I’m working on a bit of fiction and I’d like some information on U.S Army administrative procedures in order to flesh out a character’s back story. In short, how would the army deal with a soldier who has been badly injured while on leave, off duty and off base? The injury results from an act of wanton stupidity that was not prosecutable in a civilian court but I have no clue how the Uniform Code of Military Justice might see it.
The relevant details as they exist in this draft are as such:
“Bob” was injured in a one-car, roll-over crash while riding as a passenger and while both he and the driver were WELL over the legal blood alcohol limit. Neither of them were wearing a seatbelt and both were ejected from the car during the crash. The driver died instantly. Bob survived with relatively minor injuries other than a badly broken (nearly crushed) right foot. Bob’s doctors are still debating amputation but at best, Bob is looking at multiple surgeries and months of rehab just to get him walking on a foot that will most certainly never be 100% again.
Other details that may or may not be relevant:
Bob is a relatively low ranked soldier assigned to an artillery company. (The artillery unit is kind of important for plot purposes.) He is nearing the end of his second service contract and had just signed his re-up papers for another term of duty. Bob’s service record show a competent and reliable soldier if somewhat unmotivated to advance or standout in a positive way. He’s certainly never been in any kind of serious trouble in the Army. He shows up, follows orders well and pretty much flies under the radar without drawing much positive or negative attention to himself.
Bob wants to stay in the service in any capacity available to him. If Bob’s foot never heals to the point that he can rejoin his unit, will the brass find him a desk job somewhere? Will the Army even try to work with him on rehab and to find a place for him or will they just hand him his discharge papers and tell him to limp his butt back to civilian life? Can you even be a desk-bound soldier with only one foot? If forcibly discharged, what kind of discharge would it be? I know that there are different types of honorable discharges and some of them look better to a prospective civilian employer than others. Could this be a dishonorable discharge? Would Bob carry any vet benefits of any kind into civilian life?
What’s likely to happen to Bob?
If you have supporting links that can provide a factual answer to my query then wonderful. I’d love to see them. Personal experience and opinion are perfect acceptable answers as well.
Please feel free to ask questions if I need to clarify something.
All comments are welcome with regards to expanding my understanding of U.S. Army operations and to fleshing out Bob’s story.
Bob will receive a general or medical discharge depending on how favorable his reputation is with his direct supervisor (probably a staff sergeant) who would make a recommendation to his commanding officer (CO) and review board. If he had a really good relationship or the CO favors him for some reason he might get a recommendation for honorable discharge but it is certainly not a guarantee given his unexceptional performance and being an intoxicated passenger in a single vehicle DUI.
Amputation of a limb is cause for involuntary separation (i.e. the soldier doesn’t have a choice). There are situations where an officer or senior enlisted has demonstrated exceptional performance, has a highly critical technical skill, or just has a lot of influence with some flag-level officer who has enough suction to force an exception. There have actually been experienced Army Special Forces personnel who have returned to combat service with a prosthetic leg but in general the Army (and other services) aren’t going to make the accommodations for a solider who cannot perform normal duties without special assistance, and the military doesn’t like to manage or pay for treatment of chronic medical conditions, preferring to shove that off onto the Veterans Administration.
As a Navy officer, I remember doing an investigation on a sailor who, in anger and while on duty, punched a wall and broke his hand. The investigation was whether to consider the injury in the line of duty or not. I recommended it be considered in the line of duty, but that he be disciplined by non judicial punishment (called “captain’s mast”), and my recommendation was accepted. He received some minor punishment that didn’t affect his long term career (unless he screwed up again later).
If he’d been driving drunk, I probably would have recommended the injury not be considered in the line of duty, and if my superiors agreed, he probably would have been reduced in rank and discharged. But he would have been treated first - the Navy hospital isn’t going to refuse to treat a patient just because he’s being investigated.
I expect it’s likely, in that case, he would have been eligible for an “other than honorable” discharge, which IIRC significantly reduces available benefits. But I’m not an expert on discharges and benefits.
EDIT: I read it again and I see he was a passenger, not a driver. In that case Stranger is almost certainly correct.
If you are in the National Guard or Reserves it is imperative you get a Line of Duty designation for your injury. You have to prove you were on duty when you were injured and not home in your civilian life. If you are active duty you are considered active 24/7. You don’t need a LOD. It can be determined that it wasn’t in the line of duty due to misconduct or AWOL. Reserves it’s assumed it wasn’t line of duty unless you can provide LOD paperwork. Active duty it is assumed to be line of duty unless it is determined not to be by disciplinary action.
There are two levels. There is the Army level which determines if you can stay in. That involves a usually lengthy process that ends with a medical board to determine your status. After you are out there is a separate system through the VA that determines your future medical care and your disability rating. 10% of my VA rating is from a sking accident in Switzerland. I was on pass while on active duty at the time so it counts as line of duty.
