The Service Member's Guide to Deployment...

Obama to unveil strategy for slimmed-down military

2012-01-05T10:58:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Obama is putting his personal stamp on a rejiggered Pentagon strategy for absorbing hundreds of billions of dollars in defense budget cuts, marking a turning point in U.S. security policy after a decade of war.

Obama planned to make a rare appearance in the Pentagon press briefing room Thursday to announce results of a strategy review that he ordered last spring. The aim was twofold: Streamline the military in an era of tighter budgets and reassess defense priorities in light of China's rise and other global changes.

Obama's decision to announce the results himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense savings. The administration says smaller Pentagon budgets are a must but will not come at the cost of sapping the strength of a military in transition, even as it gets smaller.

In a presidential election year, the strategy gives Obama a rhetorical tool to defend his Pentagon budget-cutting choices. Republican contenders for the White House already have criticized Obama on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defense, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.

Obama also wants the new strategy to represent a pivot point in his stewardship of defense policy, which has been burdened throughout his presidency by the wars he inherited and their drag on resources.

The revamped strategy, to be outlined at a news conference also attended by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs chairman, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, is not expected to radically alter defense priorities. It may set the stage, however, for expected cutbacks in Europe and big weapons programs.

It also will move the U.S. further from its longstanding goal of being able to successfully fight two major regional wars — like the 1991 Gulf War to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait or a prospective ground war in Korea — at the same time. This takes into account a bigger focus on immediate threats like cyber warfare and terrorism.

The administration and Congress already are trimming defense spending to reflect the closeout of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The massive $662 billion defense budget planned for next year is $27 billion less than Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Wednesday that Obama was closely involved in the defense strategy review, meeting six times since September with top defense officials, including Panetta and Dempsey. Vietor said the review established priorities to ensure that defense spending cuts are "surgical."

As for Obama's decision to make a personal appearance at the Pentagon, Vietor said, "It's a sign of how personally engaged he is in this process and the level of importance he puts in shaping our priorities for the next decade."

Factors guiding the Obama administration's approach to reducing the defense budget are not limited to war-fighting strategy. They also include judgments about how to contain the growing cost of military health care, pay and retirement benefits. The administration is expected to form a commission to study the issue of retirement benefits, possibly led by a prominent retired military officer.

The administration is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which Obama will submit to Congress next month. The strategy to be announced by Panetta and Dempsey is meant to accommodate about $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming 10 years, as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. An additional $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013.

A prominent theme of the Pentagon's new strategy is expected to be what Panetta has called a renewed commitment to security in the Asia-Pacific region.

On a trip to Asia last fall, Panetta made clear that the region will be central to American security strategy.

"Today we are at a turning point after a decade of war," Panetta said in Japan. Al-Qaeda is among a range of concerns that will keep the military busy, but as a traditional Pacific power the United States needs to build a wider and deeper network of alliances and partnerships in that region, he said.

"Most importantly, we have the opportunity to strengthen our presence in the Pacific — and we will," he said.

The administration is not anticipating military conflict in Asia, but Panetta believes the U.S. got so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 that it missed chances to improve its position in other regions.

China is a particular worry because of its economic dynamism and rapid defense buildup. A more immediate concern is Iran, not only for its threats to disrupt the flow of international oil but also for its nuclear ambitions.

Looming large over the defense budget debate is the prospect of reducing spending on nuclear weapons.

Thomas Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, believes the U.S. nuclear program can cut $45 billion over the coming decade without weakening the force. He estimates that reducing the U.S. strategic nuclear submarine force from 12 subs to eight could save $27 billion over 10 years. A further $18 billion could be saved by delaying the building of a new fleet of nuclear-capable bomber aircraft, he says.

Taken from Usatoday

Scientists say Pentagon misleads on dust study

2011-07-06T21:53:00.000-04:00

The Pentagon is falsely claiming its research shows that airborne dust in Iraq and Afghanistan poses no health risk to U.S. troops, say three scientists whose review of that research found it riddled with mistakes.

Military officials then falsely said the review of their research backed their conclusion that the dust in the two war zones is no different from that in California, scientists Philip Hopke, Mark Utell and Anthony Wexler say.

The scientists, who issued their report last year for the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences, were part of a team that reviewed a 2008 study at the request of the Pentagon. The earlier report, which was conducted for the military by the Nevada-based Desert Research Institute, made a series of incorrect conclusions and used faulty research methods, the 2010 study showed.

It is simply not true that research supports the Pentagon's claim that Middle Eastern dust is similar to that in the United States or that it poses no health risks, says Hopke, a Clarkson University scientist who conducted the National Research Council study.

"It's a bit disappointing when they know that, realistically, the data does not support that conclusion," he says.

Both studies were conducted to better understand risks as the number of U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and developed mysterious and severe respiratory conditions skyrocketed after their service. Since the start of the wars in 2003 and 2001, neurological disorders per 10,000 active-duty servicemembers have risen by 251%, while respiratory issues jumped by 47%, according to a USA TODAY analysis of military morbidity records from 2001 to 2010.

In a series of interviews and written memos in recent months, Pentagon health officials have claimed that the 2008 study found nothing wrong with the dust from the Middle East. "It is not noticeably different from samples collected in the Sahara Desert and desert regions in the U.S. and China," Craig Postlewaite, head of the Pentagon Force Protection and Readiness Office, told USA TODAY for a May story.

That USA TODAY report, Postlewaite and other Pentagon officials later said, "attempts to form a 'cause and effect' relationship" but there is "no evidence on which to base such a relationship."

In a blog on the Defense Department's website, Navy Capt. Patrick Laraby cited the NRC study directly: "After an exhaustive review, the NRC was unable to identify any health risks and indicated that they would need more data to determine whether there were any risks," Laraby wrote.

Utell, a professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine who headed the National Research Council study, said it's incorrect for the Pentagon to claim the council's research found "no adverse health effects."

Instead, he said, the 2010 study found there could be negative health effects from the dust and that the 2008 research was so flawed "that they wouldn't be able to determine that with their study."

Utell, Hopke and Wexler, of the University of California-Davis, say their study found that the military's research in the 2008 report was flawed from the beginning, and the council made no statement that the dust is safe or similar to that back home.

In fact, they said the Army's research was so "ill-founded" that it couldn't be used to determine anything other than that the fine particulate matter levels in the Middle East far exceeded recommended World Health Organization levels.

Postlewaite did not respond directly to questions about how he and others represented the two studies. Instead, he said the council praises the military's "ability to carry out such a large-scale exposure-monitoring study in the midst of a military operation."

Utell agreed that the military took on a big task that could lead to better surveillance, but he and Wexler said military medical command were told even before they began the 2008 study that it was faulty.

"It is troubling that they did not take the scientists' recommendations to heart," Utell said.

Wexler said these kinds of studies have been performed before, so researchers should have known that the sampling equipment they used would be overwhelmed by sandstorms, that samples should not be kept in plastic containers in a hot environment because they could become contaminated, and that samples should be taken every third day - as has been the EPA standard since 1997 - rather than every sixth day.

"It's not like it's rocket science," Wexler said.

He said the researchers used "inappropriate" methods to test for metals, and that when they did perform analyses correctly, they did not release the results.

"It was just weird," Wexler said. "Were there people in the military trying to cover up and get away with something? Who knows. It could also be the best they could do with the resources they have."

Johann Engelbrecht, the Desert Research Institute scientist who led the 2008 study, called the council report "probably a fair judgment" and said he planned to use its recommendations for his upcoming report. That report is being paid for by a $1.2 million earmark put in the defense budget by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

DRI, Engelbrecht said, is independent and was not pressured by the military.

Reuniting with family after a combat deployment

2011-05-03T16:33:00.002-04:00

It has been said that it can take anywhere between 6 and 18 months to fully recover back to "normalcy" after a combat deployment. I can tell you that the relationships you maintained and possibly improved upon will shorten that time. For many the first emotion felt after coming home from a combat deployment may be surprising to some. Things to look for upon a service member's return from a combat deployment and how to react are as follows.

1. The returning Service Member may have moments of isolation.
2. They may also have high emotions.
3. You as the family member should listen but do not react to the service member's possible expressions of anger.
4. However, you should never accept emotional or physical abuse.

It has been said that war is hell! However with proper planning you as well as your family and other relationships will survive. It is very important to take your time and expect a readjustment period. You have been gone away from home for a very long time. This absence is only compounded if you have small children. When I left home my son was 9 months old and upon my return he was nearly 3 years old. I saw a tremendous growth. There was an adjustment that we both made. Even though you may not notice, you as well as your loved ones have changed in many ways. Take it slow and seek help if needed from your local family support center or religious/spiritual advisor. Do not let your marriage become a casualty of war.

Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL)

2011-04-17T04:44:00.002-04:00

One would be amazed at just how many hats an Adjutant wears in the course of any given day. One such hat I wore on several occasions was that of an Investigator. I would investigate all sorts of interesting things that included the investigations of solders accused of disrespecting a Non Commission Officer (NCO), another case involved the cause of death of a service member which required me to make a recommendation as to rather or not his death was in the “line of duty”. However, the most tedious types of investigations I have been appointed to investigation dealt with the loss of government property by service personnel.

