Found an update - to the Esquire article

Esquire dun goofed. - SM

Having bungled one of the two central premises of their story about the Navy SEAL who is supposed to have killed Osama bin Laden, the editors of Esquire are now arguing that they were secretly right all along. ....  

The word "discover" is where both the original piece and Esquire's defense of it go off the rails. As the story eventually mentions, Navy personnel get a pension after 20 years of service. The Shooter left after 16 years, so he didn't qualify. It is beyond belief that anyone in the armed forces could have been surprised by this basic fact. He didn't "discover" that he was ineligible for a pension; he chose to forsake his pension.

(Also, while we're re-editing the piece, the preferred spelling is "tendinitis.")

Now it does seem stupid and indefensible that this is our national policy—that after years and years in the most dangerous combat zones, constantly risking physical and mental health, a SEAL should have to clock his full 20, same as a deskbound clerk. NFL players, who train for a narrow profession and sacrifice their bodies to it, get a pension once they've burned through their brief useful careers. Common sense might say that elite commandos deserve no less consideration. But Esquire didn't say it.

Instead, the magazine chose to condescend toward the Shooter, presenting him as a passive (or confused) naif, rather than a man who made a difficult decision between bad choices. So the Navy can simply note that he did opt out of his pension, and the Department of Veterans Affairs can say that his health coverage does in fact exist, and they've successfully refuted Esquire without addressing any hard systemic questions. ....

And the rest of the MSM ran with it - sm

No! OP on the thread posted Washington TIMES-- - disreputable conservative paper. The Wash. POST

Re. your second paragraph - I find it ironic

To me that's just plain opportunistic greedy hands in our - pockets. People like me never thought