Posted on Sep 30, 2016
Army reverses decision to kick out paralyzed Green Beret
73.2K
48
8
20
20
0
A paralyzed Special Forces soldier, who was facing an other-than-honorable discharge because he was intoxicated when he broke his neck trying to save a distressed swimmer, is going to get out with his reputation and benefits intact after all.
A Sept. 23 memo from Maj. Gen. Thomas Seamands, head of Human Resources Command, has characterized Sgt.1st Class Tim Brumit's accident as in the line of duty and caused by simple negligence, overturning an earlier decision to give him an other-than-honorable discharge because of his condition.
"Your personal behavior prior to the incident impacted your judgment, but does not establish that you intentionally omitted a proper degree of care," Seamands wrote.
The reversal means an honorable discharge and a 100 percent disability rating for Brumit, according to the chief of staff for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who intervened with the Army on Brumit's behalf.
Brumit will also be able to wear his Special Forces tab after his discharge, Joe Kasper told Army Times. A determination hasn't been made about his security clearance, though, because that "goes beyond just the Army," he added.
Brumit became paralyzed below the waist in 2015, after diving from a boat in an attempt to rescue a drowning girl as a storm tore up the water off of the Florida coast.
He misjudged the water depth, slamming into the sand and losing feeling in his body from the chest down.
An Army investigation found that he had trace amounts of cocaine in his system as well as a 0.1 blood alcohol level, ruling that his injuries were not sustained in the line of duty and he was not entitled to an honorable discharge.
Brumit's father launched a campaign to save his son's benefits, earning the endorsement of the soldier's boss at U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Lt. Gen. Ken Tovo, who wrote a letter to HRC on Brumit's behalf.
Though Seamands overturned the original discharge decision, he did not let Brumit completely off the hook. Though Brumit acted honorably, Seamands wrote, he clearly failed to exercise caution when diving into the shallow water, something that an sober person would not have done -- but it wasn't "willful negligence."
A Sept. 23 memo from Maj. Gen. Thomas Seamands, head of Human Resources Command, has characterized Sgt.1st Class Tim Brumit's accident as in the line of duty and caused by simple negligence, overturning an earlier decision to give him an other-than-honorable discharge because of his condition.
"Your personal behavior prior to the incident impacted your judgment, but does not establish that you intentionally omitted a proper degree of care," Seamands wrote.
The reversal means an honorable discharge and a 100 percent disability rating for Brumit, according to the chief of staff for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who intervened with the Army on Brumit's behalf.
Brumit will also be able to wear his Special Forces tab after his discharge, Joe Kasper told Army Times. A determination hasn't been made about his security clearance, though, because that "goes beyond just the Army," he added.
Brumit became paralyzed below the waist in 2015, after diving from a boat in an attempt to rescue a drowning girl as a storm tore up the water off of the Florida coast.
He misjudged the water depth, slamming into the sand and losing feeling in his body from the chest down.
An Army investigation found that he had trace amounts of cocaine in his system as well as a 0.1 blood alcohol level, ruling that his injuries were not sustained in the line of duty and he was not entitled to an honorable discharge.
Brumit's father launched a campaign to save his son's benefits, earning the endorsement of the soldier's boss at U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Lt. Gen. Ken Tovo, who wrote a letter to HRC on Brumit's behalf.
Though Seamands overturned the original discharge decision, he did not let Brumit completely off the hook. Though Brumit acted honorably, Seamands wrote, he clearly failed to exercise caution when diving into the shallow water, something that an sober person would not have done -- but it wasn't "willful negligence."
Army reverses decision to kick out paralyzed Green Beret
Posted from armytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Beret
Beret
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 5
13
13
0
9
9
0
Thanks SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL for sharing the news that MG Thomas Seamands, head of Human Resources Command, has characterized SFC Tim Brumit's accident as in the line of duty and caused by simple negligence, overturning an earlier decision to give him an other-than-honorable discharge because of his condition. His well-honed instincts motivated him to risk his own life to safe 13-year-old girl who was about 400-500 meters away.
I am glad that USASOC and other were successful in their fight for an honorable discharge for SFC Tim Brumit.
It is an established fact that approximately 20% of all US denomination bills have trace amounts of cocaine on them. SFC Brumit may have used cocaine or he may simply have been exposed to it.
I am glad that USASOC and other were successful in their fight for an honorable discharge for SFC Tim Brumit.
It is an established fact that approximately 20% of all US denomination bills have trace amounts of cocaine on them. SFC Brumit may have used cocaine or he may simply have been exposed to it.
(9)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Also the amount of alcohol was so low and barely registered that wasn't even a factor. He did risk His own life to attempt to save that of another. I believe General Seamands made the right decision on this issue.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter .1, how does that barley register? .08 is legal drunk! and trace amounts of cocaine, he didn't get that from being exposed to a US denomination bills! Trace amounts is all you need to be discharged from the Army.
SMH
SMH
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
COL (Join to see) - Not sure they wrote the alcohol amount correctly in the statement here, Yes .08 is the intoxicated level, they wrote 0.1, perhaps they meant .01 if it was.0.10 that's not what it said. .01 is a long way from intoxicated. As to cocaine use that depend on how accurate the test, was and assuming there was no false positive. Guess I'd have to have more information but if it was as You indicate, then Yes He was lucky to clear that up. Seems that the injuries He has are now a huge problem, nothing good there. In any event now You do have Me wondering about what I said. The decision has been made anyway so our input or opinion doesn't have any bearing. On reading again it actually sounds like a sympathy decision to overturn as opposed to based on the facts. It didn't say, was anyone able to rescue the girl after what sounds like it may have been a failed attempt but then it didn't let us know about that either. The article wasn't all that clear but it seems You may well be correct and sympathy more than facts may have been an issue. I guess if He hadn't tried to rescue the girl though that would have said a lot about a major character flaw.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
As unpopular as it is I disagree with the reversal. Maybe I don't have the correct facts but what I heard last leave me to believe that is was not deserved. People make stupid choices, they shouldn't be rewarded for them. Jumping to save an imaginary person was not the stupidest of his choices.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google