washingtonscene
injury, and increase the Medal of Honor service pension (H.R. 3407); ■ permit a waiver of the 120-day timeline to file with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals in exceptional circumstances (H.R. 5064); and ■ allow veterans with fully developed claims to waive the lengthy VA “develop- ment period” and receive an earlier deci- sion (H.R. 5549).
Shameless and
Shameful “Fit but unsuitable” discharges are wrong.
C
hildren’s sayings about “sticks and stones” notwithstanding, words can be powerful and hurtful —
especially in the hands of bureaucrats who twist them in self-contradictory ways. One would think when a physical evalu-
ation board (PEB) examines a servicemem- ber’s medical condition and deems him or her “fit for duty,” the meaning of that term would be self-evident. Wrong. One also would think, several years
in the wake of media exposure of griev- ous treatment of wounded warriors and low-balled disability ratings that resulted in separation of severely injured service- members with no retirement or medical benefits, that wouldn’t be happening any- more. Wrong again. All too often, MOAA learns of cases in
which soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Ma- rines with significant, service-connected medical conditions are evaluated by PEBs and found fit for duty — only to be adminis- tratively separated or barred from reenlist- ment as “unsuitable” for continued service based on the same medical condition. According to DoD regulations, there
are certain specified medical conditions that warrant separation for unsuitability — enuresis, incapacitating fear of flying,
3 6 MI L I T A R Y O F F I C E R S E P T EMB E R 2 0 1 0
personality or adjustment disorders, sub- stance-abuse disorders, etcetera. But the services have expanded use of
this provision far beyond what’s autho- rized in DoD regulations, separating ser- vicemembers for far more serious medical conditions that are compensable under VA disability ratings, which the services are supposed to be using to assess disability versus fitness for duty. In some cases, a servicemember’s ad-
ministrative separation is based on his or her limited deployability as a result of the medical condition. In others, separation documents simply assert a medical condi- tion renders a servicemember “unsuit- able” for service — even though the PEB evaluated the same condition (including deployability limitations) and found the servicemember fit for duty. In many instances, a separated service- member has been awarded a very high disability rating by the VA for the same condition immediately after separation. MOAA strongly believes this process is
a gross miscarriage of justice. If a person has a seriously disabling medical condi- tion (warranting a 30-percent or higher disability rating under VA rules), then he or she should be medically retired. If a PEB evaluates a condition (including deployability limits) and finds it doesn’t render someone unfit for duty, then he or she shouldn’t be subject to administrative separation for the same medical condition. MOAA highlighted this to the House
and Senate Armed Services committees and urged them to take action to stop it. Subse- quently, the House committee demanded a DoD report on the issue, asserting it is “fun- damentally unfair and inconsistent with the disability evaluation system reforms that have been enacted in recent years.” The Senate committee went further, putting a provision in its version of the FY 2011 Defense Authorization Act that would bar the services from administra- tively separating servicemembers for med-
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140