The U.S. Army's approach to soldiers with mental health disorders and traumatic brain injuries (TBI) who commit misconduct has become a subject of significant concern and scrutiny. Since 2009, more than 22,000 soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been separated from service for misconduct after receiving diagnoses of mental health problems or TBI. This practice has persisted despite the existence of a 2009 federal law designed to ensure that troops whose mental illness might be linked to combat service are not unfairly cast aside. The issue gained national attention following a joint investigation by National Public Radio and Colorado Public Radio, which revealed the extent of these discharges and their consequences for affected service members.
The Scale of the Problem
According to figures acquired by NPR and Colorado Public Radio under the Freedom of Information Act, the Army has "separated" 22,000 soldiers for "misconduct" after they returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and were diagnosed with mental health problems or TBI. This pattern of discharges has been observed not just at individual bases like Fort Carson, but across the entire Army. The investigation found that commanders have dismissed these troubled combat troops instead of providing them with additional treatment or medical retirement options.
The consequences of these discharges have been severe for many service members. Soldiers receiving other-than-honorable discharges due to misconduct have lost access to crucial military benefits, including health care coverage and retirement benefits that would have been available with an honorable discharge. This loss of benefits has created significant hardships for veterans already struggling with service-related mental health conditions.
Legal Framework and Intent
The practice of discharging soldiers with mental health conditions for misconduct continued despite the passage of a 2009 federal law specifically designed to address this issue. That legislation aimed to ensure that troops whose mental illness might be linked to their military service would not be discharged without proper consideration of their conditions. According to a spokesman for one of the key congressional committees that drafted the language, members of Congress "wanted to make sure the military was not putting people out that have service-related medical issues because the services have a responsibility to get them the care they need."
The law does not explicitly forbid the Army from dismissing troops with mental disorders who commit misconduct, but it was intended to create stronger protections for service members whose conditions were related to their service. The widespread discharges documented in the investigation suggest that the implementation of this law has fallen short of its intended purpose.
Army's Position and Justification
Army officials have defended their handling of these cases, arguing that commanders did nothing wrong when they discharged soldiers with mental health problems or brain injuries for misconduct. Lt. Col. Chris Ivany, one of the Army's top officials who oversee mental health, told NPR and Colorado Public Radio that the Army is not violating the spirit of the 2009 law by dismissing these soldiers.
According to Ivany, the soldiers' "functional impairment was not severe" enough in some cases to affect their judgment. In other cases, he claimed that while the soldiers' disorders might have been serious when they were diagnosed, their "condition subsequently improved" before they committed misconduct—meaning they could not blame their war experiences for their behavior.
The commander who runs the Army's medical system, Lt. Gen. Patricia Horoho, ordered an investigation into one piece of this nationwide problem. However, the investigation concluded that commanders had acted appropriately in the cases reviewed, despite evidence suggesting the Army failed to pursue key evidence in its investigations.
Impact on Service Members
The discharges have had profound effects on affected soldiers. Service members who received other-than-honorable discharges faced not only the loss of military benefits but also potential difficulties finding civilian employment. Getting forced to leave without an honorable discharge could mean trouble securing decent jobs in the civilian sector.
Personal accounts from affected soldiers illustrate the human impact of these policies. One soldier, Larry Morrison, who returned home with post-traumatic stress disorder after four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, was being kicked out of the Army for misconduct, leaving him without military benefits. Another soldier, Eric James, provided secret recordings of his experiences, which ranged from mundane conversations about scheduling appointments to sessions in which he expressed despair about his life.
In one recording, James told a therapist that he felt angry and miserable most of the time, didn't trust anybody, and isolated himself. "Like, remember I told you I'm like, I feel like I'm coming into a combat zone when I drive on the base," he asked the counselor. He then attempted to discuss some of his scariest experiences in Iraq, noting that "in, like, one month, there was over 1,000 IEDs and multiple ambushes."
Congressional Response and Army's Commitment to Review
The issue gained significant attention in Congress following the investigative reports. A dozen U.S. senators wrote a letter to the Army demanding a full investigation into the matter. In response, the acting secretary of the Army, Eric Fanning, promised to conduct a "thorough, multidisciplinary review" to determine whether thousands of combat soldiers with mental health problems or traumatic brain injuries had been unfairly kicked out of the Army for misconduct.
Fanning's response, contained in a letter to members of the U.S. Senate dated November 30, stated: "The decision to separate a Soldier from the Army for any reason is not an easy one. ... I appreciate the concerns you raised in your letter and take them very seriously." Fanning indicated that the Army would assemble "a team of senior Army leaders," including its inspector general as requested by senators.
Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn., one of the senators who drafted the letter demanding an investigation, applauded the Army's announcement, expressing relief that the U.S. Army would be reviewing these cases. Senator Ron Wyden also commented on the Army's response, noting that "the good news here is the Army is correcting the record for some of the soldiers who were wrongfully discharged for misconduct because of service-related mental health disorders and will change course going forward." Wyden emphasized that "there are still thousands of other soldiers who may have been affected, and I will be working with my colleagues to make sure the Army gets this right for all soldiers who suffer from mental health disorders."
In addition to reviewing past discharges, the Army committed to changing related procedures and practices going forward. According to Fanning's letter, "To ensure full compliance in the future, the Army published an All Army Activities message on April 4, 2016, requiring separation authorities to document, in writing, that the results of the Soldier's medical examinations were reviewed pursuant to 10 USC § 1177."
Professional Perspectives
The Army's handling of these cases has drawn criticism from mental health professionals with military experience. Three military psychiatrists reviewed cases of discharged soldiers and concluded that based on the records they saw, they would have advised the Army not to kick out these soldiers for misconduct. Two of these psychiatrists had served as top medical officers in the military.
"Especially for our soldiers who are coming back, not just with post-traumatic stress disorder, but with traumatic brain injury and other wounds, I really think that we as a society need to take that into account," said Col. Elspeth Ritchie, who served as the Army's top adviser on mental health during some of the worst fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I think as a society, they deserve to have us do everything we can to support them. I absolutely would want them to get the benefit of the doubt."
These professional perspectives highlight the potential disconnect between the Army's official position and the clinical understanding of mental health conditions among service members who have experienced combat trauma.
Potential Explanations for the Practice
Sources both inside and outside Fort Carson suggested one possible explanation for why commanders might choose to discharge soldiers for misconduct rather than provide them with more intensive treatment or medical retirement: It takes less time and money to get rid of problem soldiers on the grounds of misconduct. This economic consideration raises ethical questions about the Army's priorities in caring for service members with mental health conditions.
The issue was first reported in 2006 at Fort Carson, where soldiers with mental health problems who committed "misconduct" were being kicked out rather than receiving support. Less than three years later, Congress passed the law aimed at addressing this practice. The persistence of the problem despite this legislation suggests implementation challenges or institutional resistance to change.
Conclusion
The practice of discharging soldiers with mental health disorders and traumatic brain injuries for misconduct represents a significant challenge to the military's responsibility to care for those who have served. The documented cases of over 22,000 service members separated under these circumstances since 2009 highlight systemic issues in how the Army addresses mental health conditions among returning combat veterans.
The Army's commitment to reviewing past discharges and changing procedures going forward represents a positive step, but the scale of the problem suggests that comprehensive reforms may be necessary. The perspectives of mental health professionals with military experience underscore the importance of clinical judgment in these discharge decisions and the need for greater consideration of service-related mental health conditions.
As the Army moves forward with its review and policy changes, the experiences of affected service members provide valuable insights into the human cost of these practices. The case also raises broader questions about how the military balances discipline and readiness with the responsibility to care for service members who have experienced trauma during their service.