I submit again is there any military regulation that precludes giving malingerers general discharges and malcontents dishonorable discharges. It seems to me if they are not remediable that getting them off the payroll should be priority number one? Rotten apples do spoil the barrel and demoralizing behavior can become infectious if not eradicated.

Leaders, perhaps if you focused on the wounded instead of the malingerers you would not be in this mess! It is unthinkable that wounded warrior units would be considered dumping grounds for the non-deployable, and this might very well explain the deplorable treatment given to my wounded warrior. My Marine, a veteran of three combat tours, did complain, on a regular basis, that there were many in his WWBN who had never seen combat. Some were in there for what did seem like ridiculous reasons, but THEY were treated far better than the ones who had the diagnosis of PTSD and TBI. They were model Marines, maybe because they didn’t really have anything wrong and were right where they wanted to be. They followed the ridiculous rules and were used as examples of “good Marine behavior” for the guys that really needed help, who were compared and judged based on the fact that those without TBI's and PTSD could show up for a formation on time...so why couldn't they do it? (Gee, maybe because they have a TBI and a few necessary doctor's appointments.) Resentment runs deep, and there is no tolerance for the combat wounded with PTSD and TBI. It’s ironic that they are the ones that must be labeled as the malingerers and the misfits. I know for a fact that they are the ones being humiliated day in and day out. In most cases, the command climate destroys those who are deserving of being sent to a wounded warrior unit for treatment.

I’ve been fighting an uphill battle for over and year, and have been unable to figure out why NO ONE cared about my Marine’s health. If this is the reason that he has been given care that I would classify as neglectful and abusive, then I believe I now understand the motive and I am furious! My Marine is still breathing, but he is no longer alive. He was destroyed by his own.

You can blame this on the malingers, but I blame those who send them there in the first place. This is a leadership problem. Bottom line, those in command are more worried about their own careers and how quickly they can climb the ladder. They could care less about the reason someone is non-deployable. Whether it be the malingerer or the warrior who served his country honorably, they just stamp them useless and send them somewhere to ensure that they become even more so.

PTSD and mild TBI are signature wounds of this war, but because no one can see them, these wounds are not considered respectable. It is sickening to see everyone rally around someone with a physical injury when the same people (and I am referring to people in the military) will spit on the one who has served multiple deployments on the front lines, watched buddies die, and served despite a brain injury. Not only that, they will do this to a man who was good enough to serve in a special forces unit. We are not talking about someone who is just an 18 year old wanting to put a gun in his hands. If one is good enough for special forces, is he not good enough for treatment for injuries received in combat?

Testing should prove to a qualified doctor whether or not one has a real case of PTSD. If testing proves it, and the doctors are qualified enough to properly diagnose the condition, the malingerers should be easy to spot. Unfortunately, the moment one comes forward with a problem, or gets in a bad situation because of the problem, he is labeled and cast aside with a bunch of pills to make things even worse.

Leadership destroyed my Marine. I believe leadership should be accountable! Who’s going to do something about this before one more feels compelled to take his own life?

Its not easy to fire those unwilling or unable even with plenty of regulations (chapters) used to discharge incapable Soldiers. I had a sergeant go AWOL while on leave from Iraq. He went to Canada and when he finally came back, the command turned down a court martial in favor of a chapter out of the Army. It took months to begin the proceedings; the rear detachment tried to get him ona plane at least 3 times. While that is an extreme example, the real question is when do you stop developing those who cannot or will not do their job? The Army (and taxpayer) has put in a lot of money into training these guys - when do you give up on getting that back? If a guy can recover, why not send him to a 'recovery' unit? That way units going to combat have who you need. Ive taken a completely incompetent guy (E7) to combat because I was told, "there would be no replacement". He was supposed to be an advisor but instead he did the mundane tasks that had to be done. On the other hand, if the guy is a incompetent or a malingerer when is enough, enough?

During both the First and Second World Wars the German Army had ‘Penal Battalions’ which offenders, malcontents, and malingers were placed for a period of time or until they were killed. They were given the foulest, dirtiest, most dangerous jobs available and in fact some penal units responded by straightening themselves out so well that they earned a place back in the regular battle line which in Russia must have been just like just a different room in hell. One wonders if in our PC society which is individualistic and litigious whether real military discipline is even possible. Some incorrigible are immune even to excellent leadership and I would think that placing them in penal units would be an option if sacking them was not as a result of red tape and limp wrists.

If in fact this is de rigueur for the Army, and to a lesser degree the Corps, it would be obviously the rank and file know all about it. I wonder how many are concealing injuries, specifically those in the brotherhood of the infantry, both physical and emotional in order to avoid being stigmatized alongside those that have dubious reasons to be in the wounded warrior program.

How many are continuing to deploy at less than 100 percent of their capacity with each deployment taking a further toll on their bodies and minds? And all because they see a program set up for them, but see and hear it isn't exclusively for them as it should be, and can’t bear the idea of seeking help from it.

"Men were made for war. Without it they wandered greyly about, getting under the feet of the women, who where trying to organize the truly important things in life."

People are not sent to WTU's because they are malingerers. They are sent to WTU's because they have medical conditions that are likely not up to retention standards. If a malingerer, without medical conditions, is sent the WTU, that is a leadership failure. Show me one person in the WTU who does not have a medical condition that is not cause for referral into the disability evaluation system. We have ignorant outsiders labeling them as malingerers or misfits because they can’t see and appreciate, let alone understand, invisible wounds and illnesses. Even if a service member suffers from non compensable disabilities, they still require fitness assessment; a function that can only be done by a physical evaluation board after a complete and thorough medical evaluation board. That takes time, especially when rework is required because well established standards were not followed. You can’t boot individuals because they fail your personal and subjective standards. This is especially true when they came into service already verified by the military as meeting entrance standards. We have UCMJ and chapter procedures for true malingerers. If the individual has a medical condition they must be evaluated as the manifestations of the condition can lead to a false perception of malingering by the uneducated.

Michael Parker
LTC, USA (Retired)
Wounded Warrior Advocate

First, I am not an advocate of sending malcontents to WTUs. They should not be there and it is a unit responsiblity to rehabilitate malcontents. TYRTAIOS is absolutely correct about guys hiding injury to stay with their units. One of my Soldiers lost a leg in combat and when released from Walter Reed only wanted to return to the troop. Another, who had ongoing care and an open chest wound, just wanted to be with his squad. Both were lucky and were able to work in my troop doing admin stuff. The unit took care of them but this was in 2007, before the WTU was available in our area. Maybe the right answer is that the Army keeps the wounded Soldiers with their units but at the same time provides able Soldiers to fill those positions on the line. When the unit deploys, the rear detachment is comprised of these Soldiers. This means technically overstrength units but the Army is dealing with that on a larger level anyway. It will also divert the command's attention from training for the next deployment, but really, how much? Worth discussion?

By trying to use a program beyond the limits of what it was intended for, the army has created this problem and in the process given WTU a bad name. There is no one size fits all solution to handling people who are currently incapable of doing their jobs. The needs of someone who'd been wounded are distinct from someone who's nondeployable because of chronic knee pain or noncombat-related psychiatric issues. The challenge for the army is to recognize this and do something contrary to institutional culture which is to customize programs for the needs of those assigned.

I actually believed what the leadership in the unit was selling me, at first....for several months, until I began to realize that they were not following through with any of their promises and then sazkove kancelare I began to catch them in bold faced lies. If I had not been so trusting, assuming that these men were made of the same caliber as the officers I work with, I would have caught onto the problem much earlier. If they had not been so sure that I would go away, they may have handled things a bit differently.