As many as three-fifths of soldiers that are discharged for misconduct actually have post-traumatic stress disorder or other types of brain injuries, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

The report confirms a suspicion that has been talked about for a long time. “It is everything many of us believed for years,” said Iraq veteran Kristopher Goldsmith, who is an assistant director at Vietnam Veterans of America. “Now I hope Congress will direct the resources to making it right.”

The report showed that 62 percent of all service members who were discharged for misconduct between 2011 and 2015 had been diagnosed with PTSD, a traumatic brain injury (TBI), or other conditions that can cause similar behavior. That totals over 57,000 soldiers. Out of the 57,000, 16 percent had PTSD or TBI.

The majority of the rest had adjustment and alcohol-related disorders. Those include depression, anxiety, personality disorders, different kinds of substance addictions, or bipolar disorder. Twenty-three percent of the soldiers discharged got an “other than honorable” discharge. This means they are, in most cases, not eligible for any military health care, disability pensions, or other benefits.

GAO Reports that 62% of Soldiers Separated for Misconduct Have PTSD or Other Disorders https://t.co/nwaqKoHH1A pic.twitter.com/5jFIvizWw5

— The Alt Standard (@TheAlt_Media) May 17, 2017

The military has long been criticized for not doing enough to help its veterans. Now experts are also criticizing President Donald Trump’s new health care bill; it passed the House earlier this month. The new bill categorizes PTSD as a pre-existing condition, which could make health insurance inaccessible to millions of veterans.

Given that Trump campaigned on the promise to do more for veterans, a lot of people slammed the new bill. Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth lost her legs while serving in the Iraq war. She called the health care bill “stunning” for making it harder for veterans to get access to health care.

We need to reduce barriers to mental health care for service members & vets – not make PTSD a pre-existing condition #VeteransResist #NoAHCA

— Ruben Gallego (@RepRubenGallego) May 13, 2017

After speculations first broke that soldiers suffering from PTSD or TBI were frequently discharged, the military introduced regulations, screening soldiers to detect any such diseases before punishing them. But the GAO report showed that this rarely happened. And no one monitored the new regulations to check for compliance.

“Before, we were speculating. Now we have hard numbers to prove there are this vast numbers of combat veterans affected,” said Representative Mike Coffman, a Republican from Colorado and an Iraq War veteran. He said he believes that people want to do something about the problem, but that there has been a lack of understanding. Hopefully, this new information will lead to some change.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Soldiers Discharged for Misconduct Often Suffer from PTSD, Other Disorders appeared first on Law Street.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell may go down in football history as the least liked commissioner with the best intentions. His effort to deter future head injuries among players by fining violent hits has caused his approval rating with players to sink. His effort to aid the health of former players may not be sufficient, according to a federal judge. And his plan to penalize on-field use of the n-word has been called hypocritical by several journalists (here, here and here, to name a few). So why do haters gotta hate on Goodell? The first two issues have fairly intuitive answers; people don’t like paying fines, and settling decades of severe brain trauma probably requires lots of money. The last issue is a bit complicated, but it ‘s probably because taking baby steps to battle prejudice is considered by many to be aggravatingly stupid.

Goodell’s intentions seem honest enough. Last November the Fritz Pollard Alliance (FPA) — an organization that focuses on  supporting diversity in the League — approached Goodell expressing discontent at the volume of players who use the n-word in the NFL. The FPA again broached the issue with the League last month, and Goodell heeded their advice by proposing it to the NFL’s competition committee. The League is expected now to pass a rule penalizing the slur starting next season.

The move has been hailed by some members of the press, but it has also been criticized as hypocritical in light of the NFL’s much more glaring issue of bigotry: the name of the eighty-two year old NFL franchise in the District of Columbia, the Washington Redskins. The Redskins have been considered a derogatory name for decades, but the debate has gathered steam recently due to their trademark battle for the name. The ‘Skins owner, Dan Snyder, has refused to change the name, and Roger Goodell has given his steadfast support to Snyder on the issue.

Why, you ask? If Goodell’s public statements are to be believed, he genuinely believes that the term “Redskins” is more flattering than disparaging. Goodell and Snyder also seem to genuinely believe, despite the lawsuits, that the majority of American Indian tribes support their name. The other less insane argument is that renaming the near-$2 billion franchise could cost both the NFL and the team big time after all of the branding and intellectual property ramifications are considered.

Whatever Goodell’s reasoning is for supporting the Redskins, his stance is nothing new for those in similar positions. In fact, it seems like an American tradition, perhaps as sacred as football, for those of esteemed authority to get tangled in a web of hypocrisy when they’re trying to placate on the issue of tolerance. Our greatest legal minds held in a 7-to-1 vote that “separate but equal” was an equitable way to deal with racial tension and state’s rights. It took Congress 51 years to afford women the same right as minorities in the voting booth. And still some elected officials and judges find civil unions to be adequate for gays who wish to be married. Watershed moments of civil rights often come after years of slow flooding, rather than through large tidal waves. Were Goodell willing to defy this trend and force Dan Snyder’s hand, he might be able to earn the thundering applause he might like in passing the n-word penalty. But instead, the commissioner of football may have to settle for a golf clap.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Staff Sgt. Bradley Lail, USAF via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Why the NFL’s N-Word Ban Gets a Golf Clap Instead of a Standing Ovation appeared first on Law Street.