Purple shirt, SSA, and questionable claims of PTSD

[Recovering LSO]

Came across the linked article this morning.

A couple of thoughts:

I've not walked a mile in McMurray's shoes, so I can't know what, if any, mental conditions he may be dealing with.

The judge's comments were bone-headed, but were they really "offensive"?

"...those aboard carriers endured 'the sheer terror of incoming missile attacks, any of which might have been laden with chemical or biological warfare agents.' Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf also confronted the threat of underwater mines and environmental hazards like smoke from oilfield fires."

I was in middle school during the Gulf war, so maybe I missed it, but did any carriers (or any surface vessels) come under missile attack during the conflict? I'm aware of Stark and Samuel B Roberts (pre GW), as well as Tripoli and Princeton, but should we go back and retroactively credit all Sailors who've sailed in dangerous waters with disability payments or add-ons?

"Fueler is a high stress job in itself," Bunker said. "It's extremely long hours in an extremely dangerous position. He's being told people's lives depend on him. Things can happen on those decks that we have no clue about, mishaps. You're told you could die out there at any time. In most deployments you don't have that kind of stress going."

What kind of deployments do Purple shirts go on that they'e not performing the tasks that McMurry et al claim to be so nerve-racking?


"In February 1991, McMurray watched as a fighter jet crashed on landing, causing the pilot to eject into the sea."

Oh the humanity.... How's the pilot doing? I wonder if that guy is in court arguing that he's got PTSD. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't - but I'm more interested in that than the guy who had to see it....


"But for Suttles, the setting on the deck of the USS America was a recipe for adventure. McMurray [who left the Navy in 1991] was seeking disability benefits based on a catastrophic 2012 crash in which his motorcycle was struck by a truck, resulting in the loss of his spleen and a punctured lung that he said left him unable to work."


Sorry to offend, but this asshole is the reason why so many other truly deserving and physically/mentally wrecked veterans, and people in general (remember this a SSA hearing) are having a hard time getting what is genuinely deserved and justified.

 

[xj220]

I perused over the article and agree with your sentiments. I read the comments section (that's where the real entertainment value is) and of course, became annoyed and angry. I think this pertains to an overall trend that I see where people treat those in the military as infallible and generally untouchable. Those of us who are in realize that is completely not the case and we have our fair share of shitbags and douchers. Just because someone was in the military and served doesn't mean they can't be criticized or called out on something. I understand it's a touchy subject, but I feel this view has developed a mentality of entitlement.

 

[SynixMan]

The judge sounded like an a-hole for degrading his service like that. Without knowing more of the merits of his case, I couldn't say for certain whether or not he deserved to have his claim denied. It's a bit callous to knock someone's honorable service. You don't have to kneel before them or show deference, but some baseline respect works.

BB

The part that bugs me is trying to rank those who did serve on some sort of suffering scale that determines who deserves what benefits. We can all agree on the extremes (i.e. PFC who lost a leg vs YNSN who spent 3 months in Rota), but everything in between gets messy quick.

 

[wink]

I saw a ramp strike and SH-3 crash into the water on the live PLAT camera feed. Can I claim PTSD?

Disability payments have surged since 2003. Even that cohort that had little or no work experience saw claims raise 29% since 2003. Of those from the workforce, it went up over 40%. The pot of money the SSA uses for disability payments runs dry just next year. SSA disability has become the new welfare abuse. Not sure how VA disability works, but in the SSA Administrative Courts the claimant comes in with a lawyer (note the proliferation of TV commercials, it is the new legal cottage industry around the latest gold strike of free money) and argues for money in front of a judge that works for the agency whose entire purpose is to pay out money. Success is measured in how many people they "help". No one, not a lawyer or lay advocate argues for the government or the taxpayer. It isn't like a real court proceeding There are not two sides. Just a claimant and the judge. The process should be adversarial. After all, in a real court of law that is precisely how they try to ferret out the truth. The judge in this case apparently took a stand after questioning the claimant in a way that now has him looking at disciplinary action. As this judge is being reprimanded for his inquiry then it is clear that the example being sent by SSA is to put the feelings of the claimant over good stewardship of funds that should help others more needy.

When a plaintiff in a civil law suit shows up in court with horrible injuries or a lost family member they will be asked painful and difficult questions by a defense attorney for the party accused of causing those injuries or death. Of course a good defense attorney will be courteous and respectful, an injury or loss occurred even if his client was not at fault. The plaintiffs are often understandably emotional as they relive horrible injuries and accidents, and outraged at the suggestion they may have been to fault in some way. It can be difficult for both parties. The point is how different that process is from the SSA adjudication. A plaintiff in a civil suit who was disfigured by a fire while trying to rescue their child, screaming as she was consumed by the fire will be asked questions that serve to, among other things, shift blame for the accident to the poor scarred parent because she may have been texting while driving, speeding, or under the influence of alcohol. If that is the case the truth will come out. It is far more ugly than the what occurred in this case. Without a dedicated adversary in the SSA system and undue influence by the SSA to move along cases and not ask hard questions, the court can not possibly know the whole truth surrounding the claim.