I always heard that if you die in a car accident when not wearing a seatbelt they wouldn’t pay you GI life insurance. I never saw it happen so that could just be a
GI rumor.
My son broke his arm in a rodeo event while on leave from the Marines. He never got in any trouble.
He was treated and casted and put on light duty til he was out of the cast. Took a little longer because he needed some rehab afterwards. His unit was deploying to the Middle East and he was set on going and did some fast talking and had his Navy physical therapist clear him.
Too soon. I’m sure.
He still has pain in that elbow when the weather changes.
In the OP you ask if he could get a Dishonorable Discharge. The answer is no. A Dishonorable Discharge can only be given as part of the punishment after a General Court Martial court. General Court Martials are for serious crimes like what would be 1st or 2nd degree crimes in civilian courts. A Bad Conduct Discharge can only be give as part of the punishment after a Special Court Martial (or General Court Martial). It’s reserved for criminal acts not just misconduct. Those are the only two discharges where you lose most if not all your veterans benefits. You don’t get punitive discharges for being stupid, only for committing crimes.
I’m curious about how you characterize his enlistment. You say he’s nearing the end of his second enlistment and about to sign his third. Everyone’s initial obligation is for 8 years. That can be done in some combination of active and inactive. It’s not a rule but the typical initial enlistment is 4 years. The typical reenlistment is also 4 years. It could be shorter but there are typically no incentives given (like cash bonuses) for short extensions.
My question to you is what do you mean by “relatively low ranked?” At 8 years a non-promotable E4 Specialist would be forced to leave. It’s called a Retention Control Point. At 8 years realistically he should be a sergeant worked towards becoming staff sergeant. If he’s not he won’t be retained and allowed to have a third enlistment. There is only so far they will let you be unmotivated about your career before you can’t stay in. Once you make staff sergeant you can stay until 20 and full retirement.
Just a clarification to my previous post because it may not be evident; a general discharge is a non-punitive discharge that generally indicates that the subject’s service was unsatisfactory in some way, but not reaching a standard of criminality (or at least, not that the CO wanted to pursue). It is often done if someone has to leave service mid-contract because of family or financial reasons, or if someone is found to be not fit for duty for reasons other than line of duty injuries, or if the military wants to cover up a legal problem without airing their laundry. General discharge doesn’t affect eligibility for most benefits (save for military funeral honors, I think) but the injury described in the o.p. would not count toward a disability rating and might limit certain types of treatments. There is also an “Other Than Honorable” (OTH) discharge that is essentially administrative punishment but doesn’t rise to the level of invoking a court martial, and usually results in denial of veterans benefits as @iiandyiiii notes.
A medical discharge is generally for line of duty injuries which reduce the subject’s ability to continue perform their duties, and is essentially equivalent to an honorable discharge except that it occurs mid-contract with some disability rating that may make the subject eligible for extra benefits (i.e. rehab, prosthetic limb, external mental health treatment) that is beyond the scope of typical Veterans Association services. An honorable discharge is a voluntary separation at the end of service contract or at mandatory retirement with no outstanding disciplinary issues, and comes with full honors and benefits.
Since the subject of the o.p. was injured while still on active duty (even if on leave) and didn’t actually commit a crime other than public intoxication they should be eligible for a medical discharge, but given the circumstances and the modern Army’s low tolerance for DUIs and injuries arising from disreputable conduct, a general discharge seems just as likely. If he were driving the car instead of a passenger the best he could reasonably hope for is an OTH; the Army likes to make examples of people who cause major damage, injury, or death while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
I’m going to have to disagree. The VA is not the Army. The VA does not ask for a LOD determination from active duty soldiers. If you have proof of an injury that occurred during your active duty period you are eligible. If you are in a car accident off duty while active you are eligible. They will look at your medical records not the police report. If the Army wants to punish the soldier they would have to take steps to officially label it not line of duty. If those steps aren’t taken and he’s eligible for veterans benefits the VA will give him a disability rating.
You can also apply for an upgrade to your discharge. A general for medical reasons will often be upgraded to honorable. The VA also has a process where your service can be determined to be “Honorable for VA purposes.”
I broke my leg in a motorcycle accident at the ripe young age of 13. I was about 30 when that spot finally stopped aching when the weather changes. Even up to about age 25 it was a very obvious barometer. Not debilitating, but not ignorable either. Then it gradually diminished to nothing over the next few years.
I’ve since made it to 65 without the weather discomfort returning. We’ll see.
Bottom line being: there’s probably still hope for your son’s elbow to stop bugging him. Some day.
First of all, I’d like to thank those who responded to my query and then to apologize for being absent from the discussion. Life got rather …lively here at Casa de Alpha what with all the shenanigans, first responders and what nots. You’ve answered most of my concerns quite nicely and I greatly appreciate your thoughts.
