Vets with PTSD getting the shaft again?

Bikewer · 4th December 2006, 06:59 AM

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 · 4th December 2006, 08:21 AM

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

Dr Adequate · 4th December 2006, 08:33 AM

Non-commissioned officer^WP

Marc L · 4th December 2006, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

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 · 4th December 2006, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Marc L

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 · 4th December 2006, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

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 · 5th December 2006, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by luchog

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?"

skeptifem · 5th December 2006, 12:46 AM

how sad

gumboot · 5th December 2006, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by nails

how sad

I agree.

-Gumboot

Marc L · 5th December 2006, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by steverino

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

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 · 5th December 2006, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

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/

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 5th December 2006, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

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 · 5th December 2006, 04:52 PM

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.

4th December 2006, 06:59 AM	#1
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,522	Vets with PTSD getting the shaft again? 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?

4th December 2006, 08:21 AM	#2
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,067	Sorry for the sidetrack, but what's the difference between a non-com and an enlisted man?
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

4th December 2006, 09:11 AM	#4
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	Originally Posted by pgwenthold 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
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	__________________ Yes I am out of my mind, and it'll be so much more fun once you join me---Mrs. L

4th December 2006, 03:57 PM	#5
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 7,957	Originally Posted by Marc L 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.)
	__________________ "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams "The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf "Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

4th December 2006, 11:58 PM	#6
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,324	Originally Posted by Bikewer 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.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

4th December 2006, 08:33 AM	#3
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Non-commissioned officer^WP

5th December 2006, 12:02 AM	#7
steverino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 3,688	Originally Posted by luchog 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?"
	__________________ "Ferchrissakes I am not Jewish..."- Darth Rotor "Well, my nipples are pink. I've never looked at my own butt-hole, but I hope it's pink too." Mycroft "In the military, a gay man might see a wiener, and we all know that when a gay man sees a wiener, he goes into an uncontrollable frenzy of lust."- Marquis de Carabas

5th December 2006, 12:46 AM	#8
skeptifem is not beauty 2K compliant Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,259	how sad

5th December 2006, 01:05 AM	#9
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,112	Originally Posted by nails how sad I agree. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th December 2006, 06:11 AM	#10
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	Originally Posted by steverino Now that that has been all cleared up, can you please explain what is a "rear admiral, lower half?" 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
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	__________________ Yes I am out of my mind, and it'll be so much more fun once you join me---Mrs. L

5th December 2006, 07:04 AM	#11
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Originally Posted by Bikewer 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/ Quote: 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. Quote: 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?
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

5th December 2006, 08:12 AM	#12
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	Originally Posted by Katana 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
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	__________________ Yes I am out of my mind, and it'll be so much more fun once you join me---Mrs. L

5th December 2006, 04:52 PM	#13
Learning Phase Scholar Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 92	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.
Learning Phase Scholar Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 92