsuccessfully tried to get the VA to reverse its decision and pay his claim. 16 months after his successful surgery, his wife contacted 7 On Your Side.

“He’s all I have. He’s my whole life. I live in a wheel chair and I have to depend on him,” says Juanita Hendryx.

We contacted the VA, and within a day, it promised to pay the claim. The bill was covered in full by the VA four months later.

“We got the phone call from 7 On Your Side at which point the case was reviewed,” says Ken Swasey, Veterans Administration.

“I just thank you for everything you guys have done. I couldn’t have done it on my own,” says Hendrx.

The VA says it’s working hard to better educate the private sector how to better guide VA patients through the appeal process. We should also point out that everyone we talked to agreed that medical care of veterans at the VA is generally good. We have a list of places veterans can turn to when they have a problem with the VA below.

February 9, 2008 – President Bush drew great applause during his State of the Union address last month when he called on Congress to allow U.S. troops to transfer their unused education benefits to family members. “Our military families serve our nation, they inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them,” he said.

A week later, however, when Bush submitted his $3.1 trillion federal budget to Congress, he included no funding for such an initiative, which government analysts calculate could cost $1 billion to $2 billion annually.

Bush’s proposal was added to the speech late in the process, administration officials said, after the president decided that he wanted to announce a program that would favor military families. That left little time to vet the idea, develop formal cost estimates or gauge how many people might take advantage of such a program. Some administration officials said the proposal surprised them, and they voiced concerns about how to fund it.

Some critics in Congress cite the episode as a case study of what they consider the slapdash way Bush has put together the legislative program for his final year in office. Still, the idea is generating bipartisan interest from members of Congress who are eager to assist military families coping with long-term absences of loved ones deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have drawn up legislation that would remove restrictions that currently prevent most troops from transferring education benefits to family members.

“It has some merit to it. I don’t have any idea what it costs — that’s been one of the problems in the past,” said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), chairman of the House Budget Committee. “That’s not the only inconsistency or contradiction in his budget by any means. The budget overstates revenues and understates expenditures in a big way.”

A senior White House official said the proposal was suggested to the president by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who got the idea from a military spouse who told him that the Army has a limited program to transfer education benefits. The spouse told Gates, ” ‘Army spouses get this benefit, other branches should, too.’ He brought it to the president and said, ‘I think this is a valid point,’ ” the official said.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Bush liked Gates’s suggestion, which eventually became one sentence in the president’s 53-minute State of the Union speech. “It is a good idea, and we are trying to determine the cost and put together a proposal,” the official said.

Under the current GI Bill, service members are eligible for nearly $40,000 in education benefits, such as college tuition or employment training, after they complete three years of active duty. Nearly 70 percent of active-duty U.S. troops and veterans use at least part of these benefits, which cover three-quarters of the cost of tuition, room, board and fees in a four-year state university, according to Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington, a Pentagon spokesman. U.S. officials concede that the cost would probably soar, with most families making full use of the benefits.

The GI Bill education benefits cost nearly $2 billion in fiscal 2006. Pentagon officials said they are unable to provide a figure for the potential cost of the new proposal, or for other initiatives for military families that Bush proposed in his State of the Union speech.

The president also called for expanded access to child — care for military families and for new preferences for military spouses competing for positions in the federal government. Pentagon officials are working on those proposals as well. They said Bush envisions expanding child care for at least 58,000 military children ages 1 to 12 year-round. The Pentagon already provides care facilities for about 200,000 children.

A third component of the Bush initiative involves opening up more government employment opportunities for military spouses and providing money for training or professional certification so they can more easily find jobs when they move from state to state. A pilot program now provides up to $6,000 over two years to help spouses create such “portable” careers.

The Pentagon is still working out the potential costs, but it reports that about 77 percent of the 675,000 spouses of active-duty troops say they want or need to work and that they might take advantage of such a program.

The Army has a limited program that allows soldiers to transfer some of their education benefits to spouses or children, but it has several restrictions. For instance, only soldiers reenlisting in certain critical skill areas are eligible, and they are allowed to transfer only about half their benefits.