LOACH, you had concerns about how I characterized Bob’s enlistment. Fair enough, the answer is very simple - I’m ignorant. I’ve never served in the military and have only a tenuous grasp of the realities of military life. I wasn’t sure how far a competent but unremarkable soldier might be expected to advance after 7-8 years in uniform. You’ve helped clarify and correct my thinking on this issue. Maybe for this story, I’d be better off backing Bob up a couple of years to his 6th year in the army and only have him starting to consider how he needs to improve his performance so that he even has the option of staying in uniform? Is an E-4 Sergeant a realistically fair rank for Bob in this revised scenario?
To be fair though, Bob’s active duty service isn’t central to the story and really only amounts to a couple of paragraphs. I’m far more concerned with what happens to Bob after his injury. My concern was that the Army would declare this injury not acquired in the line of duty. He would be summarily discharged from service with no VA benefits to speak of and trying to navigate the civilian health care system with no support and no income. That doesn’t seem to be what would happen.
If I am understanding correctly, Bob will receive surgery to repair his foot and at least the first stages of medical treatment from the Army. At this point, one of two things will happen. Either A - the doctors will determine there’s basically no chance Bob will be able to return to duty. A medical discharge will be issued to Bob and they’ll ship him off to the VA. Or B - the doctors will repair his foot as best they can, schedule rehab and possible light duty for a period of time (90 or 180 days) and re-evaluate for either full duty or discharge.
Either way, the Army isn’t likely to boot Bob out with no treatment and no VA support. His discharge from the Army will not be presented as a punitive act.
They’re also going to make basically zero effort to allow a less than physically capable soldier to remain in service at a desk job for any length of time.
E-4 is Specialist or Corporal. E-5 is Sergeant. Promotion is a points system. You have to go in front of a board and have a certain level of army education to become promotable. I retired in 2016 but it’s my understanding that now once you become promotable you get a lateral promotion to corporal. In my day it was relatively rare to see a corporal. At six years I think E-4 or E-5 would be normal. If he was E-5 he would be in charge of a small number of soldiers.
Something that they started in the last few decades are medical hold units. Instead of a unit having to figure out what to do with a broken soldier he gets transferred to a medical hold unit. They are free to do all the medical appointments and therapy without unit interference. In theory. I’ve heard they are pretty miserable places to be. I don’t know what those units are currently called. It’s gone through a few different names over the years like Warrior Transition Battalion. I don’t think they are called that anymore. There’s a office somewhere in the basement of the Pentagon where there are a bunch of colonels who come up with stupid names like that. Your character would be temporarily attached to one of those units while they figured out what to do with him.
Just understand the VA and the Army are two very different things. The VA is it’s own cabinet level department. The VA relies on paperwork you get while you are in but they make their own decisions. You pretty much have to commit a crime and receive a punitive discharge to lose your VA benefits.
Even with an honorable discharge navigating the VA is difficult. I have no experience with that. I have never tried to get my healthcare through the VA. I get a small disability payment each month and that’s it. I don’t know how long it would take to get healthcare once you are out. One thing you might consider is people use Veterans Service Officers to help navigate the system. Veterans organizations like the VFW, DAV and American Legion have certified VSOs to help. There are also VSOs in local government usually at the county level. I’m currently using my county VSO to help update my disability claim. The VSO is always supposed to be free. Bob would most likely have a VSO that he would be working with once he’s out.
Another thing you would need to know for the story is the list of your physical limitations in the military is called a profile. You can have a profile that states no running or no lifting over 25lbs or just about anything else a doctor orders. Profiles can be temporary or permanent. You can have limitations and still be allowed to serve. Near the end of my career I did not have to run during my physical fitness test because of my knees. I could still perform my duties and could be deployed. I had a permanent profile.
First, as others have suggested, a line of duty determination might be appropriate to determine if the injury occurred due to misconduct. Personally, I would think it is not due to misconduct. Since he was active duty in an authorized leave status, there is no question it would be in the line of duty.
If Bob’s foot is so bad his doctors think he is unlikely to be fit for duty again, and since the injury was incurred in the line of duty and not due to misconduct, he should be referred to a physical evaluation board to determine if he should be medically separated/retired or if he is in fact fit for duty.
As far as discharge… There has been some confusion of concepts. A medical separation or retirement is not a characterization of discharge, it is a reason for discharge. If someone is medically separated, their service still has be characterized as honorable, general, or other than honorable.
Bob could be found fit for duty, he could be evaluated at less than 30% disabled and separated, or he could be evaluated at 30% disabled or more and medically retired. Unless he has a history of disciplinary issues, his service would most likely be characterized as honorable.
Of course Bob’s chain of command could just suck, in which case all bets are off and he might well be put on his ass with an other than honorable discharge, a messed up foot, and no clear path to ongoing medical care.
