I am helping a friend through the Army medical retirement process ...
If a soldier is injuried in Iraq and is a national guard soldier... what is the difference between being injuried and medically retired on "active duty" verses being medically retired from the national guard.
It doesn't seem right that any of our National guard soldiers would be "medically retired" through the national guard or "reserves" if their injury is a result of their active duty mobilization. They should receive an "active" duty medical retirement and if rated at 30% they would receive 50% of their base pay plus Tricare for themselves and their family etc. BUT if the medical retirement comes as a "national guard,or reserve" they would not be able to collect a dime until aged 60.
Confused?
If a soldier is injuried in Iraq and is a national guard soldier... what is the difference between being injuried and medically retired on "active duty" verses being medically retired from the national guard.
It doesn't seem right that any of our National guard soldiers would be "medically retired" through the national guard or "reserves" if their injury is a result of their active duty mobilization. They should receive an "active" duty medical retirement and if rated at 30% they would receive 50% of their base pay plus Tricare for themselves and their family etc. BUT if the medical retirement comes as a "national guard,or reserve" they would not be able to collect a dime until aged 60.
Confused?
