Some get health care that’s paid for by others. Not the same thing.

Doesn’t that seem like the plot of some Hollywood movie where a “former” operator or agent gets sucked back into doing one more mission/assignment

Russ808 on February 12, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Like this one, coincidentally entitled… Shooter.

IIRC a Dick Cheney lookalike was the bad guy.

Or maybe I’m thinking of one of the other dozen or more movies where a Dick Cheney lookalike recruits ex-SF guys to help in his deep dark nefarious scheme to do bad deeds and/or take over the US government.

These Islamist jihadis see themselves by definition as blood lust and revenge warriors. In my opinion, I think that Bronstein may have made himself a target for some jihadis looking for information leading them to UBL’s killer. I think he was a damned fool for writing this.

But even if we accept the Shooter’s account (and Bronstein’s recounting of it) for the sake of discussion, the timing of this Esquire article is also inherently suspect in my book.

In a comment I posted on the other thread of the story, I noted that, in addition to what was a gripping first-hand account of the shooting of UBL, Bronstein’s primary focus was to be very critical of the U.S. government’s response to the Shooter in terms of financial (and physical) security when he decided to retire early. It was also quite clear from statements made by Bronstein in the article, that the interviews he held with the Shooter were conducted back in May of 2012, up until September.

So, why was publication held until now? In other words, did Esquire hold this until after the election? And even if they did so in order to protect the Obama Administration from criticism until after he was reelected, why did it take until nearly mid-February to publish this?

Is an attempted reworking of military retirement benefits in the offing by the Obama Administration? Plainly, he needs support from the military. So why not offer a carrot to one group of Americans who inherently dislike his ilk? And, he very desperately needs to raise taxes — again. So why not offer a more generous military retirement package at the SOTU and demand an increase in taxes from Congress, in part, to help pay for it?

Does anyone else sense that the timing of this may have a whole lot to do with the sequestration debate?

If you slog through the article, it says that he didn’t want to re-enlist, even reserves, because as a SEAL he’d get sucked right back into SpecOps missions, like it or not. And he was worn out from that. The “quote” was something about “knowing it was time to quit when I didn’t get the adrenaline rush anymore.”

…

TexasDan on February 12, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Doesn’t that seem like the plot of some Hollywood movie where a “former” operator or agent gets sucked back into doing one more mission/assignment? Certainly it might be something that one would put forward as a reason WHY one didn’t just stick it out for 4 more years or seek a transfer or just try to get reassigned to maybe some less stressful assignment like training or security.

Google the form and read what is covered on it, every single thing you can even imagine is on that form, from VA health care to the continued health benefits option. This sailor read and signed that form before he got his DD 214. Now maybe he just signed the thing and didnt read it, but that is not the Military’s fault. I do this all day every day as a civilian now, and no one (less Admin discharges or incapacitated members) gets their 214 without me having that signed and witnessed form in their retain file.

No insult, but wrench turning in the USAF is a bit different from SEALS, too…
JFKY on February 12, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Yes it is – and that’s why they get extra pay and bonuses for what they do. But being a SEAL is a volunteer assignment that you have to really really want or you will never get through the training. I know I never could have made it – I was an Air Force orbital analyst in Cheyenne Mountain for my 4 years – so I have huge respect for those guys.
“A man’s got to know his limitations.” Dirty Harry)

But that’s also why I think this story is a fake. I believe real SEALs are far above whining and crying about “poor little me” like what’s going on in this story. A real SEAL would know exactly what he’s doing, what his options are, and have no trouble finding a job in the civilian world.

He knew full well what he was entitled to, and what he wasn’t when he signed his discharge papers. Instead of patting himself on the back, he should have paid attention to what they were telling him. Everyone discharging is required to attend (Transition Assistance Program (TAP) where they explain every detail of their benefits. Upon discharge, no family medical is first. He had the option of staying on in a limited support capacity while waiting for the VA to review his case. Or transfer to the reserves for another 2-3 years to retirement. In either case, his family would still be covered if he was the least bit concerned for them. He knew he wasn’t eligible for any type of pension (or transfer to IRR) short of 20 years.

The whining to the media doesn’t display a SEAL character trait, so he’s no more “The Shooter” than I am. He knows full well also that no one will dispute his claim because they’ll never identify the real shooter. He wants protection for himself and his family, but he takes his false complaint to the media? Please.

I suggest he go wallow in his despair, and stop trolling for sympathy. You’ve got nothing, and you knew it all along. LOSER!

