Field Update #26.5 – Addendum to MEBs on Those Who Cannot Run

Jason Perry

Founder and Leader
Site Founder
Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
Hello, Colleagues! It has been nearly a month since I sent out my Field Update #26 -- "MEBs
on Those Who Cannot Run." In that time, it appears that I have made a lot of folks happy at
the MTF level because their workload has decreased somewhat. But I have taken some
heavy unfriendly fire from senior AF physicians, often in MAJCOM advisory positions or
higher, who believe I am undermining the system. I wish to make another attempt to explain
my rationale. I cut and pasted one of the comments I've received, which seems to cut to the
heart of the matter:​
If I'm reading this right, the Chief of AF physicals (Lt Col Trout) is suggesting the providers
give temp profiles to avoid MEB's. But isn't that defeating the whole purpose of the new
Fitness Testing….ensuring people are deployable?​
As I tried but failed to make clear in my Field Update, my purpose is not to get anyone out of
anything except unnecessary MEBs. As a prior Army physician, I think everyone should be
fit, but the sad fact is that not everyone in the AF can run, or do situps, or do pushups, or
even do the bike test. But if this/these are their ONLY limitations, and the underlying reason
causing those limitations is not in itself a boardable condition, then doing an MEB is a waste
of time because the IPEB will almost certainly​
NOT remove someone from duty if they can do
their primary job. This I know from many personal conversations with IPEB members, who
work in the same building as I do.
If someone can't run but also cannot do significant
elements of his/her job, then an MEB is required
. Otherwise, it's a waste of time for those
in the trenches (which I remember vividly, having spent 16 years there), for those at AFPC,
and for the members themselves, who are stressed out because many equate "being
boarded" with "being thrown out."
Referring back to the comment in red above, I can also say that fitness testing is not linked to
deployability
through the MEB process. Fitness testing may indeed identify those who are
non-deployable based on the deployability criteria in 48-123. But, quoting from regs, "inability
to deploy cannot be the sole basis for a finding of unfit." So the MEB process cannot rid the
AF of those who simply cannot deploy, otherwise we would have nobody on C-Codes. Even
if someone is identified by fitness testing as not meeting standards for deployability, it is not
the function of the MEB process to weed those people out of the AF via disability processing.
It is the function of the Fitness Program to
get them fit in some fashion. Getting someone into
the Disability Evaluation System via an MEB when their only disability is that they cannot
run/do pushups/do situps/do cycle ergo is, again, a waste of our providers' time and our
MTFs' resources. I plead guilty to attemping to lessen their unnecessary workload, and I do
not see that as wrong. I
do suggest doing whatever is necessary to get people out of the
need for unnecessary MEBs
.
However, I erred in giving the appearance that I was advocating giving profiles to get people
out of FITNESS TESTING ITSELF. That would be wrong, and I
do not wish to come across
as advocating a force of fitness failures. I apologize for this implication, and wish to retract it.
I am not trying to "pull the wool over anyone's eyes," or imply that those in the business of
reviewing profiles would not catch a trend of recurrent temporary profiles. My sole purpose
was to get the MTFs out of the business of doing unnecessary MEBs -- and if using a
technicality (avoiding, by any means, giving a 4T profile for over a year, which by AFI
automatically triggers the need for an MEB) will achieve this end, then once again, I plead
guilty. Our people need to be fit, and they need to be tested on their fitness, and if they fail
then they need to be enrolled in the fitness "rehab" programs specified by the new fitness
AFI. But they DON'T need MEBs if they do not have a disabling medical condition specified
in AFI 48-123, attachment 2, unless they "require permanent excusal from fitness testing" or
they "are on a 4T profile for over a year." Since, even if they meet these latter two conditions,
they will almost certainly be returned to duty in the absence of an inability to perform their
duty, I see no reason
not to invoke technicalities to obviate the need for these (again)
unnecessary MEBs.
AFI 48-123, Chapter 10 and Attachment 13, give details about profiling. It may be that some
members can be given PULHES "2" or "3" profiles rather than 4T profiles, thereby obviating
the need for MEBs if they have long-term restrictions which interfere with one or more facets
of fitness testing but not with primary duty performance. The issue of "requiring permanent
excusal from fitness testing", which would require an MEB, is a bit more problematic. My
interpretation of this paragraph is that the member requires permanent excusal from
all facets
of fitness testing.
If someone can do most of the fitness test (ergo and pushups, but not run
and situps due to a prior back surgery), then my interpretation of this is that they do
not
require an MEB. However, the new verbiage in AFI 10-248, specifically paragraph 4.2.7.2
("Members who are physically unable to participate in a fitness/exercise/training program for
greater than one year due to medical conditions should be presumed to be non-deployable …
and MEB processing will be initiated NLT one year after the first profile …."), seems to
indicate that there is no choice in the member who cannot do​
any fitness testing -- an MEB is
then
required. However, even the new fitness AFI indicates that there is a difference
between being unable to do one's job and being unable to do the fitness test: paragraph
4.2.7.1 states "Exemption from one or more components of the fitness test
without limitations
as noted above
will not be cause for MEB processing." What are the limitations as noted
above
? Paragraph 4.2.7 says "Members found to have conditions that potentially limit
their ability to perform duties in their AFSC for greater than one year … must be placed
on a 4T profile and MEB actions initiated."
Bottom line: if the limitations are for fitness
testing only, and the member is able to perform his/her duties and can do SOME PORTION
of the fitness test, then an MEB is not required.
I hope this clears up any confusion as to my original intent in Field Update #26. Members
must be fit and they must be able to do some portion of the fitness test. They need MEBs if
they can't do their primary duties, if they cannot do at least SOME portions of the fitness test,
or if the reason for their inability to do certain portions of the test is in itself a boardable
condition as defined in AFI 48-123, attachment 2. But if these criteria are NOT met, then an
MEB is not required according to my interpretation of the AFIs, and I will not require you to

submit an MEB unless for some reason you or your MTF wishes to submit one.
 
REPOSTED UNDER MY NAME AT MEMBERS REQUEST.
 
Top