What kind of story are you trying to tell? Is the Army being shitty to its people a central part of it, or would that just be a distraction from the story you really want to tell?
Bob’s perception of his treatment from the army and the VA is certainly very negative. Granted his view has been warped by years of pain, isolation, a couple of prison terms for assault, alcoholism and untreated depression.
Aside from a couple of flashbacks, the bulk of the story takes place more than a decade after Bob left the service. “Ted” was Bob’s friend who dies in the accident and he was also married to Bob’s older sister. When Ted died, he left Bob’s sister a widow and Bob’s ten year old nephew without a father. What Bob never told anyone though is that the “accident” was actually Ted’s suicidal plunge into his own depression. Bob kept this secret to spare his sister’s idea of Ted and to hide his own shame at failing to be able to council Ted to seek professional help or at least to talk to his wife about his struggles.
Bob’s view of the army doctors is that they didn’t even try to properly help him recover and maintain his army career. According to Bob’s decade old, warped and bitter memories of the events, they took one look at his foot, said “You’re done soldier.”, did a half-assed job of surgically repairing his foot and kicked him out to a VA that didn’t even pretend to give a rat fart about him.
In Bob’s view, he tried to do the right thing by Ted and his family, got his leg destroyed and then was cast aside by the army when he failed. He has a couple of friends trying to help him get the therapy (both mental and physical) he needs but he’s too far down in his emotional pit to ask for the help that’s available to him. Bob is struggling with all this when the story formally starts when Bob’s now adult nephew shows up at his door to ask why he didn’t attend his sister’s funeral.
I’m not saying that Bob’s recollection is accurate and I’m not trying to describe the Army or the VA in a negative way. The whole point of this thread is to help me understand how this process is supposed to work when the army has to deal with an injured soldier. Even if Bob is just plain wrong in his views of the events, I need to know WHY he’s wrong.
A friend of mine, a retired National Guard JAG colonel, read the OP and gave me permission to share his response (lightly edited):
Bob did not commit any offense under the UCMJ. There is no law against drunk riding. However, there is also no reward for this injury. It is not a “line of duty injury.“ He was “on a frolic of his own.” He will get no VA benefits because of this injury. Soldiers have to pass a PT (physical training) test annually. If he can’t pass because of the foot injury, he would be allowed a retest within 6 months. If he still can’t pass, he would be medically discharged. Part of the test is a two-mile run, so he would have trouble passing. The Army doesn’t have just desk job soldiers. Everyone in the Army is expected to fight. Then they are taught specialized skills such as artillery, engineering, cooking, radio operations, etc. Bob would be given a general or even honorable discharge for medical reasons. Stupidity is not a crime but it is incurable.
As the judge for the state I reviewed all line of duty injury claims; over the course of 15 years there were hundreds.
I will posit that perhaps a national guard JAG, though knowledgeable in matters pertaining to the Guard, is not well-positioned to comment on how active duty regular military personnel are dealt with when it comes to “off duty” injuries.
So, the Army’s official regulation for line of duty determinations is Army Regulation 600–8–4. Interested individuals can find it online (it’s not very long—only about 50 pages—but it is incredibly dense). There is also this helpful publication, entitled A GUIDE FOR LINE OF DUTY INVESTIGATING OFFICERS put out by some military installation’s JAGs:
While there might be something more on point (I’d prefer not to spend my evening doing legal research), this seems a propos:
G. Presumptions.
A Line of Duty investigation begins with the presumption that a Soldier’s disease, injury or death was incurred “in the line of duty - not due to own misconduct.” The presumption applies to both the Soldier’s status and conduct. It may be rebutted only by substantial evidence that the Soldier was not in the line of duty or that the disease or injury resulted from his or her own intentional misconduct or willful negligence. The following examples describe circumstances that may rebut this presumption.
a. The injury or disease was incurred or contracted while the individual was neither on active duty nor engaged in authorized training in an active or reserve status.
b. The injury or disease was incurred or contracted during a period of unauthorized absence.
c. The injury or disease was caused by the intentional or willful negligence of the Soldier.
The thrust of that is, as I read it, that, where as an unauthorized absence or an injury incurred by someone not on active duty (even for training) could rebut a presumption of the injury occurring in the line of duty, an authorized absence (such as being on approved leave) taken by someone who is on active duty is presumed to have occurred in the line of duty.
So, taking this back around to the OP, and as has been previously noted by myself and others, the only real question would be if the injury was due to the servicemember’s own misconduct (or willful negligence).
While being drunk while riding (with someone else who is drunk?) might constitute some level of neglect, there’s still a pretty high bar to overcome the presumption, and as @iiandyiiii notes, investigating officers may (and indeed should) be loathe to rule against an injured servicemember unless the evidence is very clear (the regulation actually requires “substantial evidence,” which I have heard explained as being something more than a preponderance, but something less than beyond a reasonable doubt).