Retired Col. Robert Norton, deputy director for government relations at the Military Officers Association of America, said military families have been “clamoring” for an expansion of the GI Bill in recent years as a critical incentive for troops to stay in the service. He noted that the families endure much hardship and stress while following their spouses around the world or being separated for great lengths of time.

Most U.S. troops who use the GI program use only about half the education benefits, Norton said, and only a tiny percentage use all of their money, so the cost of allowing family members to participate in the program would probably be high. “There is likely to be a pretty hefty price tag,” Norton said. “We think it’s a good thing for military families. We would like to see the details.”

The idea of allowing more troops to extend education benefits to family members has been percolating on Capitol Hill for some time. Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Md.) has been pushing it for years and introduced a bill after Bush’s surprise endorsement. His measure would drop the restrictions on how many benefits can be transferred and would allow members of the reserves and National Guard to participate.

In the Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) has introduced similar legislation. In an interview, she said that she hopes the White House will back her plan. “We ought to be able to get it pretty quickly through,” she said. “It was their idea, and they ought to get credit for it.”

The idea has bipartisan support. “It was a very pleasant surprise coming from an administration that has tried to balance its budgets on the backs of military families,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who is co-sponsoring Bartlett’s bill. “I don’t know where they got the idea, but I am not going to quibble.”

February 9, 2008 – WASHINGTON — A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned.

Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a “significant” risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report.

Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from “moderate” to “significant.” This year, the report will maintain that “significant” risk level _ pointing to the U.S. military’s ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment and bolster partnerships overseas will help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and it is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it.

The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen’s predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace.

On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmed that the assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter.

“The risk has basically stayed consistent, stayed steady,” Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. “It is significant.”

He said the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, with longer rest periods at home. “We continue to build risk with respect to that,” he said.

Other key national security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, as well as the need to replace equipment worn out and destroyed during more than six years of war.

On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by President Bush last year. There, “the threat has receded and al-Qaida … is on the run,” he said. “We’ve reduced risk there. We’ve got more stability there as an example.”

The annual review grades the military’s ability to meet the demands of the nation’s military strategy _ which would include fighting the wars as well as being able to respond to any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China.

The latest review by Mullen covers the military’s status during 2007, but the readiness level has seesawed during the Iraq war. For example, the risk for 2004 was assessed as significant, but it improved to moderate in 2005 and 2006.

Last year, when Pace increased the risk level, a report from Gates accompanying the assessment warned that while the military is working to improve its warfighting capabilities, it “may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels.”

Gates is expected to tell Congress that while the primary goal is to continue to increase the size of the military, it is also critical to step up efforts to work with other nations _ as well as other U.S. agencies _ to bolster fragile governments through economic development and other support.

And it will reflect his drumbeat for the use of more “soft power” to defeat terrorism, which includes the greater use of civilians in areas such as political development, communications and training.

Pentagon leaders argue that nontraditional conflicts _ such as the insurgents and terrorists facing coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan _ will be the main military battlefields for years to come. And defeating them, they say, will require more than military hardware _ or “hard power.”

February 7, 2008 – St. Paul, Minn. — Democrat Steve Sarvi has officially announced his campaign for Congress in Minnesota’s Second District.

Sarvi, a former Watertown, Minn., mayor, made the announcement at the State Capitol Thursday.

He said he wants to make college tuition more affordable and provide middle class tax breaks by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on top earners.

Sarvi, who is a veteran of Kosovo and Iraq, criticized Republican Congressman John Kline for being an ally of President Bush.

“I learned in the Army that when you think you’re off course, you should stop, check your compass and change direction as needed. And after five years without the kind of service and representation that south suburban voters deserve, it’s time to change course,” Sarvi said.

Sarvi said he did not support an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, but he would like to see the Pentagon start working on scenarios that could “start ending America’s involvement in it.”

Minnesota’s Second Congressional District includes the southern metro area and several rural communities south of the Twin Cities.

February 7, 2008 – North Dakota manufacturer has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a suit alleging that it had repeatedly shortchanged the armor in up to 2.2 million helmets for the military, including helmets for the first troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Twelve days before the settlement with the Justice Department was announced, the company, Sioux Manufacturing of Fort Totten, was given a new contract of up to $74 million to make more armor for helmets to replace the old ones, which were made from the late 1980s to last year.

Sioux upgraded its looms in 2006, company executives say, and the government says it has started inspections at the plant.

The U.S. attorney for North Dakota, Drew Wrigley, called the accord “an appropriate resolution” because the Defense Department had said that 200 sample helmets passed ballistic tests and that it “has no information of injuries or deaths due to inadequate PASGT helmet protection.”

PASGT stands for the Personal Armor System for Ground Troops, which includes the helmet model being replaced.

At the core of the investigation was the contention by two former plant managers that Kevlar woven at Sioux failed to meet the government’s “critical” minimum standard of 35 by 35 threads a square inch, or 6.5 square centimeters.

When properly woven, Kevlar, a polymer thread made by DuPont, is stronger than steel, able to deflect shrapnel and some bullets.

Government regulations call for rejecting Kevlar below the 35-by- 35 standard.

The company “was underweaving,” Wrigley said. “That is undebatable.”

The factory’s own inspection records often showed weaves of 34 by 34 threads or as low as 32 by 34 and 33 by 34. Looms were “always set for 34 by 34, always,” said Jeff Kenner, who operated and repaired the looms and oversaw crews on all three shifts.

In a statement, the company president, Carl McKay, denied “any and all of the allegations originally brought to the attention of the Department of Justice by disgruntled ex-employees.”

Settling the case, United States v. Spirit Lake Tribe, filed in U.S. District Court in Fargo, McKay said, was “a prudent business decision” to avoid legal costs and “should not be construed as an admission of wrongdoing.”

The potential harm is difficult to judge. Helmet damage depends on the projectile. Whether a damaged helmet would hold up better with a tighter weave is hard to calculate, experts said.

“You must have a certain amount of protection, and you can’t go below that,” said Gwynedd Thomas, associate professor of ballistics and protective fabrics at Auburn University.

Although the difference between 34 and 35 threads a square inch seems modest, the cumulative loss in layers of fabric is significant, Thomas said. “Every time that you’re losing some mass, you’re losing some integrity,” she said.

The strength comes from crossed yarns, the points that disperse projectile impact. “The fewer crossovers, the less energy dissipation you’re going to have,” she added.

A 34-by-34 weave results in 5 percent fewer crossovers than 35- by-35, a difference Thomas called “quite a lot.”

“I’m surprised somebody is not pursuing that more vigorously from the government,” she added. Were she a soldier’s parent, she said, “I would want to give my son a better helmet.”

The $2 million settlement is far short of what the two former managers, Kenner and Tamra Elshaug, hoped for in 2006 when they filed a whistle-blower suit. The suit, for $159 million in damages, accused the company of defrauding the government and violating safety standards.

“I think they got away with it,” said Kenner, who worked at Sioux for 20 years and was the weaving supervisor.

“Sioux Manufacturing basically got a slap on the wrist,” he said.

“The Justice Department did a really good job, but the Department of Defense is really just downplaying this. They’re embarrassed and want it to go away and would not admit to anybody’s getting hurt or even killed.”

Kenner and Elshaug’s lawyer, Andrew Campanelli, challenged Defense Department contentions that it was unaware of injuries from defective helmets. “There are tons of injuries with shrapnel and bullets going through helmets,” he said. “My clients documented that American soldiers did not get the protection that the government paid for, that the taxpayers paid for.”

February 7, 2008 – Washington, D.C. – On Thursday, the House Committee on Veterans’  Affairs, led by Chairman Bob Filner (D-CA), held a hearing to address the  Administration’s budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs  (VA) for fiscal year 2009.

“The request for veterans’ funding for 2009 is simply not adequate,”  said Chairman Filner.  “Although the request includes a 5.5 percent increase for health care, this increase barely covers the cost of medical inflation and does not keep up with the ever-increasing demand for VA health care.  I believe that no veteran should have to wait for a health care appointment simply because the VA does not have the resources to care for that veteran. 

“The VA must make sure that resources are in place to meet the needs of our servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in the areas of mental health care services and traumatic brain injury care, and that we provide the benefits and services promised to previous generations of veterans.  The service and sacrifice of our veterans is real, and the budget for the VA must provide realistic funding levels to meet these needs – and I’m afraid that the Bush budget for veterans does not make the grade.”  

