WWTBAM Bored

as if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't good enough advertising in themselves ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/wcvb/20071219/lo_wcvb/14882804

Outrageous is the only polite adjective I can think of.

gsabc wrote:[

Outrageous is the only polite adjective I can think of.

Yep, this sounds outrageous, and I'm most certainly glad that Congress is taking action.

That said, I do put some emphasis on sounds outrageous. Having become somewhat more cynical in recent years about how some news stories are written, I cannot help but wonder if perhaps the Department of Defense was following a law as written by Congress. (Some mistakes in enforcement are admitted and being fixed.)

I will want more information before I start jumping up and down.

Here is something nice that the NAVY did:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/navy-rescu ... 1609990001

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Here is something nice that the NAVY did:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/navy-rescu ... 1609990001

Just wait until she gets the bill!

gsabc wrote:as if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't good enough advertising in themselves ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/wcvb/20071219/lo_wcvb/14882804

Outrageous is the only polite adjective I can think of.

I actually know a little bit about this. This is really one of the 'slipped through the cracks' kind of problems that develops in a bureaucracy: there is a requirement that a person forfeit an enlistment bonus if he/she fails to satisfy the terms of the enlistment (i.e., if he/she leaves before the enlistment period is completed), BUT, this does not apply to people who are unable to complete the terms of enlistment due to things like being injured in the course of duty. What happened in this particular case is that the computer that tracks this stuff picked up that the person did not complete the enlistment term, but did not screen out the reason why, and so, she got the letter. It has happened to a few people, and invariably it has been the same situation-- an automatic letter goes out, because someone failed to stop it (or program the system to stop it) for the particular person involved.

It's the same thing that happened in my case, where the Chief Compliance Officer sent me a congratulatory letter upon my receipt of my latest certification-- a letter that included reference to how valuable and important this is to Capital One's future success-- that letter was generated by a computer that (1) knows that I received the certification and (2) knows that I am still on the payroll, but (3) no one told it that I am in 'redeployment' and that my employment effectively ended two weeks ago (it does not officially end until February of next year).

Bureaucracies have trouble dealing with exceptions, and there are few bureaucracies more ponderous than the US Army.

silvercamaro wrote:

gsabc wrote:[

Outrageous is the only polite adjective I can think of.

Yep, this sounds outrageous, and I'm most certainly glad that Congress is taking action.

That said, I do put some emphasis on sounds outrageous. Having become somewhat more cynical in recent years about how some news stories are written, I cannot help but wonder if perhaps the Department of Defense was following a law as written by Congress. (Some mistakes in enforcement are admitted and being fixed.)

I will want more information before I start jumping up and down.

The DoD says that this isn't their policy, but the actions of their employees says otherwise. Someone has screwed up somewhere in interpreting or implementing the rules, whether they are laws or regulations or policies. But even to consider such actions is outrageous. If you think the law is mistaken or the interpretation is wrong, you call it to someone's attention and try to get it changed. You don't just blithely carry on with the business.

I shudder to think how horrific conditions would still be at Walter Reed if not for those two angels from the Washington Post who did their expose.

Them and Don Imus.