Correction To The Military Bereavement Policy Post
I apologize for the delay in getting this post back up. It was a long week, and I've been processing some stuff that will definitely be discussed later this week. I had a friend reach out to me on Thursday after I ran the post on military bereavement policies. She wanted to clarify that there are guidelines in place for bereavement in the case of miscarriages and stillbirths. She had personally experienced the care provided during one of those times and wanted to share that women were being cared for in these circumstances.
Luckily, she is on active duty, which means that she has more specific information at hand than I did, so she was able to point me to the exact recommendations in the AFMAN41-210. From an outside perspective, so much information about how the military runs things is jumbled up in legal jargon and acronyms, making it difficult to read. So when I saw the quote for bereavement leave saying, "Soldiers who have suffered the loss of another relative, such as a parent, or Soldiers who experience a miscarriage or stillbirth, do not qualify for
bereavement leave" https://www.army.mil/article/268071/new_bereavement_leave_policy_provides_for_soldier_well_being ) I took that to mean there was no protection in place for those such events.
That is not the case, though; section 4.33 outlines Convalescent leave for the case of miscarriages and stillbirths. It is actually a pretty well-thought-out plan. Convalescent leave can be recommended for up to 90 days for a single period of hospitalization. Anything over 30 days does require additional approval, including a medical review. The guidelines outline how extended leave should be approved for depending on what point in a pregnancy a loss occurs.
The recommended time is seven days if a loss occurs at 12 weeks or less. If it occurs at 12 weeks and one day to sixteen weeks, then 14 days is recommended. If it happens from sixteen weeks and one day to 19 weeks and six days, then the recommended time is 21 days. At that time, though, if the baby has a fetal weight of 350 grams or more, then the full 42 days is recommended. In the case of twins, triplets, or more, that applies as long as one of the babies reaches that weight requirement. Anything after 20 weeks, and the mother gets the full 42 days.
In my friend's case, she was given more time off by her provider than the table recommended. There is only so much we can do to regulate the care of people. Providers can authorize whatever time off they desire, even if it is less than the recommended time. Ultimately, it comes down to having a provider who understands our situation, needs, and treats us with empathy through that.
While this outlines care for people in difficult situations, it faces the same problems as the bereavement policy: it doesn't extend far enough. One of my biggest critiques of the bereavement policy (especially if you exclude the fact that miscarriages and stillbirths are covered to a degree) is that it only applies to spouses and children. It excludes the loss of a parent, grandparents, aunt, uncle, cousin, or close friend. Most of us have a lot of people that would be heavy losses in our lives. They don't have to live in our house for us to feel the weight of their disappearance.
This policy only applies to active duty women who are pregnant. Fathers and non-pregnant partners do not get the same time to grieve. Setting up guidelines this way makes the loss feel more like a medical condition than an emotional one. Obviously, the person experiencing a miscarriage, stillbirth, or any accompanying procedure like a DNC needs time to heal physically. But both parties in a relationship deal with the emotions of a loss.
Aside from just trying to express a general care for its people, the point of these policies is to protect national security and readiness. If our service members are not physically or emotionally prepared to be in the field, then they wouldn't be. Putting someone out there unprepared puts themselves and others at risk. If we believe that (which we should), then we need policies that reflect that priority.
Time to heal is going to look different for each person and there is only so much that we can regulate without looking at someone on an individual basis. However, without any precedent in the regulations, it can be trickier for leaders to give their people the time they know they need.
We've been fortunate to have some really great leadership. A friend's father was diagnosed with cancer, and it did not look good at the beginning (he is close to remission now). when that happened, the commander told our friend, "Don't worry about here; take care of your family." So, between a surplus of leave that he fortunately had at his disposal and their commander's leniency, our friend could fly home and spend an extended period of time with their family. We have had other commanders who would not have even considered that an option.
I fully understand that, in most cases, we don't need more regulations. We cannot set enough rules to ensure that people are cared for. We just need people in charge who genuinely care. Drawing the line somewhere will always cut off someone who needed it to be just an inch further. My husband missed the 12 weeks of parental leave by just three days. As frustrating as that was, we understand that someone would just barely miss it no matter how far they decided to backtrack the program (and he had a commander at the time who certainly wouldn't make an exception). These policies are a great start, and I am glad to see more care in place than I previously thought. Still, even more care would go a long way to maintaining the resiliency and readiness of our service members, which would further instill a continued commitment to service that our all-volunteer force desperately needs.