[Blindvet-talk] Fwd: Fw: [VIVN#1556] Vets Fighting Mad

[NABlindVets at aol.com]

Dwight D.  Sayer
President,
The National Association of Blind Veterans
A Division  of the NFB
Email - presidentnabv at aol.com
or president at nabv.org  

 
  
____________________________________
 From: BlindguysRus1
To: NABlindVets
Sent: 11/26/2008 8:40:57 P.M.  Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Fw: [VIVN#1556] Vets Fighting  Mad





  
____________________________________
 From: rickyf50 at hotmail.com
To: jdmcneil at bellsouth.net
Sent: 11/26/2008  7:39:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Fw: [VIVN#1556] Vets Fighting  Mad



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "sceptre"  <sceptresmith at gmail.com>
To: "VIVetNet"  <VIVN at googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:57  PM
Subject: [VIVN#1556] Vets Fighting Mad


> 
>  Thousand of injured vets are fighting a new battle
> - - - By Rory  Devine - - -
> 
> The Pentagon narrowed the definition of a  combat
> related injury.  As of March, those with disabilities  incurred while 
> in a direct combat situation would get more benefits  than those 
> disabled during a training exercise for example.
>  
> The Supervisor for Disabled American Veterans in San Diego calls  that 
> "inherently unfair." "An injury is an injury, whether it  happened in 
> a war or whether it happened jumping out of a plane  during an 
> exercise," said Jim Galliher.  Galliher feels there  is no greater or 
> lesser veteran, and he is upset the Pentagon, as  he said, "took it 
> upon itself to redefine the law."
>  
> The Pentagon says benefits should be greater for those wounded in  
> combat than for those wounded during training, or hazardous duty  not 
> related to combat, or even while being sprayed with agent  orange. 
> Galliher said the differentiation doesn't stop there. He  said the 
> Pentagon also differentiates disabilities incurred in the  same war 
> zone.  For example, military personnel who hurt  themselves jumping 
> into a fox hole to avoid a mortar attack during  combat  may  not be 
> classified as having a combat related  injury because they were not 
> shot or shelled.
> 
> In  Galliher's opinion, the Pentagon is making the change to save 
>  money. "It's a tough economy, let's not try to win the economy back 
>  on the back of a veteran," he said.
> 
> He hopes people will  write their representatives in Congress asking 
> the Pentagon "to  follow the law."
> 
> For its part, the Pentagon reportedly says  the change is in keeping 
> with the law.
> 
> First  Published: Nov 25, 2008 5:43 PM PST
> -- 
> FAIR USE  NOTICE
> This email may contain copyrighted material the use  of
> which has not always been specifically authorized by the
>  copyright owner. We are making such material available in
> an effort  to advance the understanding of visually impaired
> veterans to  issues  concerning the veterans' community. We
> believe this  constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
> material as  provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
> Law. In accordance  with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
> material in this email is  distributed without profit to
> those who have expressed an interest  in receiving the
> included information for educational  purposes.  If you
> wish to use copyrighted material from this  email for
> purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',  you
> must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
> --  
> 
>  --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>    Visually Impaired Veterans Network
>  -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>  
>





 
____________________________________
 Life should be easier. So should your homepage. _Try  the NEW  AOL.com_ 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) .



**************Finally, one site has it all: your friends, your email, your 
favorite sites. Try the NEW AOL.com. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000006)