The media always, always must throw out if anybody who does something bad is a veteran. Doesn't matter if the service was 20 years ago, doesn't matter if the person didn't even finish basic training and was kicked out like this case, doesn't matter how irrelevant it was- if if serves to push the "all vets are damaged goods" narrative, it gets pointed out.

But if a vet does anything good not related to military service, do you think they poubt out "Army Vet gets 1000 hour volunteer service award"? Of course not.

And the OP- first pointing out she was a vet in the thread title (despite probably not even legally qualifying as one), then this gem:

"There is no doubt in my mind she was sexually assaulted while serving and that traumatic experience contributed to this. Its so sad those poor beautiful babies never had a chance. "

So based on a few sentences that this woman kind of served a brief while, OP has determined that the only possible explanation is that this woman must have been sexually assaulted while serving and is clearly damaged goods. What an incredibly bigoted and offensive stereotype and assumption.

I'm growing sicker and sicker of people who stereotype and assume just because I am a veteran, or any other veteran, I or we must have psychological issues. It's bigoted, it's not representative of the truth for the vast majority of vets, and stereotypes like that don't help anybody and just serve to feed the growing anti-veteran bigotry and don't help remove the stigma from those who do legitimately need help.

Both the media who insist on interjecting it where it isn't relevant and people like the OP are equally guilty of this crap, and it needs to stop.

Odds are she probably had psychological issues before she enlisted, that is the biggest reason for people washing out of basic, and her military service is probably irrelevant to any of this. But that kind of simple explanation doesn't fit the bigoted narrative, so everyone leaps to "she was a vet!!!"