I guess I'm a traditionalist in that if you are injured to the point that it affects your ability to live a normal life, such as a foot blown off by a land mine, you're shot while serving and are partially/fully paralyzed or use loss of an appendage or even if you are serving in a non-combat function, such as a munitions expert and a bomb drops on your foot and you lose the foot as a result of the accident...or like in the movie Men of Honor, getting your leg nearly amputated by a snapped cable.
However, I'm seeing more and more vets basically stealing from the taxpayers. My neighbor is a former Marine. Never served in a combat/front line group. He was a Harrier mechanic. He was diagnosed with narcolepsy and gets full disability. I respect him for serving, but when he told me he gets full disability for narcalepsy, I questioned his character.
I always think back to the US House hearing on a contractor claiming to be disabled to a football injury at a military school - VMI I believe. Where as Rep. Duckworth was severely injured serving her country.
So what should constitute a disability? How do we address this or can we? I hate knocking guys that served, but dammit, narcolepsy? Really?
However, I'm seeing more and more vets basically stealing from the taxpayers. My neighbor is a former Marine. Never served in a combat/front line group. He was a Harrier mechanic. He was diagnosed with narcolepsy and gets full disability. I respect him for serving, but when he told me he gets full disability for narcalepsy, I questioned his character.
I always think back to the US House hearing on a contractor claiming to be disabled to a football injury at a military school - VMI I believe. Where as Rep. Duckworth was severely injured serving her country.
So what should constitute a disability? How do we address this or can we? I hate knocking guys that served, but dammit, narcolepsy? Really?
Last edited: