Article

2007-03-15 Home Front: Politix

The Army fired the one guy who can fix the Walter Reed fiasco

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2007-03-15 07:58|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This business of expiration of orders of active duty is one which has needlessly confounded the services for many, many years. In the information age, relying upon expiration dates printed on an a paper order is archiac and irresponsible. ALL mobilization orders should be INDEFINATE until superseded by an order "Releasing the soldier From Active Duty" (REFRAD). I know a substantial amount of funding is involved with orders containing Fund Sites (accounting codes), but why in the world after all these years can we not include a Fund Site on the orders for the purpose of casualty assistance, medical treatment, and rehabilitation? If I can made a simple 1-800 call to USAA and conduct all my insurance affairs, why can't the Army cut INDEFINATE orders use DEERS to validate, and set up a 24x7, 1-800 orders validation and assistance line? A soldier's orders sending him to combat should expire only when a REFRAD is cut, end of story.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-03-15 08:43|| 2007-03-15 08:43|| Front Page Top

#2 I recall B, that in the demob of WWII and even up through Vietnam there were cases where guys were given 'indefinite' orders and sent home to recoup. Problem was they lost accountability of 'who's on first'. So there were people years later still waiting for follow on orders. Not like the individual was in a big hurry to report back. Some where charged with desertion. However, those who still had copies of their orders were pretty much covered.

And surprise, surprise, the administration of patients of medical hold companies hasn't changed much from WWII. The fluffy interface between doc's in uniform and paper pushers in Med Hold isn't too tight either. Who's responsible? Well, its shoulda, coulda, woulda.

It all falls back to the need to account for the bodies. Where do you account for them. If you keep them assigned to their original unit, that unit can not ask for a replacement to fill the personnel shortage, but it does have the command structure to track/control their personnel. If you move them to a Medical Holding Company, you get a lot of this loss of control. They're transit personnel and there is no real command structure, just admin people trying to keep up with the accountability of tracking who's where [see comment about interface between doc and company]. The old standard is that you can control five people at any one time. However, there is no team, squad, platoon, etc in a Med Hold patient structure.

So in a desperate attempt to impose some form of control over the chaos, they use orders with limiting dates. Unfortunately, they lack the manpower [intelligence and adaptability as well], to make it function properly. They don't understand that there is no perfect and the solution may return it back to what is sighted in the first paragraph.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-03-15 10:24|| 2007-03-15 10:24|| Front Page Top

The powers-that-be in this sorry Walter Reed saga--Congress, Secretary Gates, the Dole-Shalala commission--could prove wisdom hasn't fled Washington by reinstating Gen. Weightman.

Never happen. Congress & the other members of the political establishment are never at fault as long as someone else can be scapegoated.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-03-15 13:36|| 2007-03-15 13:36|| Front Page Top

23:52 anonaminie
23:52 Bunyip
23:28 Eric Jablow
23:25 Verlaine
23:24 gromgoru
23:23 Verlaine
23:19 gromgoru
23:18 Verlaine
23:18 Frank G
23:10 Verlaine
23:07 RD
23:07 anon1
23:04 Verlaine
23:01 twobyfour
22:58 anon1
22:57 Alaska Paul
22:56 Danking70
22:55 Verlaine
22:37 Zenster
22:35 twobyfour
22:35 anon1
22:35 Chuck Simmins
22:32 anon1
22:18 gromgoru