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM

The author of the Esquire piece — “The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden… Is Screwed” — was Phil Bronstein, NOT Aaron Glanz as you have now claimed at least twice on this thread.

Bronstein’s piece, which was also posted on the CIRonline website under the name, “The Shooter” was referred to and linked in by Aaron Glanz in the subsequent piece he published on that same Center for Investigative Reporting website, here.

I would agree that there may be are several things about the Bronstein piece that deserve very close scrutiny.

But falsely claiming that it was written by someone else is obviously not one of them!

dentarthurdent on February 12, 2013 at 4:34PM

Exactly right! I didnt know if the other services called it the same thing

No insult, but wrench turning in the USAF is a bit different from SEALS, too

Agreed, AF “wrench turning” is different from being a SEAL, but not everyone in the AF is a wrench turner. We do have jobs in the SO arena; Combat Controllers, TACPs, PJs…my job entailed being embedded w/ the SOF guys. They are my heroes! This guy’s story just doesn’t seem right…

A composite of all the disgruntled ex-GIs who didn’t pay attention at their separation briefings.

I see highly trained VOLUNTEERS, on dangerous missions are told they cannot leave the SEALS? Prior to arriving in the SEALS all they ahd to do was “Ring the bell” to go home, but that changes once in the Teams? I think not….

Let’s just put it this way, you are deep in enemy territory and you know the guy next to you does NOT want to be there…Question: does this increase/decrease your confidence in mission success?

There might be rules or taboos about quitting ON DEPLOYMENT, or during Pre-Deployment Training, but after the deployment? I doubt it.

JFKY on February 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM

That makes sense and demonstrates my ignorance on the matter. My comment wasn’t to boast in my understanding but to confirm if my understanding was correct.

Thank you.

I know in the AF, it is MANDATORY to attend a VA briefing to learn about your benefits afforded you upon retirment/separation. In my 20 years of service, i know of only a couple of people get out so “late” in the game (just short of 20 years)usually a very good job lined up. I always say, if you go past 10 years you might as well stay to 20-you are just giving money back to the government if you get out early.

Static21 on February 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM

More than just the AF. Since 2006, I’ve been a DoD contractor industry employer panel volunteer at a lot of Transition Assistance Program (TAP) seminars at Fort Carson, Peterson AFB, Schreiver AFB, and USAF Academy. Everyone separating or retiring from the military has to attend one of these 3 day seminars to learn about VA benefits, GI Bill, how to write a resume, how to search for jobs, how to interview, et, etc. Nobody, especially someone with 16 years in, gets out of the military without knowing everything about their options and benefits.

Along with Hayabusa and several others, I called BS on the whole story in the other thread yesterday, and I still stand by that.
I believe we will eventually find out this is the work of a stolen valor type scam artist, or the liberal no-integrity reporter made up the whole thing.

GWB on February 12, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Yeah, I know. Was explaining it to astoneril. :)

Static21 on February 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Exactly right. If you’re deploying, you have enough remaining enlistment time to complete the deployment. One thing to note, though – some SpecOps ‘deployments’ are pretty durn short. They go over, do the job, and go home. MOST of them do deploy for normal time periods, but SpecOps can be, well, ‘special’. But you still don’t deploy for even a 6-day TDY if you don’t have at least a couple of weeks left in your enlistment.

JFKY on February 12, 2013 at 4:22 PM

As far as pitching him out, if someone refused a deployment because he didn’t want to re-enlist, the military has sometimes been *very* quick to put folks in charge of the latrines at home and let them bide their time until they are out. (I don’t think we’re arguing opposite sides, btw – I’m just adding info.)

Married folks have to pay to eat on base. In the Air Force they have ALWAYS had to pay.

catmman on February 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM

That is because they receive BAS – Basic Allowance for Subsistence. (It’s labeled differently now and is rolled up with other elements now, I believe.)

If you are deployed, you are usually in a “block” of enlistment and can’t quit. If it is pre-deployment, you have to get the necessary time to cover the deployment you are going on or you don’t go. And, at that point you usually aren’t allowed to re-enlist due to you turning down a deployment.

No insult, but wrench turning in the USAF is a bit different from SEALS, too…I agree you’ve signed a contract and you owe the time, BUT…whilst the USAF can make you miserable enough to make you WISH you had deployed to Backassistan….Can the USN really make you miserable enough to make you deploy into the mountains of Af-Pak to hunt bad guys?

Isn’t it more likely we simply xsfer you to a storeskeeper position or whatever your “rate”, IIRC, was prior to becoming a SEAL?

