"Bullwinkle" wrote in message
...
On 11/9/04 9:55 AM, in article ,
"F.L.
Whiteley" wrote:

When things get revisionist one has to wonder. Whether pressure was
brought
to bear from outside or inside the coroner's office, we'll never know.
If
the IP wasn't willing to accept responsibility and was truly at fault,
then
there's something else wrong at the program level.

Heck, I'm becoming an grey old fart, retired USAF version. To me that's
an
endearment, but unnecessarily crass in this case. No offense intended.

SBP is a gamble. It also entails a reduction in monthly benefit if
elected.
Many don't take it as they'd rather have the larger monthly retirement
check. Lack of SBP could be a prime motivation for the lawsuit. Very
deep
pockets available.

Frank


I'm retired military myself, but am in denial about my "old-fart-hood."
Maybe I need an intervention. No offense taken.

I took full SBP, and sometimes wonder about the additional money I'd be
getting if I hadn't. Not worth it, though.

On the primary topic, my inside information indicates that the IP not only
accepted responsibility, but actually apologized to the widow. Now that's
a
standup cadet. You'll note that the cadet IP is not named in the lawsuit
(of course, cadet pockets aren't very deep, which may have something to do
with that).

As lawsuits go, I don't read this one as frivolous. JMHO, YMMV, etc.

I don't think it's frivolous either, but one wonders whether the program
will survive.