The Administration request calls for a $2 billion increase for VA medical care, and an overall increase of $1.7 billion for VA discretionary funding.  The budget, released on Monday, increases veterans’ spending in FY 2009 but afterwards calls for slashing veterans’ programs from 2009-2013 by $20 billion below the levels needed to maintain what the VA is doing today.  “I am concerned that this budget proposal contains only modest increases for veterans’ health care while paying for this slight increase with cuts in other veterans’ programs below the historic levels this Congress provided for in this fiscal year,” said the Chairman.  “It is hard for me to believe that the VA is serious about providing the finest health care possible to our veterans when the Bush Administration slashes funding for building new health care facilities and reduces our investment in VA medical and prosthetic research – we need to keep our promises
 to veterans and invest in their futures.” 

For the sixth year in a row, the budget proposal raises health care costs on 1.4 million veterans by proposing an enrollment fee and calling for nearly doubling the amount paid by some veterans for prescription drugs.   “This is simply the Bush Administration’s attempt to raise taxes on veterans and discourage them from seeking the health care they need, and have earned,” said Chairman Filner. 

Filner added, “There are too many uninsured veterans who need medical care and cannot afford it.  I am extremely disappointed that the VA has once again submitted a budget that assumes the continuation of the enrollment ban on Priority 8 veterans – this continued ban on an entire class of veterans is especially egregious when we look at our faltering economy.  We face the very real prospect of more and more of our veterans facing economic hardships and losing access to medical care.”

Panel 1
– Honorable James B. Peake, M.D., Secretary, U.S. Department of
 Veterans Affairs
Accompanied by: The Honorable Michael J. Kussman, MD, MS, MACP, Under
 Secretary for Health, The Honorable Daniel L. Cooper, VADM (Ret.) ,
 Under Secretary for Benefits, The Honorable William F. Tuerk, Under
 Secretary for Memorial Affairs, The Honorable Robert T. Howard, Assistant
 Secretary for Information and Technology, The Honorable Robert J. Henke,
 Assistant Secretary for Management, The Honorable Paul J. Hutter,
 General Counsel

Panel 2
– Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of
 America
– Kerry Baker, Associate National Legislative Director, Disabled
 American Veterans
– Dennis M. Cullinan, Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans
 of Foreign Wars of the United States
– Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director, AMVETS
– Steve Robertson, Director, National Legislative Commission, The
 American Legion
– Rick Weidman, Executive Director of Government Affairs, Vietnam
 Veterans of America

Panel 3
– Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director and Founder, Iraq and Afghanistan
 Veterans of America
– Paul Sullivan, Executive Director, Veterans for Common Sense
– Cheryl Beversdorf, RN MHS MA, President/CEO, National Coalition for
 Homeless Veterans
– Rick Jones, Legislative Director, National Association for Uniformed
 Services

February 7, 2008 – WASHINGTON – The Army’s top doctor, noting the drug overdose death of actor Heath Ledger, said Thursday the military is investigating a series of suspected similar deaths among wounded and injured soldiers.

Lt. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, the Army’s surgeon general, said there has been “a series, a sequence of deaths” in the new, so-called “warrior transition units.” Those are special units set up last year to give sick, injured and war-wounded troops coordinated medical care, financial advice, legal help and other services as they transition toward either a return to uniform or back into civilian life.

Without giving a number, Schoomaker said the deaths among the convalescing troops were “accidental deaths, we believe, often as a consequence of the use of multiple prescription and nonprescription medicines and alcohol.”

“This isn’t restricted to the military, alone, as we all saw the unfortunate death of one of our leading actors recently,” Schoomaker told Pentagon reporters.

The New York medical examiner announced Wednesday that Ledger, the 28-year-old “Brokeback Mountain” star, died Jan. 22 from an accidental overdose — the effects of taking six types of painkillers and sedatives.

Schoomaker said he didn’t know whether the number of overdoses among soldiers was on the rise, but would try to provide statistics as soon as possible. The series of deaths was noticed and is getting attention partly because the new units concentrate the Army’s temporarily disabled and ill into special groups, thus making it possible for leaders to track and tabulate their health issues more closely and carefully than ever before.

