The Army colonel sounds like he has mental issues, a good reason for MEB and PEB evaluation. He should have a complete and thorough MEB followed by a fair and complete PEB. The results would be fit and return to service or unfit and retire (I am assuming he has over twenty years). Q: Who allowed it to go on for 600 days? A: Leadership.

The extended tours I am seeing in the WTU are driven by incompetent MEBs and PEBs. Many wounded warriors are shortchanged because the MEB failed to cover all medical conditions as required by DoDI 1332.38 in the detailed required in AMIE worksheets. Limiting the conditions in a MEB, or not covering all the required data, will shortchange the wounded warrior out of legally due disability benefits.

The results of the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) demonstrates a systemic problem with MEBs and PEBs not be adjudicated cases properly. The PDBR reviews past disability cases that resulted in disability separation (a DoD disability rating of 20% or less). Earlier this year the PDBR reported that 62% of the cases they reviewed to date resulted in the raising of the disability rating to 30% or more, resulting in disability retirement for the wounded warrior. A 62% DES failure rate should light up DoD about past and continuing problems in MEB/PEB adjudication. Where is the outrage?

Trash in = trash out. When an incompetent MEB or PEB is challenged by folks like me, the WTU time must be extended to go back and do it right. Mr. Koch stated that Wounded Warriors should be managed separately from those camping in the WTUs for as long as they are able to game the system.” I don’t consider insisting your MEB and PEB be done correctly as gaming the system. The high MEB/PEB failure rate, proven by PDBR reviews, indicated that MEBs and PEBs were gaming the system to deny legally due benefits. The Department of Navy’s policy of administratively separating members, without disability benefits, for the same condition the PEB found fitting is a glaring example of the military gaming the system to avoid paying disability benefits.

If military leadership would insist that MEBs and PEBs be done right the first time and every time, you will see the WTU situation improve dramatically. You can’t fix the WTU without fixing the MEB and PEB process. Please feel free to read about the numerous DES issues I have highlighted in my DES Outrage of the Week series found here:

http://www.pebforum.com/section/mike-parker-s-des-outrage-week-29/

In reference to the 90% of wounded warriors not being wounded. That stat sounds right to me. However, Mr. Koch, from his past responsibilities, knows that ”wounded warrior” is a generic term for all ill, injured and wounded service members. My questions to Mr. Koch: How many civil servants receiving federal disability retirement earned a Purple Heart? How many civil servants became disabled via a work related condition? Should a military member need a combat related disability to receive appropriate health care and disability benefits and should that same standard apply to all federal employees?

Michael A. Parker
LTC, USA
Wounded Warrior Advocate

Call it what you want. I agree "wounded warrior" is not always the best fit. But ill, injured, and wounded service members are all covered under the disability evaluation system.

A combat wounded soldier, a soldier hurt in a training jump, a soldier who became ill after taking the anthrax inoculation, a soldier who came down with cancer and a soldier impacted by a mental condition are of equal value in my eyes. They all took an oath to support and defend. The rest came down to fate.

See how the wounded warrior term is used below:

"The term 'wounded warrior' encompasses the entire population of wounded, ill and injured service members and veterans," said Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Michael L. Dominguez.

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12190

Mike

In my first post, I accidentally left off fthe word "retired" in my signature block. My bad.

Mike

I would just like to say that Mr. Parker is spot on when he talks about the medical boards and all the discrepancies. He personally worked on my case and it was completely wrong. After a long time of fighting to have it done correctly, he was able to get some of it fixed. It was not completely right, but it was the best I could hope for at the time. Someone needs to start listening to the people that are actually dealing with the cases and the soldiers that are going through this. Listening to cadre or commands is not the right answer. Start listening to the people that are going through and have gone through this process.

It is not relevant on how a soldier was injured...illness or injury, combat or not. We have a responsibility to see they are treated to the best of our ability.

LTC Parker, what the system needs is a lot more people like you! I know my wounded warrior would have been better off bumping into you along his difficult path.

HARRIET0352 - You can find me and people like me at pebforum.com.

B72ludwick's post above is correct. Once we were able to get her MEB to include more of her medical canditions, she went from disability separtee to disability retiree. It was just a matter of making them follow the rules.

