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).