“We’re dealing now with a group of wounded, ill or injured soldiers that have available to them through the medical system, a constellation of very potent and potentially lethal drugs (when taken) in the wrong combination,” Schoomaker said.

He said a special team of pharmacists and other military officials will meet within days on the subject.

Officials are working to try to prevent such deaths and “alert the soldiers themselves about what the medications they have may do to them,” Schoomaker said.

‘Safety net’ proposed

Officials want to “put a safety net around those folks who might have either psychological problems or other injuries or illnesses which may make it difficult to manage a constellation of drugs,” he said.

“I don’t believe those are suicides in the conventional sense. I think these are truly accidental deaths,” he said.

Schoomaker brought up the subject of overdoses when asked how he assessed recent preliminary figures indicating a possible rise in Army suicides during 2007.

The figures showed that, as of last month, officials had confirmed 89 suicides last year among active duty and activated National Guard and Reserve — and that another 32 deaths were still under investigation. If all are confirmed, the total of 121 would be nearly a 20 percent increase over 2006.

Soldiers who have killed themselves most commonly have used weapons, not drug overdoses, which accounted for less than 10 percent of suicides in recent years, according to Army figures.

Statistics show accidental overdoses have become a national problem, with the deaths from accidental ingestion of multiple prescription drugs now exceeding deaths from illegal drugs, Schoomaker said.

He was holding a press briefing to talk about the warrior in transition units — three dozen units from which the military now oversees the care of nearly 9,800 outpatient soldiers. That includes nearly 1,400 with battle related injuries and about 8,400 with diseases and non-battle injuries.

Confused with suicides

The Army said approximately 43 percent of them have never been deployed to either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, noting some have been injured in training, deployments to other places and so on.

Schoomaker said the units are part of a fundamental change the Army has made in its medical system since shoddy outpatient housing and bureaucratic delays were exposed last year at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Officials have given greater priority to improving facilities for troops, increasing medical staffing and working with families of disabled soldiers. They have coordinated efforts with the Veterans Administration, for instance reducing by half some of the paperwork needed to get troops their benefits, said Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, assistant Army surgeon general for transition care.

“It’s been about a year since news reports brought to our attention some serious deficiencies in how we support our outpatient wounded, ill and injured warriors and our families,” Schoomaker said. “In a little less that a year, we have made a major revision to our approach to our care of these soldiers and support of their families.”

February 7, 2008 – WASHINGTON (AP) — New Veterans Affairs Secretary James Peake pledged Thursday to trim more than five weeks off the time it now takes to get the first check to a war veteran who files a disability claim.

In his first appearance before Congress since becoming secretary, Peake also sought to assure lawmakers that President Bush’s proposed 2009 VA budget of $91 billion would be sufficient to meet the growing demands of veterans of a protracted Iraq war. The proposal is a 3.7 percent increase from the previous year, but several lawmakers have criticized it as inadequate after factoring in inflation.

Peake wants to reduce wait times from roughly 180 days to 145 days by the start of next year. He cited aggressive efforts to hire staff, noting the VA will have 3,100 new staff by 2009. The VA also is working to get greater online access to Pentagon medical information that he says will allow staff to process claims faster and move toward a system of electronic filing of claims.

Peake promised to “virtually eliminate” the current list of 69,000 veterans who have waited more than 30 days for an appointment to get VA medical care. Such long waits runs counter to department policy, and a group of Iraq war veterans have filed a lawsuit alleging undue delays. He said the VA plans to open 64 new community-based outpatient clinics this year and 51 next year to improve access to health care in rural areas.

“We will take all measures necessary to provide them with timely benefits and services, to give them complete information about the benefits they have earned through their courageous service, and to implement streamlined processes free of bureaucratic red tape,” Peake said in testimony prepared for a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing Thursday.

Peake took over the agency amid criticism the VA was not doing enough to meet the growing needs of war veterans, particularly the thousands returning home injured from Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent months, Bush has released, at the request of Congress, $3.7 billion in emergency money for additional services for injured veterans.

“I am concerned that this budget proposal contains cuts to veterans’ programs,” said Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., who chairs the House panel. “Although the request includes an increase for health care, it does not fully fund the needs of America’s veterans.”

