Questions are growing over how the US military has described injuries suffered by US troops following an Iran-linked drone strike, with injured soldiers and their families accusing the military of downplaying the seriousness of what happened.The issue has also drawn new attention to comments by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in March, who said that “about 90%” of the approximately 400 injured U.S. service members had only minor injuries and had returned to duty. Some families now say the details don’t match what they were told or what soldiers are still dealing with.Soldiers injured in the March 1 drone strike in Kuwait say their conditions were dire, according to interviews with CBS News.Chief Warrant Officer Rodney Bearman was working at the port of Shuaiba when a drone attacked his station. Medical records seen by CBS News show he suffered shrapnel wounds throughout his body, bruising, loss of hearing and vision and damaged lungs. The Army described his condition as “not seriously injured”.“This assessment is unacceptable,” his wife, Amy Bearman, told CBS News.The attack killed six American soldiers and injured more than 20 others, making it one of the most serious incidents involving American troops in recent years. It also raised questions about preparedness, as soldiers told CBS News they were warned about security and medical deficiencies before the attack.Amy Bearman said she was first informed by a call from an official from Fort Knox. She was told that her husband’s injuries were classified as NSI, or “not seriously injured”, and “he was treated and released back to duty.”“Having been a military spouse for almost 25 years, I knew that if anything ever happened to my husband while he was in the service, I knew I would either get an official phone call or an official visit,” she said.But she later heard directly from her husband that the situation was more serious. Speaking from a hospital in Kuwait, he told her, “I’ll be OK.” Then, after a pause he said, “I can’t go back.”Sergeant First Class Corey Hicks, who was wounded in the same attack, said he was told that his injuries were minor despite undergoing multiple surgeries for shrapnel wounds. “They said your husband was injured, with a minor injury to his jaw and would be returned to duty,” Hicks recalled.He said he believed the incident had been downplayed. The army rejects that claim.In a statement, an Army spokesperson said injury labels such as “not seriously injured” follow strict medical definitions. “The care and well-being of our soldiers is the highest priority,” the Army said. “Any claims that the Army intends to downplay a soldier’s injuries are simply not true.”The Army said “seriously injured” or “very seriously injured” applies only if there is a risk of death within 72 hours.Families and survivors have also raised concerns about conditions prior to the strike, claiming that soldiers warned about gaps in security and medical aid. CBS News previously reported that Senate Democrats have launched an investigation into the matter.Bearman’s case has since attracted political attention. Senator Shelley Moore Capito wrote to the Army demanding clarification on how his injuries were classified and what his wife was told. Major General Michael J. Lynne later defended the designation, saying it did not diminish Bearman’s service or sacrifice.Nearly four months after the attack, Hicks remains under treatment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for a severe brain injury and awaits several months of recovery.