It is mind boggling to know that every year tens of thousands if not millions of dollars worth of property go unaccounted for in military inventories. I have found that the typical situation involves poor accountability of government property and rarely does it involved theft of government property. However someone will have to pay for the lost, misplaced or damaged property and typically it is the person who signed for the property.

I would advice any service member, be they a Commander or Private, to ensure they accurately keep accountability of all property they are signed for. And while it may be time consuming and tedious, ensure that if you loan out property that you are signed for, ensure that the person who takes the property from you signs for the property. You want to always ensure the property is signed for down to the user level. NO EXCEPTIONS!

If you find yourself the target of a Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss or “FLIPL” remember some important basic points. First, if you have properly kept accurate records of all property you are responsible for, you will have little to worry about. This includes ensuring your hand receipts are up to date and all property is sub-hand receipted down to the user level. NO EXCEPTIONS!

You will generally have 30 days to contest the findings of the FLIPL investigator and even given the opportunity to speak with an attorney. After the 35th day has passed, the recommendation of the findings and recommendations of the FLIPL Investigator will go to the approving authority for action which may include recoupment of all or a portion of the value of what has been lost.

When taking the loss value of the property into consideration, the FLIPL Investigating Officer can reduce the amount of loss via the concept known as deprecation. There are formulas use to do this, however, one such formula will allow for the reduction of lost property value due to depreciation by up to 25%.

One final point to remember is that in most cases, the actual amount of loss to be recovered from the “Respondent” is limited by their base pay. So for example, if “Respondent” losses 2 million dollars worth of property, the most they would have to pay would be up to one month of their base pay and for the average service member that would be less then $4,500.00 per month.

For more information on the role of the FLIPL Investigator and what to expect if you are a “target” of an investigation check out the Department of the Army Pamphlet 735-5, "Financial Liability Officer’s Guide" at: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/p735_5.pdf

Life Insurance

2011-04-10T21:59:00.002-04:00

Life Insurance is a very important and valuable benefit for service members. At the time I wrote my book, The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed., service members who died while on active duty received up to $400,000 and under certain situations could receive even more money. Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance or SGLI is life insurance policy the covers service members who die or are killed. The money is paid directly to the named beneficiary or beneficiaries upon the death of the service member. This money could also be used to fund a Trust. The trustee would then carry out the wishes of the deceased service member. Additionally, there are other monies paid to the family upon the death of a service member in combat. I discuss those benefits in greater detail in my book.

It is very important that as a service member you review your SGLI policy to include beneficiary information for changes or necessary modifications. A thorough review of your insurance policy is a must and should be done yearly regardless of your deployment status. You need to review your beneficiary information just in case something unfortunate happens to you the service member. You want to make certain that the person receiving the death benefit actually is the intended recipient or beneficiary. You certainly want to ensure your intended beneficiary is provided for if you are killed while serving your country.

I know of several cases where because the service member did not update their SGLI policy, an ex-spouse or someone other then the intended beneficiary received the insurance money. In situations like that, there is little the intended beneficiary can do, especially without court intervention. Even then, the intended beneficiary has very little to adequately show they were the intended beneficiary. Think of it this way, if it were that easy to contest the named beneficiary, courts would be tied up more then they are already with cases of folks trying to overturn what the court assumes is the “will” of the deceased. If you find yourself in a situation like that, contact an attorney immediately to discuss all of your possible options.

Earn money with ACN

2011-04-05T15:04:00.000-04:00

To my fellow deployed service members, check out this site!

ACN

Military database shows increasing Afghan civilian deaths

2011-03-10T17:50:00.000-05:00

Casualty data released Thursday by the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan paint a month-by-month picture of an increasingly deadly war there for civilians.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led military coalition in Afghanistan has released its internal database of civilian casualties. In this visualization of the data, monthly casualties rise above the region of Afghanistan in which they occurred, from January 2009 to December 2010. Over this period, 2537 civilians were killed, and 5594 were wounded, with weaponry and perpetrator coded by color.

The International Security Assistance Force "CIVCAS" database provided to the journal Science, suggests insurgents, largely through bombs and executions, caused 80% of the 2,537 civilians deaths over the last two years in Afghanistan. The CIVCAS totals of civilian deaths are about half those of a yearly United Nations estimate released Wednesday, but the trend of increasing insurgent killings is consistent.

The Afghanistan war, "has become a counter-insurgency, where civilian casualties are the only game in town," says Science reporter John Bohannon, a molecular biologist who "embedded" with the CIVCAS team in Afghanistan last year. "If you can't get those down, you are never going to win the war."

ISAF began keeping the database's civilian death numbers in 2007, but only in the last two years has it systematically tracked civilian deaths by incident type, such airstrike or assassination. "We acknowledge that there are likely additional civilian casualties that we cannot track, but the trends between all organizations are very similar," says Colette Murphy, a U.S. naval officer with ISAF Public Affairs, attributing differences with UN and human rights group estimates of Afghan civilian deaths to methodology differences, primarily in use of media reports of casualties. "All point to the Taliban as causing the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties."

The release in Science magazine, agreed to after months of negotiations with ISAF, should help outside researchers analyze the conflict. An analysis of the CIVCAS data prepared by the magazine in collaboration with six outside experts finds:

•Civilian deaths increased 19% in 2010, with summer months and the Southern provinces around Kandahar the deadliest. The UN data shows a 15% jump.

•Airstrikes were the largest source of military-caused civilians deaths, 136 over the last two years, but they dropped 11% in 2010. UN numbers are much higher, 171 deaths in 2010 alone, but that was a 50% drop in air attack deaths from the previous year.

•Improvised explosives killed the most civilians, 777 men, women and children last year, with the Taliban increasing their use in the face of last year's U.S.-led military offensive that doubled troop numbers to 140,000.

"Clearly there has been an effort to address civilian casualties caused by ISAF, but this is only a snapshot," says economist Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway University of London, one of the casualty number analysts. The CIVCAS numbers nearly match data made public last summer in Wikileaks documents, he and others note. Science has made the database and its methodology available on its website. "ISAF has shown a greater willingness to be transparent in releasing monthly regional-level data," Spagat says. "An even greater degree of openness would be to release the incident-by-incident data."

Bohannon acknowledges that ISAF likely released the data because military officials view the story it tells as favorable for them. "(But) what is important is getting the data out," he says, to help public health researchers and analysts gain a more clear picture of the situation facing Afghan civilians.

Casualties in time and space. The seasonal rhythms and shifting battlefields of the war emerge in this view of the 8131 Afghan civilians killed or injured over the past two years, recorded in a military database called CIVCAS. (No data were available for the first 5 months of 2010 in the Southwest region.)CAPTIONGeorge Michael Browe

Although they have roughly similar populations, civilians deaths in the war in Iraq (roughly 100,000 deaths over the course of the conflict by one estimate) have outnumbered those in Afghanistan, which lacks the same crowded cities. "However, as the Taliban shifts its strategy to attacking Afghan government-related targets, which include school teachers and health workers, then it is inevitable that the trend in deaths among non-military personnel will rise," says Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, who has published estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths. "While much of Afghanistan does not overtly support the Taliban, the tolerance for deaths caused by the Taliban is greater than that for death of civilians by ISAF," he adds, by email.

From USAToday

Troops may remain in Afghanistan thru 2014

2011-03-07T11:30:00.000-05:00

It sounds like the administration is starting the process of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan this summer, but when that process ends is anyone's guess.

The U.S., its allies and the Afghanistan government have agreed to end combat operations in 2014, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today that a residual force may stay beyond that date to help train Afghan forces.

"Obviously it would be a small fraction of the presence that we have today, but I think we're willing to do that," Gates told U.S. troops during a surprise visit to Bagram air field. "My sense is, they (Afghan officials) are interested in having us do that."

It should be noted that the U.S. still has troops in Europe and Japan, more than six decades after the end of World War II.

Gates made the trip so that he can assess his recommendation of how many troops to pull out of Afghanistan starting in July, a Pentagon statement said.

When President Obama announced the deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in December of 2009, he also said he would begin the process of withdrawal in July 2011.

That moment is fast approaching.

In his remarks at Bagram, Gates encouraged the troops.

"I know you've had a tough winter, and it's going to be a tougher spring and summer, but you've made a lot of headway," Gates said. "I think you've proven, with your Afghan partners, that this thing is going to work and that we'll be able to prevail."

From USAToday

The demobilization station

2011-02-25T17:13:00.000-05:00

Arrival at your demobilization station may bring mixed emotions. On the one hand you are very excited about going home to see loved ones yet on the other hand you may be a little curious as to the changes made in everyone's life as well as the changes that you have made during your deployment. I will never forget the words of another survive member, SGT Lakesha S. McNeil from Mississippi, prior to departing for my first deployment. She indicated that no mater who you are, you will certainly be affected by your combat deployment experience. If I ever run into SGT McNeil in the future, I will let her know that she was right.

Upon my arrival at Ft McCoy Wisconsin, my demobilization station, I was eager to get my demobilization process underway. Service members returning from a combat deployment must undergo thorough records checks and medical evaluations to ensure, not only their records are in order but their mind and body are well and prepared to be reintroduced to civilian life.

I found this process to be very well organized and easily navigable. The process of demobilization consist of several stations. In my case, I was considered and Individual Redeployer. That meant that I did not have to navigate the demobilization process with a large unit. Instead, I was able to just slide in where I could get in! Expecting to spend as much as a week or more at the demobilization station, I spent less then 3 days. I have heard of horror stories of service members spending weeks at their respective demobilization stations. Often times the reason is being considered a "medical holdover". Among the stations that each service member must process and clear consist of the following.

1. Audiology
2. Record Review
3. Chaplain
4. Legal
5. Dental
6. Retention
7. Medical
8. LODs
9. ACAP
10. Finance
11. DD214
12. ID Card
13. QA Survey
14. Final SRC Checkout

No matter how much preparation one does in preparing to deploy, I am amazed how important things get missed. For example as I processed through the ID Card station, I learned that I was never coded as someone serving on "Contingency Operations" duty. In a nut shell, that meant that if someone in the future had questioned if I had ever served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, much less served in Kuwait, they could have denied certain benefits that are only available to those who serve under that coding. They certainly would have required me to jump through more hoops to prove I was eligible for certain benefits.

I have some very important advice for those National Guard and Reservist out there. If you have built up Leave days, it is imperative that you depart theater in enough time so that you do not lose those days. Unless you fall into a certain category such as having served in Iraq or Afghanistan with the hopes of taking advantage of the Post Mobilization Respite Absence or PMRA.

PMRA is a program designed to offer benefits to those service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan without taking their required time off with the family. If for example a Reservist or National Guard service member serves two consecutive tours in those countries, they would be offered additional non-chargeable leave days. They would not lose those days even if they did not have available days to take them. Instead what would happen is that upon reaching their demobilization station, their orders would be extended giving them the opportunity to take their leave without the loss of their benefits and entitlements.

If you arrive at your demobilization station with more leave days then you have left on your orders, you could end up losing certain benefits that you would not have lost if you had enough days on your orders to cover those days. The best way to illustrate my point is to consider the following. Service Member "A" departs Kuwait with 10 days left on his orders but has 30 days of leave built up. Upon arriving at the demobilization station, he would be able to use up to 10 days of transitional leave and be required to sell back the remaining 20 days.

Why is that important you might ask? Well when Service Member "A" sells back his 20 leave days, he will lose his "day for day" credit for his retirement calculation thus cause a possible reduction in retirement benefits. Additionally he will lose his housing allowance which can be calculated at over $2,000 per month for some service members.

Now consider Service Member "B". She departs Qatar with 35 days left on her order but has 30 days of chargeable leave. Upon arrival at her demobilization station, she would be able to take her entire 30 days of leave plus earn her day for day credit for retirement purposes. In addition she would also continue receiving her housing allowance. Service Member "B" is a much happier and wealthier service member.

However, you can avoid the paroles of Service Member "A" by just ensuring you depart theater with enough time to utilize all of your earned chargeable leave. There are exceptions to this such as obtaining a letter from an O6 in your chain of command. However, you must plan ahead. Remember YOU are the only one that is responsible for your career!

It can not be stressed too much, it is very important that you keep accurate records of your file and ensure your file is correct and updated! Without over exaggerating, I have gone through no less then 4 Soldier Readiness Processes or SRPs prior to mobilization in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, during my demobilization phase after my two years of active duty, it was discovered that my records were not coded correctly and not giving me credit for serving in contingency operations. So in fact there was not a record of me serving in a war zone. How could this happen you might ask? Well I will respond by saying what the fine young woman told me as I past through her "ID Card" section; "If it is not THEIR records, no one cares." In other words, you are the best custodian of your career and records. No one else will put as much time and effort into ensuring your files are up to date as you!

Battle Stress

2011-02-19T19:59:00.000-05:00

Whether you wear a medal on you chest or just courage in your heart, the effects of war are real. Service members should never be ashamed to seek mental health counseling. There is no shame in recognizing that you are having problems dealing with the effects of your combat deployment. In fact, it is honorable and shows a great deal of courage for you to seek out and get the treatment you need to succeed. In the past seeking mental health counselling may have affected your ability to obtain or keep a security clearance or even certain jobs in the military. Recently the have been changes on security clearance application procedures. You are now allowed to check the "no" block when asked if you have any mental health issues as long as you are seeking and undergoing treatment with a mental health provider.

As l look back over the two years I spent deployed to the Iraq war theater of operations, I am amazed at the many experience I have had. I have held positions that helped service members return home for much needed Rest and Recuperation as the Deputy Chief of USARCENT's R&R Program. The R&R program, with nearly a billion dollar per year budget, did just that. I also on a more relevant note to this book held the position of S1/Adjutant. However for me by the end of my deployment I learned that the truly most important thing in life was the connection you have with family and friends. Family is and will always be the most important thing in my life. Remember when you serve, your entire family serves with you. When you are under stress so is your family. It took a combat deployment for some to realize this fact.

If you are suffer from stress associated to your deployment contact your base mental health provider or the Veterans Administration. They are well equipped to assist you as you navigate on your road to recovery and mental health bliss.

Report: 35% of warrior-unit soldiers face addiction

2011-01-25T17:14:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Medical officials estimate that 25% to 35% of about 10,000 ailing soldiers assigned to special wounded-care companies or battalions are addicted or dependent on drugs — particularly prescription narcotic pain relievers, according to an Army inspector general's report made public Tuesday.

The report also found that these formations known as Warrior Transition Units — created after the Walter Reed Army Hospital scandal in 2007 as a means of improving care for wounded troops — have become costly way stations where ill, injured or wounded soldiers wait more than a year to receive a medical discharge.

The newly appointed commander of the warrior units, Col. Darryl Williams, criticized the report's assertions about drug addiction. He said the high rate of drug addiction and dependency cited in the report was based on estimates made by case managers and nurses working with troops and are not statisticaly valid.

"It kind of caught me by surprise," says Williams, who has asked his inspectors to see of the numbers are accurate. He says most of the report's recommendations for change will be in place by summer.

""This report shows that there continue to be soldiers falling through the cracks of the Army's efforts to care for their wounded, ill, and injured," says Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a senior member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committe who was briefed on the report because of her work to improve health care for troops. "It illustrates that soldiers are waiting too long for routine examinations, that many (warrior units) have not been provided the uniform guidance they need, that access to mental health professionals is too often scarce and that too many soldiers are abusing drugs as they struggle to recover both mentally and physically."

Most case managers and nurses interviewed by investigators said 25% to 35% of soldiers in warrior units "are over-medicated, abuse prescriptions and have access to illegal drugs."

They said most soldiers arrive in the units with narcotics provided by battlefield doctors or military bases. They also said a few soldiers under their care are buying narcotics out of pocket and may be mixing legal and illegal drugs.

About three out of four soldiers in the warrior units either leave the Army or active duty.

After nine years of war, the Army medical-discharge process has become a bureaucratic backlog where nearly 7,800 soldiers from across the Army wait for their cases to be reviewed. That's nearly a 50% increase since 2007, according to the investigation.

The "process is complex, disjointed and hard to understand," the report says.

For the high-care warrior units, it means many of their soldiers wait more than a year for a medical release from the Army, the report says.

"Medical resources (are) tied up for soldiers who will not be returning to the fight," investigators say.

Murray says "too often soldiers are finding themselves stuck (in warrior units). This is unacceptable."

The warrior units were created across the Army in June 2007 in response to media reports that the processing of wounded and ill soldiers at Walter Reed was poorly managed. The warrior units — where many ill, injured or wounded troops are temporarily assigned — have nurses, case managers and squad leaders to guide each soldier through the health system.

Only about 10% of the soldiers in these units are wounded in combat. The rest are there for injuries, illness or mental health issues.

The report says most people "generally" feel the units are the best place in the Army to heal up.

Other issues raised in the report:
•The Army does not have the resources to "appropriately treat drug dependence or abusers."
•The Army doesn't have enough doctors to review requests for medical discharges.
• A growing number soldiers returning to duty from the warrior units may have unresolved medical problems — such as mental health or brain injury issues — from past deployments.

Reprinted from USAToday

More Army Guard, Reserve soldiers committing suicide...

2011-01-20T07:40:00.000-05:00

An increase in suicides among National Guard soldiers largely in states across the Midwest — such as Missouri and Wisconsin — is responsible for a 24% increase in Army suicides last year, the service reported Wednesday.

Missouri and Texas each reported seven suicides among their National Guard troops in 2010, Wisconsin had six, and there were five each in the National Guard units of Minnesota, Ohio, Arizona, California and North Carolina.

Soldiers, both active duty and on inactive status, died by suicide at the rate of 25 per month in 2010, Army figures show.

"All of us are stunned by it, and we wished we knew why," says Army Lt. Col. Jackie Guthrie of the Wisconsin National Guard. "It is especially hard when it's suicide, when it's someone hurting in our ranks."

USA TODAY reported in November that suicides had doubled among National Guard soldiers who were on inactive duty in a year when the Army was seeing a slight decline among active-duty soldier suicides.