February 7, 2008 – SALEM, Oregon – President Bush says veterans have no legal right to specific types of medical care. The information is coming from documents related to a civil lawsuit filed by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war who claim the government is illegally denying mental health treatment to some troops.

The arguments, filed Wednesday in a San Francisco federal court, “strike at the heart of a lawsuit filed on behalf of veterans that claims the health care system for returning troops provides little recourse when the government rejects their medical claims,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported today.

Justice Department lawyers countered the accusations, claiming that the Veterans Affairs administration is working to increase staffing and screening veterans for combat-related stress.

But that isn’t their main point.

What they really have to say about it is that their agency, and not Congress, will decide which veterans should get health care and they reserve the right to cut people off if they elect to do so internally. They contend that the discretion is purely theirs, not veterans or the courts.

Veterans are fuming over the announcement and over the fact that the commander in chief loves to commend the troops for their efforts while in reality, denying them the most basic rights when it comes to healthcare.

In fact, government lawyers compare some veterans’ desires to attain healthcare to a desire for an “entitlement” and most veterans scoff at the notion that expecting the government to care for the health problems that the government itself created would be viewed as an entitlement rather than as a simple right of decency.

Justice Department lawyers say a federal law that provides five years of care for veterans from the date of their discharge establishes eligibility for a veteran to receive health care, “but it does not create an entitlement to any particular medical service,” government lawyers said.

The lawyers say the law only authorizes veterans “medical care which the secretary (of Veterans Affairs) determines is needed, and only to the extent funds … are available.”

One lawyer represneting these veterans, Gordon Erspamer, says the suit is a proposed class action on behalf of 320,000 to 800,000 veterans or their survivors. He sued the government in July.

“Veterans need to know in this country that the government thinks all their benefits are mere gratuities,” attorney Gordon Erspamer said. “They’re saying it’s completely discretionary, that even if Congress appropriates money for veterans’ health care, we can do anything we want with it.”

The matter will come up again on March 7th at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti. This is the same judge who denied the Bush Administration’s request last month to dismiss the suit.

The case is still up in the air, but the plaintiffs are not hesitating in asking Conti to order the government to provide immediate mental health treatment for veterans who say they are thinking of killing themselves and to spend another $60 million on health care.

In the lawsuit, the VA is accused of arbitrarily denying care and benefits to wounded veterans, of forcing them to wait months for treatment and years for benefits, and of failing to provide fair procedures for appealing decisions against them.

The plaintiffs reference the department’s backlog of over 600,000 disability claims and cited the fact that 120 veterans a week commit suicide.

Conti ruled January 10th that federal law entitles veterans to health care for a specific period after leaving the service. He rejected the government’s argument that it was required to provide only as much care as the VA’s budget allowed in a given year.

A law that President Bush signed last week extended the period from two to five years.

In its latest filing, however, the Justice Department reiterated that Congress had intended “to authorize, but not require, medical care for veterans.”

“This court should not interfere with the political branches’ design, oversight and modification of VA programs,” the government lawyers argued.

They also said the VA “is making great progress in addressing the mental health care needs of combat veterans.” Among other things, they cited a law passed in November that required the department to establish a suicide-prevention program that includes making mental health care available around the clock.

In their own defense, the attorneys for the VA argues that they have hired nearly 3,800 mental health professionals over the last two years and has at least one specialist in post-traumatic stress disorder at each of its medical centers, the government said. They did not comment on the public pressure that has led to those increased numbers.

They say the VA implemented a policy in June stating that all veterans who seek or are referred for mental health care should be screened within 24 hours, that those found to be at risk of suicide should be treated immediately, and that others should be scheduled for full diagnosis and treatment planning within two weeks.

The attorneys also touted a new suicide-prevention hot line that they say has led to “more than 380 rescues.”

But the lawyer for the military veterans who seek healthcare says he was not impressed.

“Nowhere do I see any explanation of what kind of systems they have in place that deal with suicidal veterans,” he said.

“There’s no excuse for not spending the money Congress told them to spend on mental health care and leaving $60 million on the table when people are going out and killing themselves.”

Special thanks to Bob Egelko and the San Francisco Chronicle for information contained in this article.