Vets with PTSD getting the shaft again?

[Bikewer]

While off to the bagelry this morning, NPR was running a Daniel Zwerdling article on mental-health treatment for returning vets, primarily centered around Fort Carson in Colorado.
Apparently, the same old same-old attitudes are still prevalent. "Well, I went through all that stuff and I don't have PTSD, so he's faking" says one sergeant who consented to be interviewed, apparently expressing a fairly widespread situation.
Zwerdling got a flat "NO" from the Fort Carson brass as to any interviews or a statement, but he was able to interview numbers of vets with problems and also numbers of noncoms.
Even when appointments are made for mental-health consultations or treatments, they are often denied as they "interfere with training".

The attitude expressed by a couple of noncoms who were interviewed was that guys were "faking PTSD so they wouldn't have to go back to Iraq."

While this may well be true in some cases, even the GAO maintains that large numbers of returning vets complain of or manifest symptoms of various mental-health problems, and are getting little or no treatment. Indeed, they are often simply kicked out of the military.
Are we setting ourselves up for yet another generation of traumatized veterans?

[pgwenthold]

Sorry for the sidetrack, but what's the difference between a non-com and an enlisted man?

[Dr Adequate]

Non-commissioned officer

[Marc L]

Sorry for the sidetrack, but what's the difference between a non-com and an enlisted man?

Nothing. A non-com is an enlisted person. A person enlists in the military as either a Seaman Recruit (Navy) or Private (everyone else). For the first two paygrades (three in the Navy), you are considered solely a follower with little if any responsibility.

Once you make E-3 (Corporal in the Army/Marines), E-4 (Petty Officer Third Class in the Navy), or E-5 (Staff Sergeant in the Air Force) you are considered a Non-commissioned officer.

Marc

[luchog]

Nothing. A non-com is an enlisted person. A person enlists in the military as either a Seaman Recruit (Navy) or Private (everyone else). For the first two paygrades (three in the Navy), you are considered solely a follower with little if any responsibility.

Once you make E-3 (Corporal in the Army/Marines), E-4 (Petty Officer Third Class in the Navy), or E-5 (Staff Sergeant in the Air Force) you are considered a Non-commissioned officer.

Close, but not entirely accurate, at least in the case of the Army and Marines. Although technically all NCOs are enlisted, there is a difference in usage of the terms in militaryspeak. Enlisted ranks do not carry any leadership or supervisory authority or responsibility, while Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) ranks do. This is a very important distinction in a military environment.

Plus, you have your ranks wrong. E3 in the Army is a Private First Class, and in the Marines, it's a Lance Corporal. Both of which are strictly Enlisted positions, not NCO. One cannot become an NCO in either until reaching Corporal (E4) rank. It is also possible to be E4 and still not be an NCO in the Army; as the rank of Corporal is increasingly rare outside of a purely Infantry position. In most MOSs (jobs), the E4 rank will be Specialist, which is Enlisted, not NCO. E4 is the lowest rank in any service that one can become an NCO. (Specialist designation used to go from E4 up to E6, diffentiated by number, as in Specialist-5 for E5. Thus it was possible to be non-NCO Enlisted all the way up to E6. Specialist ranks above E4 were deprecated in the late-'80s, and all ranks from E5 up are now NCOs.)

[a_unique_person]

The attitude expressed by a couple of noncoms who were interviewed was that guys were "faking PTSD so they wouldn't have to go back to Iraq."


That's quite a catch, that Catch 22.

[steverino]

Close, but not entirely accurate, at least in the case of the Army and Marines. Although technically all NCOs are enlisted, there is a difference in usage of the terms in militaryspeak. Enlisted ranks do not carry any leadership or supervisory authority or responsibility, while Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) ranks do. This is a very important distinction in a military environment.

