ShareThis Page

Wounded Warrior Series

| Sunday, Feb. 6, 2011, 7:15 p.m.
At Fort Riley in Kansas, home to the First Infantry Division, two out of every three soldiers in the Warrior Transition barracks have been diagnosed with mental or substance abuse ailments, often after the soldiers underwent repeated combat deployments. Lt. Col Andrew Price, the commander of the Fort Riley unit, (center) stands over his wounded warriors as they are called into formation.  (Justin Merriman | Tribune-Review)
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
At Fort Riley in Kansas, home to the First Infantry Division, two out of every three soldiers in the Warrior Transition barracks have been diagnosed with mental or substance abuse ailments, often after the soldiers underwent repeated combat deployments. Lt. Col Andrew Price, the commander of the Fort Riley unit, (center) stands over his wounded warriors as they are called into formation. (Justin Merriman | Tribune-Review)

Thousands of sick and wounded soldiers within the Army's Warrior Transition program aren't receiving psychological care they need and are being discharged into communities ill-prepared to help them. A nine-month investigation by the Tribune-Review, buttressed by documents passed to the newspaper by soldiers and the Pentagon's Office of Wounded Warrior Care & Transition Policy in Alexandria, Va., reveal an Army reeling from an epidemic of mental and behavioral health problems after nearly a decade of constant combat overseas.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.