lawrocket 3 #1 April 16, 2008 http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/ap_brothers_benefits_041608/ We had a thread about the Hubbard Family - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2928304#2928304 It's actually being called the "Hubbard Bill." Jason Hubbard, as the sole surviving son, was withdrawn from the combat zone and given an honorable discharge in October, 2007. About a month ago, he was resworn as a Sheriff's deputy. However, a problem developed. Considering that he was discharged after only 30 months (instead of the full 36), the laws and regulations required that he lost his transitional health benefits (tough because his wife was pregnant). Of course, Hubbard provides a dose of realism with this - "“It was frustrating. But on the other side, it wasn’t anybody’s fault per se. The military just hadn’t had specific guidelines set up to deal with these types of specific situations.” (WTF? A guy actually acknowledging the situation and not blaming everyone and everything? I NEED to buy this man a drink). The Army, however,went further. They denied him his GI Bill benefits ($40k) and demanded that he repay his $6k enlistment bonus. So Hubbard went to his Congressman. And now this bill is being introduced to fill in these gaps. Let us thank the members of Congress for bringing in this bill to help these servicemen. This appears to be a true bipartisan measure. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #2 April 16, 2008 He certainly deserves a drink - what a remarkably mature point of view to have on his situation. All the best to J. Hubbard. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyPiggie 0 #3 April 16, 2008 The Army ought to let him serve out his remaining 6 months to qualify for benefits in a non-combat role stateside. Simple solution. Doh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 April 16, 2008 And what's even more incredible? This guy went through the proper channels, and the press became involved when the fix was being made. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #5 April 16, 2008 Remarkable indeed - unfortunately it so often takes the press to bring similiar matters to the general public knowledge, for the outcry to actually make something proper happen. And that's pretty despicable as it's so often the case. Still - it's nice to read of something positive happening from such situations - and the press making themselves useful too; even if it's only to appeal to peoples moral outrage and sell more papers... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #6 April 17, 2008 That, is a 'real' man! It's about time, our government starts to treat our service men and women better. Seems as though, the government more often wants to take away from our service men and women. I hope like hell, this bill passes and he and all our other troops recieve better treatment for their service to our country. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #7 April 17, 2008 Talk about a PR backfire. Seriously, let the guy finish out behind the lines. Don't yank his benefits because the brass made a call on it."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #8 April 17, 2008 Quote And what's even more incredible? This guy went through the proper channels, and the press became involved when the fix was being made. Right on! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 April 17, 2008 Hmmm . . . isn't that kinda . . . ya know . . . sexist? What happens if a female is in the same position? Edited to add: Ah, read the article. My mistake was reading your poorly worded subject line counselor. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 April 17, 2008 Yes. Sole surviving son. The article explained that the law was changed to include females. People know what I mean by "sole surviving son." "Sole surviving siblings and children" would indeed be more descriptive, but certainly would make for a longer thread title and would require more thought thinking about it. So, yes, it was a conscious decision. As an aside, you DO have moderator privileges, and if something seems to be poorly worded, I would encourage you to go ahead and edit it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites