Return to Website

The Ivy Division Forum

WELCOME to THE IVY DIVISION Message Forum 
THIS website is a private SUPPORT SITE for 4th ID veterans, active duty soldiers, family members, friends and everyone who supports our troops no matter how you feel about our leaders. Troublemakers, gossips. trolls, liars, etc are NOT welcome here. Posts that defame,, humiliate and/or intimidate other posters or the webmaster will be deleted without notice or comment. Please read the rules on the Main Page, thank you!
This forum has a long history, by interent standards anyway-unfortunately it has been abandoned for far too long due to real life circumstances knocking the heck out of what had been my very real desire to keep this board alive and well forever so that all of us could meet here and communicate with each other everyday.

I'm not sure that a forum like this is even needed nowadays since the advent of facebook, etc...but I hope that this once thriving BB does bring some of us back together again and that maybe some new folks will join us as well!   
Webmaster: Bob Poff, C-1-8, 1968-1969 robert8h@yahoo.com
Thank You for Visiting The Ivy Division.com!
Open 24 Hours a Day, 365 Days a Year
Friends of The Ivy Division
A.B.,HONORARY GRUNT!
jinks' www.vietnamvets.com messageboard
Jim Bury's Ivy Dragoons website
Redleg's 4ID Forum

The IVY Division is back, the love of my life
Julie and I are married and we welcome
you Back to the IVY Division Forum!!!

The Ivy Division Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
U.S. deploys more than 43,000 unfit for combat

U.S. deploys more than 43,000 unfit for combat

By Gregg Zoroya
USA TODAY



WASHINGTON — More than 43,000 U.S. troops listed as medically unfit for combat in the weeks before their scheduled deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003 were sent anyway, Pentagon records show.

This reliance on troops found medically "non-deployable" is another sign of stress placed on a military that has sent 1.6 million servicemembers to the war zones, soldier advocacy groups say.

"It is a consequence of the consistent churning of our troops," said Bobby Muller, president of Veterans For America. "They are repeatedly exposed to high-intensity combat with insufficient time at home to rest and heal before redeploying."

The numbers of non-deployable soldiers are based on health assessment forms filled out by medical personnel at each military installation before a servicemember's deployment.

According to those statistics, the number of troops that doctors found non-deployable, but who were still sent to Iraq or Afghanistan fluctuated from 10,854 in 2003, down to 5,397 in 2005, and back up to 9,140 in 2007.

The Pentagon records do not list what — or how serious — the health issues are, nor whether they were corrected before deployment, said Michael Kilpatrick, a deputy director for the Pentagon's Force Health Protection and Readiness Programs.

A Pentagon staffer examined 10,000 individual health records last year to determine causes for the non-deployable ratings, Kilpatrick said. Some reasons included a need for eyeglasses, dental work or allergy medicine and a small number of mental health cases, he said.

This is the first war in which this health screening process has been used, the Pentagon said.

Most of the non-deployable servicemembers are in the Army, which is doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Between 5% and 7% of all active-duty, National Guard and Reserve soldiers slated for combat were found medically unfit due to health problems each year since 2003, according to statistics provided to USA TODAY.

Unit commanders make the final decision about whether a servicemember is sent into combat, although doctors can recommend against deployment because of a medical issue, Army spokeswoman Kim Waldron said.

"The commander consults with health care professionals to determine whether the treatment a soldier needs is available in theater," said Army Col. Steven Braverman of the Army Medical Command.

At Fort Carson, Colo., Maj. Gen. Mark Graham ordered an investigation into deployment procedures for a brigade deployed to Iraq late last year. At least 36 soldiers were found medically unfit but were still deployed, Graham told USA TODAY.

For at least seven soldiers, treatment in the war zone was inadequate and the soldiers were sent home, he said, and at least two of them should never have been deployed.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, the panel's chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Army leaders about an e-mail from the surgeon for the Fort Carson brigade that said medically "borderline" soldiers went to war because "we have been having issues reaching deployable strength."

"That should not be happening," Army Secretary Pete Geren told the committee. "I can't tell you that it's not, but it certainly should not be happening."

Meanwhile, soldiers with medical problems have also deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Stewart and Fort Benning, both in Georgia, according to Brenda Farrell, who is leading an investigation into the practice for the Government Accountability Office.

A report from that investigation sought by members of the House Armed Services Committee is due in June.

Re: U.S. deploys more than 43,000 unfit for combat

Hell from march of 1962 until july of 1965 i was unfit for military service. I voluntered and was rexamined and reclassified as 1A. I wore eye glasses for most of the time until mine were broken. When it could be done the army replaced them.
Jinx are you and this guy saying no one can serve the united states defend it and the american people unless they are absolutely perfect.
That the U S has no choice but to surrender to the terrorists al queda Hammas (who want
Barack Hussien Obama as US president).

Re: U.S. deploys more than 43,000 unfit for combat

Actually Duane Im not saying anything more than, "I think that its not right to send Troops back into combat unless they are both physically and mentally fit enough to perform their duties".

Seems to me that if you cared anything about the welfare of these Americans fighting you would feel the same.

But as you always do, you take the side of Government and cast the very Troops that you claim to support aside. Its a proven fact if a Trooper is sick or has emotional problems he can not do his or her duty up to combat standards and not only puts himself in danger but those that depend on him.

You should just come clean and admit that you don't care about the troops instead of lieing all the time about how much you support them.

End of Conversation!