VETS FIGHT DoD RULE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A COMBAT

cvma544

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Maparker, I know you are somewhat in this fray, any perspectives or comments?

VA Watchdog dot Org - VA NEWS FLASH - 11-26-2008 -- VETS FIGHT DoD RULE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A COMBAT-RELATED DISABILITY -- In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wound

VETS FIGHT DoD RULE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A COMBAT- RELATED DISABILITY -- In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wounded veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits. Injured veterans engaged in new combat In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wounded veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits.

By David Zucchino


Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries.

In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not combat-related.

In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.

The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.

http://www.cafepress.com/vawatchdog4/The group, which has called the policy revision a "shocking level of disrespect for those who stood in harm's way," is lobbying to have the change rescinded.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon's "more conservative definition" limited benefits for some veterans. "That was not our intent," Levin said in a statement.

He added: "When the disability is the same, the impact on the service member should be the same no matter whether the disability was incurred while training for combat at Ft. Hood or participating in actual combat in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Pentagon officials argue that benefits should be greater for veterans wounded in combat than for "members with disabilities incurred in other situations (e.g., simulation of war, instrumentality of war, or participation in hazardous duties, not related to combat)," Carr wrote.

But veterans like Dixon and Meshell said their disabilities were a direct result of wounds suffered in combat.

Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought the Pentagon and won a reversal of his noncombat-related designation.

"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?" Dixon said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."

Meshell, who is appealing her status, estimates she is losing at least $1,200 a month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone during an enemy mortar attack, she said, her wounds would be considered combat-related only if she had been struck by shrapnel.

Meshell said the military had suggested that at least some of her disability was caused by preexisting joint deterioration. "Before I went over there, I was fine -- I was perfectly healthy," Meshell said. "This whole thing is causing me a lot of heartache."

Kerry Baker, associate legislative director of Disabled American Veterans, has accused the Pentagon of narrowing the definition of combat-related disabilities to save money. He said the change would reduce payments for tens of thousands of veterans -- those already wounded and those injured in the future.

"This is going to hurt a lot of people," Baker said. "It's one of those things that when you first look at it, you think: 'Wow. How can this be?' "

In a letter to members of Congress, the Disabled American Veterans accused the Pentagon of "mutilating" the statutory definitions of combat-related disabilities as part of a "deliberate manipulation of the law."

The January legislation was aimed at allowing troops wounded in combat and combat-related operations to collect disability severance from the military and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Disability severance is based on past service. Disability compensation is based on future loss of earning potential. Previously, veterans with combat-related disabilities received reduced monthly VA compensation until their severance money was recouped. That is still the case for those whose injuries are not deemed combat-related.

Years ago, Congress adopted a detailed definition of combat-related disabilities. It included such criteria as hazardous service, conditions simulating war and disability caused by an "instrumentality of war." Those criteria were not altered in the January legislation.

The Pentagon, in establishing an internal policy based on the legislation, in March unlawfully stripped those criteria from the legislation, the Disabled American Veterans said.

"We do not view this as an oversight," Baker testified before Congress in June. "We view this as an intentional effort to conserve monetary resources at the expense of disabled veterans."

The Pentagon changes focused on "tip of the spear" fighters, or those "in the line of duty in a combat zone," said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman. They comprise "a very special, yet limited, subset of those who matriculate through the Disability Evaluation System," Lainez wrote in an e-mail response to a request for comment.

In many cases, veterans say, they are not told why their disabilities are not considered combat-related.

Dixon said he did not realize he had been put in a noncombat-related category until he began questioning his disability payments. It took more than six months of phone calls, letters and appeals -- plus help from the Disabled American Veterans and a member of Congress -- to overturn his designation.

Navigating the Pentagon's bureaucracy was made more difficult because Dixon's brain injury resulted in short-term memory loss. He had to write everything down in notebooks and calendars.

"It was a nightmare," Dixon said. "Most veterans don't know how the system works, or how to fight it. They don't realize all the obstacles they put in your way to keep you from getting what you deserve."

Meshell said the military disability system was so complex that few veterans were equipped to navigate it.

"I'm a college graduate. I'm not a dumb person. But honestly, I can't begin to explain some of this stuff," she said.

