Outrage: Fighting for Combat Benefits

Iraq vet James Dixon had a hard time getting combat-related VA benefits. Photo by Andrew Kornylak/Aurora Select

James Dixon was on his third tour of duty in Iraq in September 2006 when the vehicle he was riding in hit an explosive device. The Marine corporal from Baxley, Ga., received the Purple Heart and still suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions.

But when Dixon, 27, received his military medical discharge last year, he was told his injuries were not combat-related. This meant he would receive half the severance pay he expected. Plus, he would not get any disability payments from Veterans Affairs until he went without the payments long enough to equal the severance amount.

That’s because the Pentagon determined last March that enhanced benefits offered under a new law would apply only to those meeting a more narrow definition of “combat-related injury” than the military had used in the past. The decision reduced the benefits available to thousands of recent veterans, says Kerry Baker, assistant national legislative director for the Disabled American Veterans.

In justifying the change, the Department of Defense says that it was made to provide a “special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat in contrast with those injured otherwise.” Many advocates, however, insist the Pentagon is just trying to cut costs.

Dixon wrote to the military and eventually got his status changed to combat-related. But, he says, “if they could turn me down and I have a Purple Heart, then they could do it to just about anybody.”

Michelle Diament is a freelance writer based in Memphis, Tenn.