Plus, you have your ranks wrong. E3 in the Army is a Private First Class, and in the Marines, it's a Lance Corporal. Both of which are strictly Enlisted positions, not NCO. One cannot become an NCO in either until reaching Corporal (E4) rank. It is also possible to be E4 and still not be an NCO in the Army; as the rank of Corporal is increasingly rare outside of a purely Infantry position. In most MOSs (jobs), the E4 rank will be Specialist, which is Enlisted, not NCO. E4 is the lowest rank in any service that one can become an NCO. (Specialist designation used to go from E4 up to E6, diffentiated by number, as in Specialist-5 for E5. Thus it was possible to be non-NCO Enlisted all the way up to E6. Specialist ranks above E4 were deprecated in the late-'80s, and all ranks from E5 up are now NCOs.)

Now that that has been all cleared up, can you please explain what is a "rear admiral, lower half?":confused:

[skeptifem]

how sad :(

[gumboot]

how sad :(


I agree. :(

-Gumboot

[Marc L]

Now that that has been all cleared up, can you please explain what is a "rear admiral, lower half?":confused:

Unfortunately, I'm posting from a Navy computer, so I can't answer that as I'd like :). Feel free to add in your own jokes about rear and lower half...

A Rear Admiral, Lower Half (at least in the US Navy) is an officer rank of 0-7. They rank just above a (Navy) Captain. I think it's comparable to a one-star General. I just checked Wikipedia, and they are way off (they've got Ensign and Lieutenant (jg) both listed as 0-1).

Marc

[Katana]

The attitude expressed by a couple of noncoms who were interviewed was that guys were "faking PTSD so they wouldn't have to go back to Iraq."

I had three reactions to this statement:

1) How pathetic that they would show such disrespect for members of our military.

2) If they are "faking it", can I blame them?

3) Would "faking it" do them any good anyway? Aren't we sending military men back to Iraq who have been treated for PTSD already, some for suicidal ideation, and others who have active mental illness?

It seems that we may be:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12777489/

Although Defense Department standards for enlistment disqualify recruits who suffer “persistent post-traumatic symptoms,” the military also is redeploying service members to Iraq who fit that criteria, the newspaper said.

The Army’s top mental health expert, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, acknowledged that some deployment practices, such as sending service members diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome back into combat, have been driven in part by a troop shortage.

“The challenge for us ... is that the Army has a mission to fight. And, as you know, recruiting has been a challenge,” she said. “And so we have to weigh the needs of the Army, the needs of the mission, with the soldiers’ personal needs.”

Ritchie insisted the military works hard to prevent suicides, but is a challenge because every soldier has access to a weapon.

Commanders, not medical professionals, [my bold] have final say over whether a troubled soldier is retained in the war zone. Ritchie and other military officials said they believe most commanders are alert to mental health problems and are open to referring troubled soldiers for treatment.

“Your average commander doesn’t want to deal with a whacked-out soldier. But on the other hand, he doesn’t want to send a message to his troops that if you act up, he’s willing to send you home,” said Maj. Andrew Efaw, a judge advocate general officer in the Army Reserves who handled trial defense for soldiers in northern Iraq last year.
So your average commander is qualified to distinguish genuine mental illness from "acting up"? Perhaps those who have been in the military can speak to this, but I'm wondering how sympathetic the average commander is to a soldier displaying signs of mental illness. How comfortable would a soldier be confessing to suicidal thoughts with his/her superior?

[Marc L]

How comfortable would a soldier be confessing to suicidal thoughts with his/her superior?

Not very, given the recent (in the last three years) training we've been given in the Navy.

Marc

[Learning Phase]

I also listened to the report on NPR.

First of all, I'd expect the noncoms to be ripped apart by their superiors for this idiotic rambling. If the superiors wouldn't comment on the story, they certainly didn't allow random sergeants to comment. NPR got the NCO's to give their personal opinion, and if any military person speaks, the public will always assume that it's the official line. The public will assume it's official even if there is a disclaimer.

Second, the sergeants' opinions make it clear that many of those who haven't experienced PTSD tend to think it's a fabrication. I remember a scene in "Patton" where Geo. C. Scott slaps a soldier with "Shell Shock", "Battle Fatigue", or whatever they happened to call it then. It looks like this same mentality is still there, just modernized.

If they don't believe that PTSD is real, maybe they could listen to Audie Murphy. He spent years with nightmares from his battle experiences, and no one I know of would call him a coward.