An investigation by Scripps News has revealed troubling trends within the U.S. Air Force regarding the treatment of injured and sick Air National Guard members, particularly how their claims for medical care and pay have been mishandled. Reports indicate that while local commanders approve many of these claims, over 20% are subsequently denied by the national headquarters of the Air National Guard. Major (Ret.) Jeremy Sorenson, representing the Uniformed Services Justice & Advocacy Group (USJAG), has voiced strong allegations against high-ranking officials, asserting a coordinated effort to deprive injured service members of their federally mandated benefits. He accuses key figures, including Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall and other senior officials, of prioritizing government savings over the health and rights of veterans.
Sorenson has highlighted the issue of a culture of impunity, where injured service members like Master Sergeant James Buckley face bureaucratic hurdles and rejections after enduring service-related injuries. Buckley’s case exemplifies this struggle, as he was denied the benefits associated with his injuries, classified as “Not In the Line of Duty” (NILOD) despite his claims of damages sustained during military service. This denial has left Buckley without access to military medical care or benefits, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the Department of Defense’s Disability Evaluation System. Appeals made by Buckley have not only been rejected at various levels, but they have also been met with a disconcerting lack of transparency in the reasoning behind such denials.
Compounding the frustration is the assertion that Air Force leadership has relied largely on reports like the Air Force Form 348, which Sorenson claims fail to represent adequate evidence of injuries. Criticism is directed toward Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Troy McIntosh, whose lack of formal qualifications in medical and legal matters raises questions regarding his evaluation of evidence concerning injured service members. Furthermore, the role of Dr. Gerald D. Curry, who oversees the Air Force Review Boards Agency, has been scrutinized for upholding the questionable NILOD determinations without legitimate grounds—marking a significant oversight in accountability.
Despite federal laws designed to protect the rights of service members during the disability evaluation process, reports reveal systemic failures that have disastrous impacts on the affected individuals. Delays and improper handling of paperwork have further complicated cases like Buckley’s, consistently obstructing their access to medical care. This adds to broader concerns about whether the military is intentionally circumventing obligations as a means of achieving budgetary savings. Sorenson argues that this mismanagement and denial of care constitute not merely administrative errors but deliberate actions that jeopardize the health and wellbeing of veterans.
As the evidence mounts, calls for congressional investigation into the actions of Secretary Kendall and Lt. Gen. Stephen Davis grow louder. Claims of systemic corruption and negligence reflect an urgent need to reassess the military’s commitment to those who have served. Sorenson remarks on the alarming reality that numerous veterans like Buckley are left to navigate an unjust system, exacerbating their hardships rather than providing them with the deserved support and medical care after their service. He characterizes this disregard for service members’ rights and welfare as a malpractice that can no longer be tolerated.
In light of these revelations, Sorenson reflects on the imperative for accountability within the Air Force and the military at large. The plight of Buckley and similar service members symbolizes a much larger issue—a pervasive crisis that threatens to undermine the trust and respect for military institutions. True reform, according to advocates like Sorenson, requires not only a commitment to uphold the laws designed to protect service members but also a cultural shift towards valuing their sacrifices. There is a growing consensus that swift action is necessary to restore credibility and ensure that those who serve receive the support and care they rightfully deserve.
