Mom fights to be buried with soldier son

[DaemonSeid]

WASHINGTON – Denise Anderson lost her only son in the Iraq war. She's determined not to lose her fight to be buried with him in a national veterans cemetery.

Army Spc. Corey Shea died Nov. 12, 2008, in Mosul, with one about a month left on his tour of duty in Iraq. He was buried at the Massachusetts National Cemetery in Bourne, about 50 miles from his hometown of Mansfield, Mass.

A grieving Anderson, 42, soon hit an obstacle in her quest to be buried in the same plot with her son. That chance is offered only to the spouses or children of dead veterans; Corey Shea was 21, single and childless.

The Veterans Affairs Department grants waivers and has approved four similar requests from dead soldiers' parents since 2005.

Anderson also sought a waiver. But under the VA's policy, she has to die first to get one, a limbo that Anderson finds tough to live with.

"It was the most devastating blow that I could ever get," Anderson said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I just miss him so much. Just being with him will give me some sort of peace."

"Every day I wake up and I look at his pictures and I cry," she said. "It doesn't get any easier. Maybe down the road I will be able to deal with it a little bit better, but right now it's not easy."

VA spokeswoman Laurie Tranter said Anderson's waiver request was not granted because it was made "in advance of her time of need, which is VA's policy for all such waiver requests." Tranter noted, however, that just in case, Corey Shea's remains "were placed at a sufficient depth to accommodate her future burial."

Anderson doesn't understand why her request can't be granted now. She is challenging the VA's burial policy with support from her congressman, Rep. Barney Frank, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.


link

[DGTess]

Another case of someone wanting something she's not entitled to.

If she has to be buried with her son, why have him interred some place she is ineligible?

Frank and Kerry are good at this ... let's break the rules to make someone "feel" better.

And then we wonder why we're no longer a nation of common-sense laws.

I'm a veteran, a military retiree, and I maintain she didn't earn the right to be buried in the Massachusetts National Cemetery with her son.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally Posted by DGTess

If she has to be buried with her son, why have him interred some place she is ineligible?

I read this story elsewhere and this was the first thing I wondered too.

[DrPhil]

I agree with DGTess.

[CutiePie2000]

I also agree. Bury him in a civilian cemetary and then get the plot beside him.

[RU OX Alum]

Yeah, go DGTess. Tell'em!

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I'm a veteran, a military retiree, and I maintain she didn't earn the right to be buried in the Massachusetts National Cemetery with her son.

I agree - if she wanted to be buried with him she should have opted to bury him in a place that she could also be buried.

Although, technically the spouses and children of deceased military members didn't 'earn' the right to be there either besides just being married or children of them. I think if there are exceptions for married people, or people with children, there should be some kind of exception for people who didn't marry or have kids. That's not for me to decide, but it just kind of seems wrong that there are exceptions for some people and not everyone.

Just my take on it though.

[honeychile]

Agree with eveyone - it's the classic "The Rules Apply To Everyone But Me" ploy. If she really needs to be buried next to her son - and I don't find that odd under the circumstnaces - she should get two plots in a cemetery with a military section, and have him reinterred there.

Space at the National Cemeteries is too dear to bend the rules for anyone.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

I agree - if she wanted to be buried with him she should have opted to bury him in a place that she could also be buried.

Although, technically the spouses and children of deceased military members didn't 'earn' the right to be there either besides just being married or children of them. I think if there are exceptions for married people, or people with children, there should be some kind of exception for people who didn't marry or have kids. That's not for me to decide, but it just kind of seems wrong that there are exceptions for some people and not everyone.

Just my take on it though.

It's different though. If he was married or had minor children, they would have been provided for by the Army. Burying them in next to him in the national cemetery is an extension of that.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

She gave her only son up for this country. I don't have any kids myself, but I can't imagine that means nothing. While it would have been sensible for her to bury him somewhere she could assure her burial next to him, it seems that she will most likely get her wish anyway according to the waiver custom. What difference is it if they give it now instead of after she's gone on? If it will give her any small comfort at all, I wish they'd just let her know. It seems strange to me too in a way, but it's her child and I have a soft spot for her situation and others in a similar position.

[alum]

Tranter noted, however, that just in case, Corey Shea's remains "were placed at a sufficient depth to accommodate her future burial."

Many of the National Cemeteries are rapidly running out of space especially the biggies like Arlington. I believe that when a military dependent or former dependent (spouse, child or aged-out child) is interred with the service member, the caskets are put on top of each other not side by side to conserve space. If a child or spouse dies while the military sponsor is still alive, the servicemember can elect to allot his/her burial space to the dependent. I know of 3 families who have children buried at 2 federally-funded cemeteries. Two were active-duty and had little ones (still-birth and 4 y.o.) buried at West Point. The third family was retired from active-duty when their 29 y.o. daughter died and she is buried at Arlington. The waivers happened after the deaths not before.

[AOII Angel]

I don't think the article is saying that she won't be able to be buried with her son (yes, on top of his casket) but that they can't okay her request until she dies. She wants the okay NOW like Veruca Salt. Someone just needs to give this woman some Valium. Her son has already been buried deep enough to allow her to be buried with him. It's basically a done deal. She just will feel better if they'll tell her that she'll be buried with him. Sounds a little neurotic.

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Another case of someone wanting something she's not entitled to.

If she has to be buried with her son, why have him interred some place she is ineligible?

Yup