# Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI!



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2006)

I found this quite disturbing.



> Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits
> 
> 
> By Nathaniel R. Helms
> ...


http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?action...nKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4514


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 19, 2006)

> and was subsequently killed in action "could" be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy *as well as face disciplinary action. *


What, they gonna fine ur dead ass corpse or ur widowed wife and small child, or ur 75 year old mother who just lost her only child???

I think this is a load of shit... "Remove all non-issue gear" ???? Who are they kidding??? I heard something about this kinda crap a few weeks ago, but this info proves it... I talked to my buddy Sean and he said this situation does not affect USNSWCOM and probably not USSOCOM either...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2006)

Or what if you're wearing one and you're wounded, what are they going to do, deny you medical attention?!?! What a bunch of dumbasses!!! I hope this story gets a name attachted to it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 19, 2006)

Jesus Christ! 
So for taking every reasonable precaution in the field within their means, albeit with non "regulation" equipment, the Army is about to deny insurance benefits to it's fighting men and women. F*ck me!

Bend over, boys.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2006)

This story came from the Soldiers for Truth website. One of the founding members of SFT was David Hackworth. I have trusted these guys to get the straight skinny for years. 

USSOCOMM gave him a very generic and vague answer to e-mails. He has been pressing them to find out what the F is going on.

Doesn't sound like the same military we were in, eh Dan? We civilian sourced whatever we needed that we couldn't get. That's how we had to get toothpaste on one op! 

This whole story stinks to high heaven and that is why I had to post it. Something is very very wrong with this and someone needs to fry for it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2006)

If I was those soldiers I would go to IG, because that is in violations of there right to survive, especially when the armour that the Army is issuing is innadiquate and fails to protect the soldier. 

It was actually quite funny, we did a whole year in Iraq and when we got back, they made us recall our body armour because it was defective! A year after we got to Iraq!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2006)

I agree Adler! I'd love to see a court marshal over this!!! I'm still waiting to see how long it takes for a name to emerge....


----------



## kiwimac (Jan 22, 2006)

Typical HQ bullshit. Bloody redtabs

Kiwimac


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

There will be one FBJ, I assure you of that.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jan 22, 2006)

Man! That is crazy! Body armor should be kept if they purchased it!

And what you were saying Alder is that it was "defective?" THats crazy!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

They were found to break apart at certain points and allow a bullet or even shrapnel to move past the armour.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 7, 2006)

Looks like someone took scuttle-butt to the press. Whereever it came from, it was not USSOCOMM.


> Eagle Eyed Air Force Master Sergeant Sheds Light on Body Armor Saga
> 
> Eagle Eyed Air Force Master Sergeant
> Sheds Light on Body Armor Saga
> ...


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 24, 2006)

The way the feces hits the oscillating rotary device is this: If you use something you were not issued, you may not be meeting the standard of required protective gear. The de facto threat is a line of duty determination, which can affect your SGLI benefits. If you are found to have worn something that did not protect you adequately or worn protective equipment improperly, the line of duty may reflect that you were killed because of not meeting the standard. Seen it happen with both my eyes at the same time...


----------



## Geobaldi (May 24, 2006)

I've heard a lot of "news" reports over this, and it seems recently that there is an official stance of denial over the original reports that using non-issue armor was punishible. 

Not that it matters, it seems the U. S. Armed forces are now starting to turn a blind eye to the whole matter, which suits most everyone involved just fine. Either way, I'd keep on my Dragon Skin. Can't receive benefits if you're dead.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 24, 2006)

> Can't receive benefits if you're dead.


No, but ur wife and 2 kids or ur poor despondant mother would....


> Either way, I'd keep on my Dragon Skin.


I agree 100%...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> The way the feces hits the oscillating rotary device is this: If you use something you were not issued, you may not be meeting the standard of required protective gear. The de facto threat is a line of duty determination, which can affect your SGLI benefits. If you are found to have worn something that did not protect you adequately or worn protective equipment improperly, the line of duty may reflect that you were killed because of not meeting the standard. Seen it happen with both my eyes at the same time...



Yeah but the stuff the Army is issuing us downrange is even less adequate.


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2006)

Politics, politics, politics. let us do our damn job

wear the body suit bright silver/chrome for all I care as long as our men/women are protected. Better than sitting out in a Baghdad street butt naked yelling shoot me !

how pathetic this is all becoming .......


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 8, 2006)

Agreed Erich...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

Unfortunatly it really almost is like sitting in the street butt naked!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2006)

Speaking of body armor, heres a clip thats too funny to not post here....

Afghan officer attempts to demonstrate that body armor stops a 7.62 round....


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2006)

He deserves that for being so stupid. And that just proves how useless the Afghan army is.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 15, 2006)

Yup, although I think the vid may have been staged... I havent been able to confirm it through my sources...


----------



## Chief (Jul 18, 2006)

"No soldier ever won a war by dieing for his country. He won it by making the other b****** die for his country." Patton

Enough anti-war crap and give the boys what they need. they don't need more men: what they need is actual war specificated supplies. But, thoughs D*** white shirted pencil pusher's in washington are to uptight about cost. Which is more important. Money for the greedy currupt SoB's worrying about the cut in there pay or the hard-fought soldiers out fighting so that the currupt SoB's are able to that pay cut. I'm not talking about the Bush administration. Frankly I think they're doing a bang up job. But the media is so currupt they're even giving away the positions of are men by putting them all over the TV and for what...publicity. Sometimes I just get so fed up with this country it's pathetic. They need to stop whining and start doing their job's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2006)

Chief said:


> " they don't need more men: what they need is actual war specificated supplies.



No we need more men. Trust me I am in the US Army and spent 14 months in Tikrit, Iraq. If it were not for the fact that I was getting out soon, I would be heading over there again, very very very soon.

Our Army is spread to thin and we do not have the manpower to sustain this kind of fight. We are burnt out and can not keep this pace up much longer. We need more men...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

The media are good at ruining military planning, or giving away positions. They would have cost the Allies many more men if TV was widespread in World War II. During the Falklands, the Argentine planners watched BBC International to find out where the Royal Navy was.


----------



## Chief (Jul 19, 2006)

Well than I take that part back, but they still need equipment actually meant for war.

It's almost to the point where armor is procure on site. They also need a lot of other stuff too. I'm not saying that the armor they have now is useless, but for the situation they're in it may as well be.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

No they fixed that problem.

We now have the proper armour and we have the proper equipment. I dont know where you are getting this from.

The problem is the fact that we are spread to thin and we can not sustain this op tempo. I have been on a war op tempo since 2001 and it has not slowed down. Many of us are wore out and there is no break in site. 

We have the equipment to fight the war, we are slowly loosing the strength to fight it.


----------