The Army released final year-end statistics Wednesday. There were 301 confirmed or suspected soldier suicides in 2010, including those on active duty and reservists or National Guard troops on an inactive status, the Army reported Wednesday. This compares with 242 in 2009.

The Marine Corps reported a decline in suicides from 52 in 2009 to 46 confirmed or suspected cases in 2010.

Among active-duty Army soldiers, there were 156 potential suicides in 2010, down slightly from 162 in 2009.

Among National Guard soldiers on inactive status in 2010, there were 101 confirmed or suspected suicides, more than double the 48 deaths among Guard members on inactive duty in 2009.

Suicides among National Guard troops in Missouri and Wisconsin not only outnumbered such deaths in previous years but were also far more than combat deaths for these units during any year since 2001, says Guthrie and Maj. Tammy Spicer of the Missouri National Guard. As an example, the largest number of Missouri National Guard members killed in combat was three in 2006, less than half the seven suicides in 2010.

Members of the National Guard or Army Reserve who are on inactive duty are civilians much of the time, wearing a uniform only to drill one weekend a month and two full weeks a year.

Army leaders said Wednesday that more must be done to monitor and keep tabs on troops, and section leaders should checking in with them more frequently.

"We recognize we must be even more aggressive," says Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army's vice chief of staff.

Chiarelli says programs designed to help soldiers deal better with stress, make it easier for them to seek substance-abuse treatment and obtain marriage and family counseling are helping prevent suicides among active-duty troops.

Reprinted from USAToday

'Stop loss' bonuses go unpaid to 35,000 soldiers

2011-01-17T10:22:00.000-05:00

The Army is struggling to find about 35,000 soldiers, most of them veterans now, who are owed bonuses because they were forced to remain in the military beyond their normal enlistment.
The government authorized the "special pay" in 2009 following criticism from some troops and Congress who said the "stop loss" policy that extended enlistments amounted to a "back door draft." Most of the troops fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Veterans groups have faulted the Pentagon for not being able to locate the troops.
"In this economy, I haven't met a single stop-loss veteran who can't use this money for their family or school," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

The Army has paid $245 million in bonuses for 84,000 soldiers since the law passed, said Army Maj. Roy Whitley, who is managing Army efforts to provide the special pay.

The Army has yet to pay up to $160 million to 57,000 current or former soldiers, or to families of those who have died or were killed while on stop-loss. That includes 22,000 requests that are currently under review and about 35,000 people the Army cannot yet locate.

The Army used stop-loss extensively to maintain troop levels as fighting in Iraq ramped up. Other services also used the program, but less frequently.

There are about 15,000 unpaid cases among other services, the Pentagon says.

The military has ended the practice of stop-loss.

Congress passed a law in 2009 to compensate the troops with retroactive bonuses of $500 for every month served beyond enlistment. The average payout is about $3,800.

The Pentagon is barred from using the Internal Revenue Service or other government data to track the troops, IRS spokesman Eric Smith said.

Many servicemembers are young people who may be in college or have moved from the address that the military has for them.

The law requires servicemembers to apply for the special pay. Congress has extended a deadline for people to apply for bonuses to March 4. The Pentagon urges anyone owed money to get more information at www.defense.gov/stoploss.

The Army has used direct mail, worked with the Department of Veterans Affairs and veteran organizations and placed notices in the media. Another plan is to reach out to new GI Bill recipients and see if any of them are owed the bonuses.

Navy Cross recipient Scott Montoya, 41, said he was stop-lossed for several months in 2003 while fighting in Iraq and has yet to be paid.

The former Marine Corps reserve sergeant, who received the second-highest combat valor award for rescuing wounded civilians and Marines while under fire in Baghdad on April 8, 2003, said he received mail alerting him to the bonus last year and responded. But he has received no reply.

The Marine Corps confirmed that Montoya may be owed a stop-loss bonus and is looking into it.

For the months he says he was on stop-loss in 2003 a bonus could amount to several thousand dollars.

"Oh God, that would be helpful," he said.

Reprinted from USAToday

Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI)

2011-01-03T11:47:00.001-05:00

Life Insurance is a very important and valuable benefit for service members. At the time I wrote my book, The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed., service members who died while on active duty received up to $400,000 and under certain situations could receive even more money. Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance or SGLI is life insurance policy the covers service members who die or are killed. The money is paid directly to the named beneficiary or beneficiaries upon the death of the service member. This money could also be used to fund a Trust. The trustee would then carry out the wishes of the deceased service member. Additionally, there are other monies paid to the family upon the death of a service member in combat. I discuss those benefits in greater detail in my book.

It is very important that as a service member you review your SGLI policy to include beneficiary information for changes or necessary modifications. A thorough review of your insurance policy is a must and should be done yearly regardless of your deployment status. You need to review your beneficiary information just in case something unfortunate happens to you the service member. You want to make certain that the person receiving the death benefit actually is the intended recipient or beneficiary. You certainly want to ensure your intended beneficiary is provided for if you are killed while serving your country.

I know of several cases where because the service member did not update their SGLI policy, an ex-spouse or someone other then the intended beneficiary received the insurance money. In situations like that, there is little the intended beneficiary can do, especially without court intervention. Even then, the intended beneficiary has very little to adequately show they were the intended beneficiary. Think of it this way, if it were that easy to contest the named beneficiary, courts would be tied up more then they are already with cases of folks trying to overturn what the court assumes is the “will” of the deceased. If you find yourself in a situation like that, contact an attorney immediately to discuss all of your possible options.

Selecting a deployment friendly bank

2010-12-22T12:33:00.002-05:00

One of the most important decision a service member can make prior to deployment is the selection of a financial institution. Selecting a good financial institution is very important as there are many things to consider relating to financial transaction during your deployment. Some things to consider include, ease of use, the ability to make wire transfer and accessing your bank account online just to name a few things.

It is important that you shop around for a financial institution that knows how the military functions and if possible provides benefits for servicemembers at reduced cost. There are quite a few such financial institutions out there. In my book I give examples of what to look for in selecting a financial institution to handle not only your financial matters and transactions but other money matters as well. These may include personal and property insurance as well as investing and setting up a brokerage account.

You will be certain to find ways to save money after reading the section of my book titled Selecting a Financial Institution. I will also give you my top pick!

The Importance of a Good Family Care Plan

2010-12-20T17:09:00.000-05:00

The sequence of events on September 11, 2001 changed America forever. On this day, The United States of America lost its innocence. The land of the free was no longer as free as it once was. Open and free travel no longer seemed as open and free following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Subsequently, America soon found itself at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of service members needed to adequately fight this war was tremendous. The number of service members on active duty was not enough to engage in effective combat. As such, the burden to pick up the slack fell upon the Reserve and National Guard forces of our military. Not in recent memory has there been a greater number of service members deployed conus or oconus. From a military development standpoint, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provoked the number of deployments to grow substantially. Since September 11, 2001, over 1.7 million service members have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Operation Enduring Freedom’s military focus is on securing the nation of Afghanistan, while as its name suggest, Operation Iraqi Freedom is concerned with securing the nation of Iraq. In addition to the service members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service members were deployed to Kuwait and Qatar in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, tens of thousands service members were deployed in support of contingency operations around the world.

So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.

There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.

One of the first things a service member should do prior to deployment is review and/or implement a current family care plan. Your family care plan should be reviewed certainly, if you are being deployed, but also at least once a year regardless of deployment status. It is said that “the strength of the Family is the strength of the Soldier is the strength of the Military is the strength of the Nation!” So it logically follows that caring and providing for the families of service member alleviates many of the stresses related to deployment and combat. This in turn leads to the strong national defense of the United States of America.

The very first responsibility of a service member scheduled for deployment is to inform the family and start making a plan. While I would not say it is easier deploying without having a family, it certainly is challenging if you are a deployed service member with a family. Regardless, if you have children or not, you should have some form of a Family Care Plan in place.

In my book, I go into great detail explaining what a Family Care Plan is and how to set up a good Family Care Plan.

Study: Soldiers use extreme methods to meet military weight rules

2010-12-07T05:10:00.002-05:00

Soldiers are dangerously starving themselves, gobbling diet pills and laxatives — even resorting to costly liposuction surgery — all to meet the Army's weight standards and avoid losing their careers, according to military personnel who spoke to Army Times.

Health experts say the number of soldiers using extreme weight-loss methods may closely resemble results of a recent study by two officers attending the Naval Post Graduate School. The study found that nearly one in three Marines have gone to such measures to lose weight. The Army doesn't keep data on the likely numbers of soldiers taking these risks, but dozens of soldiers responded to a question from Army Times, many saying they use starvation, dehydration, pills or laxatives, and some have used — or are considering using — liposuction.

Additionally, more than a third of men in uniform do not meet height and weight standards, according to a separate 2009 report.

"Liposuction saved my career — laxatives and starvation before an (Army Physical Fitness Test) sustains my career," a soldier told Army Times in an e-mail. "I for one can attest that soldiers are using liposuction, laxatives and starvation to meet height and weight standards. I did, do and still do," wrote the soldier, a medium helicopter repairer.