Mike

Here is another great example of the military gaming the disability system to avoid paying legally due disability benefits. Military disability law (10 USC 1201-1222) clearly states that compensable conditions deemed unfitting by the military must be rated per the criteria of the Veteran’s Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Over decades, the military began substituting their own criteria to low ball disability ratings below 30%, the rating required to qualify for disability retirement. For PTSD and other mental conditions brought on by a highly stressful event, VASRD provision 4.129 states:

§4.129 Mental disorders due to traumatic stress.
When a mental disorder that develops in service as a result of a highly stressful event is severe enough to bring about the veteran’s release from active military service, the rating agency shall assign an evaluation of not less than 50 percent and schedule an examination within the six month period following the veteran’s discharge to determine whether a change in evaluation is warranted. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

In response, DoD and the Services decided that were above the law and that they could ignore the 4.129 provision. This resulted in thousands of service members with severe PTSD systematically separated from service without proper DoD disability retirement benefits; truly a national disgrace. I brought this issue to the attention of the Veterans Disability Benefit Commission in January 2007. That along with other examples of DoD and the Services ignoring VASRD rating requirements helped compel Congress to include in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act a provision reemphasizing that military must rate unfitting conditions in strict compliance with the VASRD. DoD appeared to acknowledged the requirement to rate per the VASRD in a directive type memorandum released in March 2008.

After the 2008 NDAA was signed into law, I discovered that DoD and the Services were up to their same old tricks; systematically ignoring VASDR provision 4.129. The Army and the Navy disability agencies quickly developed internal policy stating they did not have to follow VASRD 4.129. Worse, DoD began developing a DoD level policy echoing the position that PEBs did not have to adhere to VASRD 4.129. The Navy policy, dated a mere 5 weeks after the 2008 NDAA was signed into law, stated:

-VASRD §4.129 "Mental disorders due to traumatic stress":This section contains the provision of "an evaluation of not less than 50%" pending the scheduling of an examination (up to 6 months later) when a mental disorder resulting from exposure to "a highly stressful event" has resulted in a Service Member's discharge from the Service. This is considered a post discharge pre-evaluative rating for DVA administrative purposes (as such, it could occur ‘instantly’ or any time within that 6-month period, so that it functions to provide administrative scheduling leeway), and, therefore, is not applicable to an active duty population which, by regulation, will have, already, been subject to a thorough, comprehensive examination and disability evaluation as part of the normal MEB/PEB process prior to discharge.

The Navy’s position was illogical and deceitful. First, their position that 4.129 was “not applicable to the active duty population” was pure crap. It specifically applies to the active duty population as active duty members are being released from active duty due to PTSD. Second, the day a service member is released from active duty due to PTSD, the condition is still severe enough to warrant their removal from active duty, else they would have been found fit. Thus, VASRD 4.129 applies. The line of crap the Navy developed is all too typical from a culture bent on avoiding paying legally due disability benefits.

DoD was in the midst of making a DoD level policy stating PEBs did not have to apply VASRD 4.129 when I became aware of the situation. Thanks to Dr, Ward Casscells, then the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, I was able to brief his staff on my concerns. That, plus a little press attention, compelled DoD to send out policy in the fall of 2008 mandating the enforcement of VASRD 4.129. A class action suit was later filed by the National Veteran Legal Service Program. DoD settled and agreed to help identify and fix past victims of improper PEB PTSD ratings.

Dr. Casscells certainly had the right attitude. He would host public web town halls to receive feedback from inside out outside the wire on wounded warrior issues. When I raised concerns in this forum, he invited me to his office to brief him and others on my concerns. As result, many problems were fixed or at least illuminated. I made similar offers, both via email and in a public forum, to brief Mr. Koch and his staff on wounded warrior issues that I was seeing as a wounded warrior advocate. My offer was never acknowledged, let alone accepted. His outrage seemed to be limited to his malingerer and misfit concerns.

Michael Parker
LTC, USA (Retired)
Wounded Warrior Advocate

I agree malingerers should be dealt with harshly - sets a poor precedent in my eyes... I watched the Scottish Golf Open this morning and the UK's BBC 1 spent a great deal of time talking about wounded UK Marines from Afghanistan and how a charity is getting them into the community - thing is why is a charity having to help (same as our UK's Help for Heroes) - why isn't the government helping out - they sent them out to Afghanistan in the first place, to get shot at or blown up (even when brewing up a cup of tea on a hexamine camping stoves 6 were killed by a rogue Afghan soldier - which happened again this week).

About time those governments who send troops to war take on far more responsibility for those who come back injured and face a lifetime of severe disability.