And this is, supposedly, AFTER the big mission…so I find it extremely difficult to believe that this guy said to his OC, “I can’t do this any more, I feel like my luck bank account has run dry” and his OC said, “GTFO of the Navy!”

I’m with the growing chorus, this doesn’t sound right….I’ve known one person who got out after 16 years & I couldn’t believe that.

I see highly trained VOLUNTEERS, on dangerous missions are told they cannot leave the SEALS? Prior to arriving in the SEALS all they ahd to do was “Ring the bell” to go home, but that changes once in the Teams? I think not….

Let’s just put it this way, you are deep in enemy territory and you know the guy next to you does NOT want to be there…Question: does this increase/decrease your confidence in mission success?

There might be rules or taboos about quitting ON DEPLOYMENT, or during Pre-Deployment Training, but after the deployment? I doubt it.

JFKY on February 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Well, on the enlisted side, for the AF, you sign up for a certain term of enlistment-usually 4 yrs at a time. If you are deployed, you are usually in a “block” of enlistment and can’t quit. If it is pre-deployment, you have to get the necessary time to cover the deployment you are going on or you don’t go. And, at that point you usually aren’t allowed to re-enlist due to you turning down a deployment.

I was thinking, if he got tired of the action or if that event was to much for him (not saying anything is wrong with that) how hard would it be for a Seal to line up a new job doing anything else he wanted? Then it hit me, the military invested a lot in his training and might not allow him to do anything else.

I don’t know that much about the assignment process to lean strongly on this idea.

shick on February 12, 2013 at 3:59 PM

I’m having trouble believing he couldn’t have spent his remaining three plus years training new SEALs and/or other SF operators in some way, doing a lot of good well out of harm’s way.

Too much of this story makes too little sense.

Then it hit me, the military invested a lot in his training and might not allow him to do anything else.

I don’t know that much about the assignment process to lean strongly on this idea.

I see highly trained VOLUNTEERS, on dangerous missions are told they cannot leave the SEALS? Prior to arriving in the SEALS all they ahd to do was “Ring the bell” to go home, but that changes once in the Teams? I think not….

Let’s just put it this way, you are deep in enemy territory and you know the guy next to you does NOT want to be there…Question: does this increase/decrease your confidence in mission success?

There might be rules or taboos about quitting ON DEPLOYMENT, or during Pre-Deployment Training, but after the deployment? I doubt it.

Has there been any explanation anywhere about why he is quitting instead of sticking it out a few more years to qualify for full benefits?

farsighted on February 12, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Every veteran has there own reasons for separating that close to the 20 year mark.

I was thinking, if he got tired of the action or if that event was to much for him (not saying anything is wrong with that) how hard would it be for a Seal to line up a new job doing anything else he wanted? Then it hit me, the military invested a lot in his training and might not allow him to do anything else.

I don’t know that much about the assignment process to lean strongly on this idea.

I served 22 years in the Air Force. We both just have different service experiences. no big deal.

Semper Fi

catmman on February 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Yeah, Marines was way different.

76 trailer PMs, all on me, over the weekend, because the “married” guy first, failed to do them per schedule, then ignored instructions to do them the week before, and then it was verboten to imagine having a married guy work on the weekend. Inspection on Monday, he gets the credit for having his job done, perfectly. 16 hours each day, Saturday and Sunday, doing someone else’ job who was getting direct payments far higher than I was getting tends to piss a person off. That was the worst instance of the special privilege marrieds got. I certainly enjoyed wartime though, outside of the extra pay they got, at least then we were finally treated equal.

I got out in 92, I hear they made it a kinder gentler Marine Corps since then, so perhaps it has improved. I planned to be career.

You know, I know I am going to be vilified for this, but why does this particular Navy SEAL deserve an exception to the rules?

Shump on February 12, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Not by me.

I know in the AF, it is MANDATORY to attend a VA briefing to learn about your benefits afforded you upon retirment/separation. In my 20 years of service, i know of only a couple of people get out so “late” in the game (just short of 20 years)usually a very good job lined up. I always say, if you go past 10 years you might as well stay to 20-you are just giving money back to the government if you get out early.

Static21 on February 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Yep.

I know of only a few who got out after 10 who didn’t go to 20. A lot of those were in 93/94 during the Clinton drawdowns and they got a ‘separation bonus’ (paid to get out to meet end-strength goals).

Back in the day you had to be an E4/E5 to move on base if you were married and if you were single, even an NCO you had to live in the dorm. But that was a looooong time ago… Never understood that policy: the youngest, most financially strapped troops had to live on the economy while those who could more easily afford it were forced to live on base. Smh…