"Six years ago, I spent $4,500 on liposuction while on (permanent change of station) leave. As a crewmember, our mission is to keep those aircraft in the air, and time for PT is not available," he wrote. "I was blessed with a very slow metabolism and an insatiable appetite."

Soldiers know they will face the dreaded "tape" if they exceed height/weight standards. The tape measurements are used to determine body fat percentage, with limits set by age group and gender.

Soldiers are afraid of those limits, knowing that if they cross that line they won't be promotable. Further, they cannot be assigned to leadership positions and they are not authorized to attend professional military schools. Their career is over if they don't make satisfactory weight loss in two months — typically six to 16 pounds.

The danger to careers is real.

About 24,000 soldiers were discharged between 1992 and 2007 for failure to comply with weight standards outlined in Army Regulation 600-9, according to the 2009 Military Services Fitness Database report, which was published in the journal Military Medicine. In comparison, the Army discharged less than a tenth of that number — 2,342 soldiers — for failing the physical fitness test between 1999 and 2007.

To save their careers, some soldiers turn to excessive, unnatural and unhealthy measures.

Extent of practice not known

With 35% of male soldiers failing the weight standards, and 6% of men and women exceeding body fat standards, according to the 2009 report, how many of them will turn to extreme solutions is hard to say, as empirical data on this practice does not exist — a fact bemoaned by the medical experts interviewed by Army Times.

"I don't think we have a clear understanding how widespread this problem is," said Col. George Dilly, Medical Command's chief dietician and a consultant to the Army surgeon general. "Soldiers are hiding the fact they are doing this because they don't want the problem exposed."

Dilly said the typical scenario is well known. As a soldier approaches his semi-annual weigh-in, he may use diuretics and laxatives to reduce fluid and lower his weight. But this can be a deadly decision, Dilly said, because it causes dehydration, and the loss of essential electrolytes can lead to cardiac arrest. Worse yet, this approach has no effect on the individual's body fat.

"This is not a long-term strategy," he said. "In fact, it's a very dangerous short-term strategy."

Second Lt. Lane Stover knows this all too well. The 5-foot-4-inch quartermaster said she went to extreme measures to keep the weight off.

"When I ate more than I thought I should, I would purge, and punish myself by heading to the gym or out on a late-night run," she said in an e-mail to Army Times. "I would often take laxatives, in excess of the prescribed amount, and knew exactly how long it would take for them to go into effect. It was a disgusting and dangerous practice that I thought would help me.

Stover said she entered therapy and went to support groups to fix her problem, but said one problem remains.

"My behaviors aren't the only problem. The Army's weight standard is," she said. "Until the Army takes a closer look at the weight regulations and methods for determining body fat, soldiers will resort to extreme measures to ensure they are within their weight requirements."

Alejandra Lewis said she had taken laxatives and starved herself "a couple of times" in preparation for the PT test. She said the problem was not her weight, but the way the Army measures body fat.

"Every person has a different shape of body; not everyone is the same," she wrote to Army Times. "When I joined the military I went down 80 pounds starving myself and (using) laxatives. I had to do it because even though I had met weight, I have thick thighs. The tape measure said I was over, so I had to lose even more weight just to meet the standards. They need to change it because it isn't fair."

The fact that soldiers are taking these steps is no secret in the cosmetic-surgery community.

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Melissa Gash, based at Fort Riley, Kan., said she recently saw a poster for liposuction at the post gym.

"The bottom of the poster clearly states that advertisement does not mean endorsement, but the fact that material like that is even allowed on post, and more specifically where soldiers go to get fit, is inappropriate," she said. "It gives the soldier the false impression that liposuction should even be an option. Americans are all about fast results and immediate gratification. Whatever happened to working hard to accomplish a goal and feeling the satisfaction after earning what you set your sights on?"

But military health professionals say troops should not believe all the hype — and should be aware of the risks involved.

"We want soldiers to look right," said Dr. Thomas Williams, a retired colonel who heads the Army Physical Fitness Research Institute. "But they also need to feel right and perform right, and you can't get that from a pill or a procedure."

Reprinted from USAToday
By Lance M. Bacon, Army Times

Presents ready for troops, but need postage

2010-11-30T05:32:00.001-05:00

Charity organizations across the country have been collecting everything from blowup reindeer and hand-knit scarves to mp3 players and guitars all year long, planning to brighten the holidays for troops deployed far from home.

The task at hand is finding enough money to ship the gifts overseas, organizers say. Postage to Iraq and Afghanistan is almost $100 per box, says Andi Grant, president and founder of Give 2 the Troops. Her Connecticut-based organization sends 70-pound boxes with gifts inside for an entire unit to share. "I need help sending that over," she says.

Grant started Give 2 the Troops eight years ago and says that although the group is "overflowing" with material donations, it is not receiving as much money for shipping costs as it has in previous years. Coming into Thanksgiving week, the organization needed an additional $30,000 to $40,000 to get this year's holiday gifts to the troops, Grant says. The cost can vary greatly depending on the size of boxes shipped.

Florida-based Operation Shoe Box also sees shrinking donations though it gets as many requests from troops as ever, says Mary Harper, president and founder of the organization. "It's harder every year to keep the motivation going," she says.

Since Grant's husband was deployed to Iraq in 2002, Give 2 the Troops has been sending packages to units who register on the organization's website. There are about 75,000 units signed up from all branches of the military, serving mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan, Grant says.

Give 2 the Troops fills boxes with the typical handwritten cards and stockings but includes things the units specifically requested, such as microwaves.

Gifts are especially important as the holidays approach, Grant says. "This is one of the weakest times for our troops because they really miss home," she says.

Master Sgt. Michael Goza has been deployed in an undisclosed location overseas since May 2010 and will not return home until January. He will miss his traditional holiday celebrations with his wife and three daughters. In June, he received a care package from Operation Gratitude and says the items inside made him and the rest of his unit very happy.

"Believe me, we really do enjoy getting some of the things from home, no matter how small or how big," Goza says.

Operation Gratitude focuses on sending smaller packages to individual servicemembers overseas. Based in California, the group sends 100,000 packages a year, each containing 150 small items that can be shared with the recipient's unit, says Carolyn Blashek, the organization's founder and president.

Including expenses such as storage, forklifts, communication and security, each package costs about $15 to ship, she says. Shipping is much less than what Give 2 The Troops pays because Operation Gratitude sends significantly smaller boxes.

This year, each holiday package includes a hand-knit or crocheted scarf, blank holiday cards for the servicemember to send home, beef jerky, protein bars, energy shots, DVDs, socks and more.

Because Iraq and Afghanistan are Muslim countries, pork products, alcohol and overly religious items cannot be sent, Blashek says. Each box includes a small stuffed animal, which can be given to local children. This encourages the children to tell troops where bombs and terrorists are, Blashek says.

Dec. 11 will be Operation Gratitude's last shipping day, on which it will ship its 600,000th box, Blashek says. Each milestone box goes to a randomly selected servicemember with a dramatic surprise such as keys to a new SUV or a vacation in the Caribbean.

"It's really a celebration of the support the country has for the troops," Blashek says.

"All of your gifts bring smiles and sometimes tears to everyone that receives them," Goza says.

Reprinted from USAToday

Civilian soldiers' suicide rate alarming

2010-11-26T10:35:00.001-05:00

National Guard soldiers who are not on active duty killed themselves this year at nearly twice the rate of 2009, marring a year when suicides among Army soldiers on active duty appear to be leveling off, new Army statistics show.
Eighty-six non-active-duty Guard soldiers have killed themselves in the first 10 months of 2010, compared with 48 such suicides in all of 2009.

The reason for the rise in suicides among these "citizen soldiers" is not known. It may be linked to the recession, says Army Col. Chris Philbrick, deputy commander of an Army task force working to reduce suicides.

Philbrick said investigations into the suicides of soldiers not on full-time-active status have found that some were facing stressful situations such as home foreclosures, debt and the loss of a job.

Other factors have played a role in the suicides, including relationship problems, depression, substance abuse, combat stress and mild brain injuries, Philbrick says.

The rise comes as the rate of suicides leveled among full-time active-duty Army soldiers, National Guard members and reservists following years of increases, Philbrick says. Among that group, there were 132 confirmed or suspected suicides in the first 10 months of this year compared with 140 such suicides for the same period in 2009.

That positive trend among active-duty troops was more than offset by the rise in suicides among non-active-duty National Guard members.

There were 252 confirmed or suspected suicides among active and non-active Army members through October of this year. There were 242 such deaths in all of 2009.

Active-duty soldiers have greater access to programs and mental health resources, Philbrick says. New efforts aimed at reducing suicides among that group may be beginning to have an effect. "We do whatever we can to drive down these numbers," Philbrick says. "But it doesn't happen overnight."

The Army has launched a series of programs aimed at breaking down a stigma among soldiers against seeking mental health treatment. It has also initiated two studies — a $50 million, five-year investigation by the National Institute of Mental Health in 2009 and this year, a $17 million research consortium — aimed at understanding why the suicides are happening and how to stop them.