 

[wink]

The judge sounded like an a-hole for degrading his service like that. Without knowing more of the merits of his case, I couldn't say for certain whether or not he deserved to have his claim denied. It's a bit callous to knock someone's honorable service. You don't have to kneel before them or show deference, but some baseline respect works.

BB

The part that bugs me is trying to rank those who did serve on some sort of suffering scale that determines who deserves what benefits. We can all agree on the extremes (i.e. PFC who lost a leg vs YNSN who spent 3 months in Rota), but everything in between gets messy quick.

Keep in mind, the VA, those who should know and respect various aspects of military service, disallowed his claim for benefits. The judge in this case was a vet as well. You may not have to kneel in deference to anyone to get benefits, but you damned well better come prepared to answer hard questions when you are asking for the taxpayers to write you a check for the rest of your life.

 

[Spekkio]

The part that bugs me is trying to rank those who did serve on some sort of suffering scale that determines who deserves what benefits. We can all agree on the extremes (i.e. PFC who lost a leg vs YNSN who spent 3 months in Rota), but everything in between gets messy quick.

The PFC who lost his leg gets disability because he has no leg, not because he is claiming that he is so emotionally upset by his military service that he can't function in life. Kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison.

If PTSD is qualifying for disability benefits, then what is stopping any regular Joe of the street from also trying to get in on it? If witnessing a pilot eject is supposed to be qualifying, what about witnessing a car accident on the corner where someone was taken away in an ambulence?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The judge sounded like an a-hole for degrading his service like that. Without knowing more of the merits of his case, I couldn't say for certain whether or not he deserved to have his claim denied. It's a bit callous to knock someone's honorable service. You don't have to kneel before them or show deference, but some baseline respect works.

BB

The part that bugs me is trying to rank those who did serve on some sort of suffering scale that determines who deserves what benefits. We can all agree on the extremes (i.e. PFC who lost a leg vs YNSN who spent 3 months in Rota), but everything in between gets messy quick.

If this dude doesn't want to be ridiculed, he shouldn't claim something so ridiculous.

I wonder how many PTSD cases I have caused for poor fuelers.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Sometimes it's just too hard to tell if it's satire or not.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

This judge may not be they guy you want to see but this former sailor brought this attention on himself, and this Anthony Hardie is either grandstanding or ignorant as to what we went through during that time he said "those aboard carriers endured the sheer terror of incoming missile attacks, any of which might have been laden with chemical or biological warfare agents" really? yes there was a danger but there is a danger in any combat area, but most of the time we just watched TV, played cards, etc... and weren't really concerned about much more than when was a liberty port going to happen.

Here is something else, this guy entered the USN in 1990 and left in 1991? WTF happened there? I think there is more to the story.

 

[wink]

Here is something else, this guy entered the USN in 1990 and left in 1991? WTF happened there? I think there is more to the story.

Once a no load POS dirt ball always a no load POS dirtball?

 

[Recovering LSO]

Here is something else, this guy entered the USN in 1990 and left in 1991? WTF happened there? I think there is more to the story.

Personality disorder is the stated cause. That leaves the door wide-open, but I think it rhymes with "Not suitable for military service." And, based on the short timeline of service it wouldn't be all that different than the airman you can send home free of charge inside of 180 days. But I defer to @nittany03 and other recovering legal o's.

 

[zippy]

Came across the linked article this morning.

A couple of thoughts:

"...those aboard carriers endured 'the sheer terror of incoming missile attacks, any of which might have been laden with chemical or biological warfare agents.' Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf also confronted the threat of underwater mines and environmental hazards like smoke from oilfield fires."

I was in middle school during the Gulf war, so maybe I missed it, but did any carriers (or any surface vessels) come under missile attack during the conflict? I'm aware of Stark and Samuel B Roberts (pre GW), as well as Tripoli and Princeton, but should we go back and retroactively credit all Sailors who've sailed in dangerous waters with disability payments or add-ons?

Yes, USS MISSOURI was engaged by a pair of SILKWORMs... And later on by a CIWS of an OHP.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Personality disorder is the stated cause. That leaves the door wide-open, but I think it rhymes with "Not suitable for military service." And, based on the short timeline of service it wouldn't be all that different than the airman you can send home free of charge inside of 180 days. But I defer to @nittany03 and other recovering legal o's.

missed that part, back then the guys I worked with that went out with "personality disorder" were the ones that couldn't show up on time, had conflicts with others, and just didn't want to do there jobs, add in a NJP here and there, it just seemed that it was easier to get rid of people with a medical discharge due than going through the hoops to get rid of them because they were dirt bags.

 

[Flash]

Yes, USS MISSOURI was engaged by a pair of SILKWORMs... And later on by a CIWS of an OHP.

They were really close to Kuwait though, 15 miles or closer, had to be in order to shoot the guns. The carriers and most everyone else was well far away though.

I have seen the figure of 25% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from PTSD, I am not sure how valid that figure is but it seems awfully high to me given how few folks actually went outside the wire with regularity. Sorry, but having to hunker down at Green Beans while a rocket hits 1/2 a mile away from isn't the same thing as rolling heavy through Ramadi or Fallujah. Plenty of those Green Beaners still got their Bronze Star and CAB's though....

 

[Recovering LSO]

^ And this is not a new problem.