After five years of active duty, a combat tour in Iraq and 12 years in the National Guard and Reserves, she thinks she deserves the full disability benefits authorized by Congress for veterans injured in combat.

"I earned them," she said. "I went to Iraq. I was in combat. I got injured."
 
Sounds like they are trying two things.

A. Deny at first & save a buck or two if no appeal is presented.

B. Take the literal sense of the word "combat". "a" shoots at "b", "b" shots back at "a". Not the sense of "a" lays land mine, "b" get foot blown off two months later when stepped on.

Either way is "cheats" b out of $, or least delays the $ so interest can be collected.


Bahhh humbug.

X
 
I think if your outside the wire almost ANYTHING that happens should probably be covered.

If your inside the wire and are hit with or reacting to incoming it should be covered.

If your running pt, or playing volleyball............wrong answer
 
The situation is a mess but here are some key factors at play.

1. The new DoD “combat related” limited definition only applies to a new law for enhanced separation of severance pay enacted by the 2008 NDAA. Only those rated below 30% and receiving severance pay need be concerned by this new combat related definition (for now).

2. Actually, if you hurt yourself playing basketball in the Green Zone gym you qualify. The new benefit only requires the injury/sickness to occur in a combat zone or in combat related operations (as defined by DoD which DoD narrowly defined as combat operations areas not officially declared combat zones). Ironically, one injured in a helicopter crash during a stateside training event does not get the benefit.

3. It was Congress that gave DoD this latitude to define combat related for this provision. DoD could have made it more broad like the current combat related definition but chose not to ($$$). However, DoD’s definition is identical to the language used by Congress when they passed this new measure. So, really, the fault lies more with Congress for having flawed language that DoD merely copied.

4. Some in Congress have realized the error (which I first told them about in June 2007 when the law was being drafted). There was an amendment to the 2009 NDAA to fix this problem. Unfortunately it got punted when Congress refused to pass the 100 plus amendment package due to one unrelated issues in the mix. The fix for the combat related issue will likely be included in the 2010 NDAA.

5. The VDBC recommended that all DoD disability severance pay, combat related or not, should be excluded from VA offset. If Dole/Shalala DES recommendations pass, all compensable unfitting conditions will lead to retirement eliminating disability separation and severance pay.

Mike
 
SO, with the "new" directive of follow the VASRD, the low balling of the rating should get better for the troops.

And in accordance with the new DOD directive concerning PTSD at 50% CRSC approval shouldn't be a worry for combat related vets.

The example in the story, what was up with them? were they low balled cases before the correction?

Stu
 
I am always glad when the media covers Wounded Warrior/Warriors in Transition issues. However, the coverage sometimes omits details or confuses some issues. I don't know what went on in these cases, but it is not apparent that either case has to do with the change in definition in "combat-related."

Sgt. Meshell's issue appears to be an EPTS issue from what the article stated. But it is all speculation without more details. It does not appear to be a denial based only on "combat-related", it sounds like she was denied a rating in the first place.

Cpl Dixon's case is even more difficult to discern. The article states he won on appeal (though this is not clear....it talks about him "fighting the Pentagon," this seems odd, his appeal should go through the Department of the Navy BCNR....instead, it sounds like an administrative correction was made, but if so, it was an unusual processing of his case). Either way, it sounds like the original PEB did not address this issue.

There could be a ton of different explanations. I am not sure that the issue of the combat-related definition has anything to do with the decisions in these cases....

Another thing to keep in mind is that "combat-related" has different purposes...There is a tax-free benefit and a restoration of VA offset that are implicated by "combat-related" findings. A similar concept is the Federal Civil Service preference for injuries incurred in Armed Conflict by an instrumentality of war. It is important to be aware of what purpose you are talking about for a "combat-related" finding or for a similar concept.
 
I think the whole thing is sad. If you went to a combat zone and got injured no matter what the reason you should be considered the same, now not everyone should get a Purple Heart as that indicates something different even though some people get a PH for a piece of sharp that is pulled out and covered with a band aid. In a war zone everything you do there is because you are there unlike at home where you do things because you want to do them.

I understand some people get hurt worse then others but to each person injured it affects there life and the lives around them. So why should if be different for different people. You were in the voluntary service of your country and you should be taken care of with equal respect and quality.
 
Top