Army suicides have been climbing since 2007, bringing the rate to 22 per 100,000 soldiers. The rate among civilians within the same age group is 20 per 100,000. The Marine Corps has seen an increase since 2008 and its rate is 24 per 100,000. But there, too, the trend may be downward.

There were 45 confirmed or suspected cases of suicides among Marines through October of this year compared with 53 suicides for the same period last year, Marine Corps statistics show.

Reprinted from USAToday

The Power of a Power of Attorney!

2010-11-24T15:46:00.000-05:00

When considering securing a power of attorney, know that there are two types. A Special power of attorney and a General power of attorney. A general power of attorney gives another person broad and far reaching authority to handle your affairs. A special power of attorney only provides for specifically limited handling of your affairs such as selling your vehicle or preparing your taxes. Regardless of the type of power of attorney you give, there should be a specific termination date. As an attorney, I recommend powers of attorney terminate after one year has passed.

Case Scenario 1:
“Service Member” was ordered to active duty to be deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 18 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.

“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse”was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.

Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, due to the “Service Member” not fully understanding the difference between a general power of attorney and a special power of attorney, “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a general power of attorney.

What do you think happened?

Case Scenario 2:
“Service Member” was order to active duty to be deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. “Service Member” has been married for 5 years to a wonderful person, “Spouse”.

“Service Member” loved “Spouse” very much and wanted to ensure “Spouse” was able to take care of things in “Service Member’s” absence. Prior to “Service Member” departing for duty "Spouse" was given a Power of Attorney.

Do to the stress and temptations of “Service Member's” absence, “Spouse” files for divorce. However, prior to deploying to Afghanistan, “Service Member” reads the book The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; what every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2008 “Service Member” gave "Spouse" a special power of attorney.

What do you think happened?

To find the answers to these “Case Scenarios” and other fascinating questions, read the book, The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed. Copyright 2009

The need for a Family Care Plan

2010-11-16T12:06:00.001-05:00

Deployment to the war zone. What do I do next?

2010-11-10T18:43:00.002-05:00

The sequence of events on September 11, 2001 changed America forever. On this day, The United States of America lost its innocence. The land of the free was no longer as free as it once was. Open and free travel no longer seemed as open and free following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Subsequently, America soon found itself at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of service members needed to adequately fight this war was tremendous. The number of service members on active duty was not enough to engage in effective combat. As such, the burden to pick up the slack fell upon the Reserve and National Guard forces of our military. Not in recent memory has there been a greater number of service members deployed conus or oconus. From a military development standpoint, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provoked the number of deployments to grow substantially. Since September 11, 2001, over 1.7 million service members have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Operation Enduring Freedom’s military focus is on securing the nation of Afghanistan, while as its name suggest, Operation Iraqi Freedom is concerned with securing the nation of Iraq. In addition to the service members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service members were deployed to Kuwait and Qatar in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, tens of thousands service members were deployed in support of contingency operations around the world.

So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.

There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.

Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.

Over the next several post, I will attempt to share some insights for service members and their families as to of what to expect during the time of deployment and the best way to minimize many difficulties sure to occur...

Army finds simple blood test to identify mild brain trauma

2010-10-16T08:31:00.002-04:00

FREDERICK, Md. — The Army says it has discovered a simple blood test that can diagnose mild traumatic brain damage or concussion, a hard-to-detect injury that can affect young athletes, infants with "shaken baby syndrome" and combat troops.
"This is huge," said Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army vice chief of staff.

Army Col. Dallas Hack, who has oversight of the research, says recent data show the blood test, which looks for unique proteins that spill into the blood stream from damaged brain cells, accurately diagnosing mild traumatic brain injury in 34 patients.

Doctors can miss these injuries because the damage does not show up on imaging scans, and symptoms such as headaches or dizziness are ignored or downplayed by the victims.

If the brain is not allowed time to recover and a second concussion occurs, permanent damage may result. Brain injuries afflict 1.4 million Americans each year, says the National Brain Injury Association. Seventy percent are mild cases.

About 300,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered concussions, mostly from roadside bombs, according to a RAND Corp. study.

Hack says the new findings could rival the discovery of unique proteins in the 1970s that now help doctors identify heart disease.

"This will in fact do for brain injury what that test did for chest pain. It's going to change medicine entirely," Hack says.

If the Army wins FDA approval for the test, the discovery could be a milestone in brain-injury care, says Gregory O'Shanick, national medical director for the Brain Injury Association of America.

"We will find people who are under the radar and then treat them appropriately," he says.

The Army collaborated on the biomarker program with Florida-based Banyan Biomarkers, company created by former faculty member of the University of Florida.

The company recently received $26 million to conduct a final, large set of clinical trials through 2013 on 1,200 patients suffering mild to moderate to severe brain injuries. The patients will be drawn from 30 trauma centers across the country. The success of this phase will determine FDA approval for public use of the biomarker test, Hack says.

"We're trying to see if we can make that (clinical trial) earlier and make it faster," Hack says.

Physician Jeffrey Bazarian said the results may be flawed if researchers are studying only people admitted into hospitals. Their brain injuries, even if characterized as mild, may be more severe than common forms of concussion.

"The key is whatever patients they study need to look like concussed patients, walking, talking and not necessarily in need of hospitalization," said Bazarian, a trauma specialist who has served on task forces involving brain injury and panels for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "If you just look at the milds that are admitted ... that's potentially a flaw."

From USAToday.

Not guilty, but stuck with big bills, damaged career

2010-09-28T21:07:00.001-04:00

By Kevin McCoy and Brad Heath, USA TODAY
A judge had a warning for the Justice Department lawyers who accused Army Lt. Col. Robert Morris of conspiring to steal military supplies: The case could be "ill-advised." A nearly two-year Army probe had cleared him. And another U.S. attorney's office had declined to prosecute.
The cost of fighting federal charges could "take the guy's life savings away," the judge added.

Prosecutors went ahead, anyway. The judge's prediction was right — a jury needed only 45 minutes to find Morris not guilty. By then, though, his career had derailed. His parents had mortgaged their home to help with $250,000 in legal bills. He had drained his own savings.

The government he had served in uniform for decades could have compensated Morris for some of the losses. A 1997 law requires the Justice Department to repay the legal bills of defendants who win their cases and prove that federal prosecutors committed misconduct or other transgressions.

RARE VICTORY: Va. bankers beat government twice
VIDEO: One man's story of beating the government
EXPLORE CASES: Investigate the misconduct cases we ID'd
JUSTICE IN BALANCE: Prosecutors' conduct can tip the scales
FULL COVERAGE: Federal prosecutors series

But Morris didn't get anything from Washington. It took a gift from a Texas billionaire to help the Morris family pay off part of the debts.

The law, known as the Hyde Amendment, was intended to deter misconduct and compensate people who are harmed when federal prosecutors cross the line. A USA TODAY investigation found the law has left innocent people like Morris coping not only with ruined careers and reputations but with heavy legal costs. And it hasn't stopped federal prosecutors from committing misconduct or pursuing legally questionable cases.

USA TODAY documented 201 cases in the years since the law's passage in which federal judges found that Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. Although those represent a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of federal criminal cases filed each year, the problems were so grave that judges dismissed indictments, reversed convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. Yet USA TODAY found only 13 cases in which the government paid anything toward defendants' legal bills. Most people never seek compensation. Most who do end up emptyhanded.

The Hyde Amendment did nothing for Morris, whose claim was dismissed by a judge who nonetheless criticized prosecutors and said they had "lost sight of the objective — justice."

It did nothing for Daniel Chapman, a lawyer who lost his job and had to sell his house to pay $275,000 in legal bills fighting a securities fraud case a judge threw out for "flagrant" prosecutorial misconduct.

And it did nothing for Michael Zomber, an antiques dealer who spent two years in prison and paid more than $1 million in attorney fees before his fraud conviction was thrown out.

The Justice Department, which fought the Hyde Amendment from the day it was proposed, nearly always resists efforts to win compensation, no matter how egregious a prosecutor's conduct might have been. Defense lawyers contend that the scarcity of compensation wins, amid a rise in misconduct charges, shows the law's not working.

"The Hyde Amendment is practically a useless tool for dealing with prosecutorial misconduct," said Jon May, a Miami lawyer who co-chairs the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' white-collar crime committee. For a defendant to win, "the standard is so high that a prosecutor practically has to know" in advance "that his case is so meritless that it is unlikely to get a conviction."

USA TODAY found the government is seldom forced to pay because:

• Many defendants don't apply. The wealthy and those so poor they had court-appointed lawyers don't qualify. Others hold back because they'd have to spend time and money in court and pursue a new civil action against the government after winning their criminal cases. The investigation identified just 92 Hyde Amendment compensation cases since the law's enactment.

• Some defendants are pressured by federal prosecutors to give up their right to seek repayment in exchange for lenient plea bargains or getting their cases thrown out.

• Even those who seek compensation face what an appeals court called the "daunting obstacle" of proving, sometimes in another trial, that prosecutors wronged them. Congress deliberately set a high legal standard to qualify for payment: To win, a defendant must prove a prosecution had been "vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith." But the House and the Senate never held committee hearings that could have defined that standard.

