An Issue and Commentary on DA Form 3947

Discussion in 'Medical Evaluation Board' started by Jason Perry, Aug 25, 2015.

By Jason Perry on Aug 25, 2015 at 3:31 AM
  1. Jason Perry

    Jason Perry Benevolent Leader Site Founder Staff Member PEB Forum Veteran Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,085
    Trophy Points:
    933
    [​IMG] The Army, in the past few years, have "pre-printed" a number of statements in Block 30 of the DA Form 3947 (which is stated as a "continuation of block #24, which states:

    24. I have been informed of the approved findings and recommendation of the board.
    I agree with the board's findings and recommendation. [OR]
    I do not agree with the board's findings and recommendation. My appeal is attached as inclosure."

    Not to be unclear or to be overly polite- this is complete BS. This is what Block 30 states:

    “Continuation of Block #24:

    I have reviewed the contents of the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) packet and read the attached (Medical Board Proceedings), Narrative Summary (NARSUM), and the Physical Profile (DA Form 3349).

    a. ln regard to issues relating to fitness for duty and disability compensation, I understand that the PEB will consider and review only those conditions listed on the DA Form 3947.

    b. The DA Form 3947 includes all my current medical conditions and whether or not they meet medical retention standards.

    c. The conditions which do not meet medical retention standards are properly listed on the following three documents: DA Form 3947; the Narrative Summary; and the Physical Profile (DA Form 3349).

    d. All documentation of military medical care in my possession has been provided to the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer for inclusion in this MEB.

    e. I agree that this MEB accurately covers all my current medical conditions.

    f. lf I do not agree with any of these statements and/or I do not agree with the contents of the MEB as reflected in my election at item 24, above, I am aware of my right to an independent Medical Review and my right to appeal. If I do not concur, I have provided all my disagreements and concerns in the attached appeal.”

    I vociferously object to this language being inserted into the DA Form 3947 in block 30. I have seen many dozens of cases at the PEB level reject a contention or argument based on the member agreeing to the DA 3947, block 30.

    So, what to do? What should folks do?

    The answers are complicated.

    On one hand, I would like to see this language stricken from the DA 3947. (I suspect that there are valid legal issues as to the inclusion of this language in the first place....my suspicion is that this language has not been "staffed," nor is it properly included on the form. There are some very specific issues with the legality of this language being inserted in the form). On the other hand, if there are issues with the statements made, I think folks should either decline to sign the form, or to sign with an accompanying statement that they don't agree to whatever they disagree with in the referenced block. (But, any declination to sign should be accompanied with a memorandum or letter explaining their position....a failure to sign/act may well be considered as agreement and/or waiver of argument).

    Now, here is the "power" of cohorts or groups of folks disagreeing. If there is a "blanket" disagreement or a high volume of folks that disagree, then it elevates the legal issues. (A problem is that many folks get bad legal advice, they figure that if something is on a form then it must be legitimate, or they sign without considering the implications). Plus, the more folks who raise the issue, it makes it harder for the Army to ignore the issue(s).

    Just stating here that this form is not unlike a "close ambush." Best response to a "close ambush" is to break it by directing your most casualty producing weapon against the enemy with a high level of violence and directly using all of your fire and maneuver elements against the perfidy of this effort to deny you benefits. A false flag of surrender is not to be respected. (I tried to find a good image for a "false flag of surrender....couldn't find one that was respectable or not filled up with conspiracy theory/racist/otherwise inappropriate messages...so, you get my best next answer image attached to this post; I actually kind of like the message the actual image prefacing this post states. In some respects, it speaks volumes).
     

Comments

Discussion in 'Medical Evaluation Board' started by Jason Perry, Aug 25, 2015.

    1. tony292
      tony292
      I agree, my 3947 had all of this legal language in the same block. I did not concur the first time around (misdiagnosis) but did concur the second time I got a 3947 4 months later and with the new diagnosis added and the misdiagnosis removed. Had I screwed up and concurred on the first one, I would have likely been trapped.
    2. Van-van
      Van-van
      What can be done about this? Am I reading it right that a class action is suggested?
    3. scoutCC
      scoutCC
      I'm a little confused by what the problem is.

      The PEB seems to have long considered agreeing to the NARSUM as admitting all those things. Now they are actually telling you what it means to them. Too many simply sign the NARSUM because, oh, its all decided at the PEB. That has never been the case, and this makes it quite clear. They should be advised that the MEB actually means quite a bit and all that would make me pause and think if I really agree to all that. The MEB will always have people blinding agreeing to things, but this seems like a good move to make people stop and consider if things are moving in the right direction, to encourage them to apply Warrior64's constant advice and actually insist that things are done correctly.

      Bullet b is a problem though. I would think everyone should disagree with that. I'd write: I don't know what the medical retention standards are, how can I agree if I meet them or not. Each of the condition effects my ability to accomplish the mission.
      landmine likes this.
    4. antknee77
      antknee77
      I wish I could have read this before my process was complete and over with. This may have helped me add more unfit conditions, and helped to increase my ratings. The MEB doc wrote some of my injuries/illnesses in a way that caused them to be "fit for duty" based off of the regulation. It's semantics. If it was worded different I would have had more conditions that made me unfit (example, unpredictable and frequent neurocardiogenic syncope). All that I can do now is find a good VFW rep that I trust that can help me counter these things, especially after my first 6 month exam, and thereon if applicable (I am currently TDRL). It is disheartening. I accepted long ago that we as Service Member's are just numbers to the powers that be, but this just really knocks me down a few notches. I don't have too many notches left.
    5. maximus62801
      maximus62801
      I wish I would have read this sooner. -Scott
    6. airbornemedic911
      airbornemedic911
      I don't have the answer as to why this is included but I would like to add to the discussion.

      Q: Besides for objecting to the continuation portion for the sake of objecting or because your "spidey sense starts tingling", what are you objecting too and why are you objecting to it? Find the answer and then you/we/us will have a legal justification to non-concurrence.

      A: I'm still conducting research in an attempt to know the answer.

      * Motivation for all to find and share the answer:

      1. For our learning and improving our ability to make empowered an informed decisions. DoDI, DoDM, Army and the other services regulations have got to be able to prove this is improper, or is supporting evidence to justify the BS flag to be thrown.

      2. Has anyone made progress in researching this? Has anyone brought this to the attention of the numerous Veteran Service Organizations to look deeper into, what were the responses if so?

      I've recently joined the IDES party as of Jan 2016.

      - Shaw
    7. knowledg1
      knowledg1
      To do my appeal they told me to sign the form for the appeal to go with it. I pointed out that not all military documents were in the packet and was told by the lawyer and PEBLO that they would be there for the PEB part. I feel I was lied to and the appeal came back with the item I wanted to be found unfit. The issue was they found it not on pay status, not aggravated by service and considered prior to service, even though never had before joining army. Was told I couldn't appeal that since I signed the form. Total bullshit. Also found out my PEBLO is working 20 other cases at same time as mine so she doesn't care about any one case. It takes days for her to get back to me.
    8. airbornemedic911
      airbornemedic911
      Is there a question being asked, or is this a venting session? I can't tell from the way it's written.
    9. Theone
      Theone
      If you are in the Army National Guard and you are medically retired with a 30% do you draw acted duty base pay or reserve Base pay?

Share This Page