An anonymous tip

The case against Morris began in 1999 with an anonymous tip to a Department of Defense hot line. The caller said the infantry officer had diverted $7 million of surplus medical equipment from a Marine Corps base in Albany, Ga., just south of his own post at Fort Benning.

Morris, now 54, was a decorated combat veteran and logistics expert. Superiors often had praised his ability to work his way through complex military supply rules and get the job done. He played a role, for example, in ex-Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's 1990 surrender to U.S. troops. When commanders decided to use deafening music to force Noriega out of the Vatican Embassy in Panama City, Morris quickly found and set up a sound system.

Morris' defense team said the medical supplies were intended to help a charity he had founded open health clinics in Rwanda. The non-profit, Partners International Foundation, had been approved by Army brass and had never paid Morris.

The Army's Criminal Investigation Division and the Defense Logistics Agency probed the charges and gave a report to Army Maj. Gen. John Le Moyne, the Fort Benning commander. Le Moyne issued a February 2001 decision that cleared Morris, finding that he didn't violate military law, hadn't lied and didn't misappropriate government property. "There was no theft," the decision stated.

Dissatisfied, the Defense Logistics Agency took its findings to the U.S. attorney's office in Columbus, Ga., which declined to prosecute. The agency then turned to the U.S. attorney's office in Dallas. In March 2001, a grand jury there indicted Morris on a theft conspiracy charge.

U.S. District Court Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas voiced doubts about the case. He said it looked as if investigators had shopped it to prosecutors in several jurisdictions. Getting a guilty verdict from a Texas jury could be hard, he warned, and prosecuting Morris could be a mistake. The prosecutors went forward, and Kendall granted a defense motion to transfer the case to Georgia for trial.

Le Moyne also tried to head off the August 2002 trial. He reminded prosecutors the Army had exhaustively investigated Morris. In a letter to an Army officer panel, Le Moyne said he had met with the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Candina Heath, and told her "she would lose … and be embarrassed in the process." In a separate memo sent to prosecutors before trial, Le Moyne wrote that Morris had made an "error in judgment" that "did not rise to the level of a criminal offense." It concluded: "Bob Morris is not a crook!"

During a nearly two-week trial, the prosecution called 38 witnesses. The defense called none. The jury acquitted Morris in 45 minutes, a "lightning fast" verdict that U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land tied to the government's "woefully inadequate presentation."

The Dallas U.S. attorney's office and Heath declined to comment.

Legal bills from Morris' criminal case totaled $250,000.He said he faced at least $40,000 more in related expenses — and had exhausted his savings and life insurance benefits during the earlier Army investigation. So Morris' parents took two new mortgages on their Connecticut home, and also cashed life insurance policies, to help pay the lawyers.

Morris filed a Hyde Amendment application. Despite Judge Land's criticism of the prosecution, he dismissed the case in 2003. The decision to prosecute hadn't been totally baseless, he ruled, because Morris' logistics skill and signs that he'd skirted military rules provided "sufficient circumstantial evidence" to infer "criminal intent."

The judge did not rule that the prosecutors committed misconduct. For that reason, USA TODAY did not include the Morris case among 201 misconduct cases the newspaper found in an extensive search of federal court records since 1997.

The prosecutors, Land wrote, "will likely lick their wounds and fully recover. Because of the strict requirements for recovering fees and expenses, Lt. Col. Morris, an innocent (and now financially poorer) man, may not."

The case put a three-year hold on Morris' previously approved promotion to colonel. He got the promotion after the trial, but his military career plateaued and he ultimately retired Aug. 31. The case didn't leave him destitute, but there seemed little hope of repaying his parents anytime soon.

Then Texas billionaire and former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot and his charitable foundation stepped in. Grants totaling $210,000 to Morris and his father arrived in 2003 after the court denied Morris' compensation claim, the foundation's tax filings show. The organization, which often requires beneficiaries to sign confidentiality pacts, declined to comment.

Morris said the money helped his parents pay off their mortgages. It did not, though, cover thousands in other debts related to the investigations and trial. His widowed mother, Lillian, 86, is his dependent; he took over paying most of her bills.

Said Jack Zimmerman, a Houston lawyer who represented Morris: "If Congress really intended to compensate innocent people who were put upon by the government, they've got to revisit the Hyde Amendment standard. … Any court is loath to penalize the government … if it's a judgment call."

A compromise in Congress

Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde spoke bluntly when he rose on the House floor and introduced the law that bears his name. "This simply says to Uncle Sam, 'Look, if you are going to sue somebody … and the verdict is not guilty, then the prosecution pays something toward the attorney's fees of the victim,' " Hyde said on Sept. 24, 1997.

As proposed, the legislation would have required the Justice Department to pay legal fees to vindicated defendants unless the government proved the prosecution had been "substantially justified." That provoked a veto threat from the Clinton White House.

Then-deputy attorney general Eric Holder, the Justice Department's leader, said defendants such as John Gotti, the mobster who beat the rap at his first trials, might get "big taxpayer checks."

Asa Hutchinson, a former House member from Arkansas who led the opposition, said critics feared the law could have a "chilling effect," making prosecutors shy away from worthwhile but difficult cases.

Hyde compromised. He agreed to require defendants to prove they had been wrongly charged. And to win, they would have to show not just that they were innocent, but that prosecutors had acted vexatiously, frivolously or in bad faith.

Congress approved the measure, which Hyde had attached to an appropriations bill, without defining those terms. As a result, federal trial and appeals courts in different parts of the country have issued conflicting and often confusing rules about when the Justice Department must pay.

A U.S. district court in Virginia in 1999 ruled the standard for vexatiousness should be whether a "reasonable prosecutor should have concluded" that evidence was "insufficient to prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco explicitly rejected the standard used in Virginia. It adopted a two-step rule: To win, a defendant must prove that the case was "deficient or without merit" and the prosecutor "acted maliciously or with an intent to harass."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta used different language. It said defendants must show a prosecutor's "state of mind (was) affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will."

The U.S. Supreme Court, which often resolves conflicting lower-court rulings, has not yet accepted any Hyde Amendment cases.

The legal threshold is so high that Joseph McKay, a Montana lawyer who won nearly $17,000 in a 1999 Hyde Amendment repayment, says the legal standard has become "un-meetable" since his win.

Law not a deterrent

Hyde Amendment awards are so infrequent and so small that the law "hasn't been a major remedy for bad prosecutions," said Bennett Gershman, a Pace Law School professor who examined the misconduct cases USA TODAY identified. "It's a very minuscule deterrent" to prosecutors.

Even courts that have ruled that prosecutors violated defendants' constitutional rights find their hands tied. That's what happened when the government brought securities fraud charges against Las Vegas lawyer Daniel Chapman. The case collapsed in 2006 because prosecutors failed to turn over more than 650 pages of records his lawyers could have used to discredit prosecution witnesses.

A series of judges berated prosecutors for violating Chapman's rights. U.S. District Judge James Mahan, who presided over the trial, said it was "not some slight oversight, but it strikes at the very heart of the government's obligation." He said prosecutors had offered no proof that Chapman broke the law and then dismissed the case.

An appeals court was even tougher, ruling that prosecutors had committed "misconduct in its highest form" and "conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution."

Chapman, now 57, has spent four years seeking repayment of his legal bills. That effort has so far failed, because the Hyde Amendment only allows payment to a "prevailing party." Courts ruled the dismissal Chapman won didn't qualify because it didn't decide his innocence or guilt.

He's now pursuing another long-shot appeal. Chapman said his continued battle is about vindication and discouraging government misconduct as much as a desire for repayment. Without a strong deterrent, Chapman said, federal prosecutors will "do this over and over again."

Defendants who win Hyde cases also say they doubt that repayment awards have any impact on the Justice Department.

Ali Shaygan, a Miami doctor, was charged in 2008 with 141 counts of illegally administering prescription drugs. Acquitted in 2009, he sought Hyde Amendment payment because the government had engaged in what the trial judge called "win-at-all-costs" conduct. Shaygan won compensation of $601,795; the government is appealing.

Even if he wins again on appeal, Shaygan said the money would amount to "a drop in the bucket" that wouldn't change prosecutors' "habits."

Payments in all the winning Hyde Amendment cases ranged from $8,722 to nearly $1.5 million, USA TODAY found, less than some of the defendants' total legal costs. The 13-year payout total was just under $5.3 million.

A bargaining chip

Michael Zomber already had served his two-year sentence when prosecutors agreed to throw out his conviction stemming from a 2003 conspiracy indictment. There was just one catch: He had to give up give up his right to seek government repayment of his $1 million legal bills.

Before agreeing to a dismissal, federal prosecutors used Zomber's right to seek government repayment as a bargaining chip.

A federal jury in Pennsylvania had convicted Zomber of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud for the sale of four antique Colt pistols to businessman Joseph Murphy. Prosecutors said the weapons were worth half of what Murphy paid for them, and that Zomber lied to increase the price.

Zomber, now 60, spent almost two years in a federal prison camp before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit threw out his conviction. It found that the prosecutor, Robert Goldman, had failed to give Zomber's defense the letters Murphy wrote to Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates offering to resell the pistols "at cost" — the same price Murphy paid.

Goldman said he did nothing wrong and warned USA TODAY that he would have any article about Zomber's case "reviewed by counsel for potential litigation." He said he regrets only that Zomber's conviction was overturned because of "an insignificant document." But the Appeals Court ruled the letters could have given jurors "reasonable doubt" about whether Zomber overcharged Murphy.

The court's decision meant Zomber faced the prospect of another costly trial. He was unlikely to go back to prison. But he could have been ordered to pay $1 million or more in restitution.

Instead, defense lawyer Gerald Lefcourt reached a deal in which prosecutors ended the case.

"They weren't going to consider dismissing" it "unless we agreed not to pursue a Hyde Amendment application," he said. Lefcourt, Hutchinson and other lawyers say prosecutors now automatically include such waivers in many plea agreements.

Zomber said he had little choice but to go along with the agreement, because prosecutors are "always going to make you sign a Hyde Amendment" waiver. Battling for repayment, he said, was "just not worth it."

Protest at military funeral ignites a test of free speech

2010-08-30T11:36:00.002-04:00

YORK, Pa. — Albert Snyder tears up, then turns angry as he recalls burying his Marine son while members of the anti-gay fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church picketed nearby.
"I can remember being presented the flag at the graveyard. I can remember saluting the coffin," Snyder says of the unusually balmy day in March 2006 when the family memorialized Matthew, a lance corporal killed in Iraq.

Yet, Snyder says, he can't separate such moments from the memory that his only son's funeral was picketed by fundamentalist pastor Fred Phelps and his followers with an inflammatory message that had nothing to do with Matthew.

Disconnecting the death of his 20-year-old son from his reaction to the protests "became very difficult."

Snyder, who sued Phelps for his distress, says he feels like he has been stabbed, and the wound will not heal.

The case has grown beyond a single clash between a devastated father and an attention-seeking, fire-and-brimstone group into a major test of speech rights and of safeguards for the sanctity of military funerals. The Supreme Court will hear the case Oct. 6, a crucial First Amendment challenge against the poignant backdrop of war deaths, family suffering and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve — as long as their sexual orientation remains secret.

Fourteen sets of outside organizations have entered the case. Those siding with Snyder include a majority of the states and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, led by Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Free speech groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say they find Phelps' message horrific but that such speech is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to protect.

Supporters of Snyder, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the states, emphasize the importance of protecting the privacy of grieving families and minimize the value of the Phelps' speech.

Phelps, who preaches that God hates gay people and protests what he views as the nation's tolerance of homosexuality — particularly the "don't ask, don't tell" policy — brushes off Snyder's anguish. In a telephone interview from his Topeka home, Phelps says the father's claim of emotional injuries is exaggerated.

"He ought to be very thankful to us that we ... warn people about the perils of sinful conduct that will destroy a nation," Phelps says.

Phelps knew nothing about Matthew Snyder, who was not gay, beyond that his funeral in Westminster, Md., offered the chance to draw attention to Phelps' message. Among the signs he brought were some that said, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

Snyder sued Phelps and family members who were the primary demonstrators for the distress he suffered from their picketing and a Web video the Phelpses created about their protest. Snyder won a $5 million verdict in 2007. A federal appeals court overturned the judgment last year, saying the Phelps protest was protected by the First Amendment.

The dispute before the Supreme Court involves Maryland law, yet cases related to the Phelpses and other local laws are simmering across the country. The issue for the justices in Snyder v. Phelps is an individual's claim for damages from offensive messages, not the validity of government limits on protests near funerals.

"Free speech ideals usually are pretty abstract," observes University of Missouri law professor Christina Wells, who has written extensively on protesters' rights. "People say we agree with the First Amendment but when we get into areas that are offensive, like flag burning, people are much less tolerant."

Wells is among several scholars of First Amendment law, civil libertarians and news media representatives who have joined briefs stressing the need to protect odious speech.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars, among the groups on Snyder's side, counters in its brief, "If Albert Snyder, a grieving father of an American hero, cannot seek remedy from (Phelps and his relatives) for the emotional torment (they) viciously imposed upon him, what purpose do our laws serve?"

"You only get one chance to do a burial," adds Harrisburg, Pa., lawyer Timothy Nieman, who wrote the VFW's filing. He says the Westboro protest created "a circus atmosphere at a private, sanctified time."

'I still have so much anger'

Snyder, who has become a public face of families' grief for the thousands of troops killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has received e-mails from across the nation, letters from troops in the field, stuffed toys, a quilt and other tokens of sympathy.

"A man who dies for his country, for peace, should not have a father who has to fight to bury him in peace," Snyder, an industrial equipment salesman, says during an interview in his lawyer's office. "I still have so much anger that I have to cope with."

Snyder, 55 years old with a salt-and-pepper beard, clasps his hands tightly in front of him and speaks slowly, trying to keep emotions in check, as he explains why he decided to sue the Phelpses: "Every time I thought of Matt or passed his picture on the wall, I would think about what these people did to him."

It was more than the hateful signs near the funeral at the Catholic Church service in the family's hometown, he says. The video on the Westboro website that Snyder found days later also caused him pain. Entitled The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, it asserted Snyder and his ex-wife had "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."

Snyder said Phelps and other Westboro church members caused him depression and worsened his diabetes. Snyder prevailed in federal court in 2007 based on three Maryland state grounds: intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion on privacy and civil conspiracy.

The jury said Snyder was owed $2.9 million in damages to compensate him for the harm and $8 million in punitive damages, designed to punish Phelps. The judge reduced the punitive damages to $2.1 million, for a total of $5 million against the Phelpses.

In their appeal, the Phelpses said the case should have never gone to a jury because of the First Amendment principles at stake.

Part of anti-gay campaign

For Fred Phelps, who founded the Westboro church in 1955 and has been its only pastor, military funerals have become a prime site for drawing news media attention to his opposition to homosexuals, the government and sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church.

The U.S. appeals court that heard the Snyder case noted that the Westboro Church focuses on "the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens." Among the signs Phelps and his congregants display, according to lower court records, are "Pope in Hell," "Priests Rape Boys," "Don't Pray for the USA," and "America is Doomed."

He and his grown children check local newspapers for obituaries and, Phelps says, try to send congregants to protest almost every day of the year. "When homosexuality rears its ugly head, and you don't preach and stop it, your nation is doomed," says Phelps, 80.

Phelps has made headlines for decades, including for protesting at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student slain in 1998.

Westboro church has about 60 members, most of whom are Phelps' relatives. Two grown daughters and four of Phelps' grandchildren joined him at the Snyder funeral.

Phelps' lawyer is one of his 13 children, Margie Phelps, who says the congregation was "engaging in public speech on a public right-of-way, about issues of vital public interest." She says church members "act out of a love for God, the Bible, and their fellow citizens."

Margie Phelps argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that the First Amendment protects their protests, as long as they follow local laws about how close they can get to a church.

The appeals court agreed, saying the case should never have gone to the jury.

The trial judge had declared that Snyder was not a "public figure," undercutting the First Amendment protection the Phelpses asserted. The appeals court, however, said the question was not the private or public status of Snyder, but rather the "type" of speech at issue.

"As utterly distasteful as these signs are," the 4th Circuit said, "they involve matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens."

Quoting from an earlier ruling, the court added, "the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."

Speech advocates urging the high court to uphold the 4th Circuit ruling say natural public sympathy for military families and the Phelpses' shocking statements should not cloud the First Amendment stakes.

Joshua Wheeler, representing the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Freedom of Expression in Charlottesville, Va., says, "We do not challenge the suffering that Mr. Snyder has had to endure. We strongly disagree with the Phelpses' message and the manner in which they expressed it. But if the court sides with Mr. Snyder, the consequences for freedom of expression would be significantly chilling."

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by 21 news media groups, adds, "This case tests the mettle of even the most ardent free speech advocates because the underlying speech is so repugnant."

For Snyder, the case is not about speech rights, but personal harassment. Many federal and state officials agree.

Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing Senate leaders, tells the high court that free speech on public issues "does not encompass insults and verbal abuse intended to invade a private memorial ceremony and injure its participants."

He says protesters can take a stand in virtually any public place, but they cannot "hijack (a family's) private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their own hate."

Joining Snyder are 48 states — all except Maine and Virginia, which did not weigh in on the case — and the District of Columbia. In his appeal on behalf of Snyder, lawyer Sean Summers urges the court to focus on the targeted nature of the Phelpses' conduct against private people who Summers says were not public figures in a public debate.

Summers says because Matthew Snyder was not gay and not engaged in public debate, it was likely the Phelpses' signs and Web video were intended to hurt a particular servicemember and interfere with the family's grief.

Snyder recalls that Matthew decided to enlist in the Marines shortly after the U.S. had invaded Iraq in 2003. He had just finished high school and was only 17, but Snyder says he did not want to stand in his son's way. He had known that military service was a goal of Matthew, the middle of his three children.

"People say, 'If you had to do it all over again, would you do it all over again?' " Snyder says. "Yeah, I probably would because that's what his dream was."

Reposted from USAToday