I joined in Feb 2008 and planned on 20+ in service! In Tech school (June 2008) my hips started hurting me and was put on profile. Since then I've been on and off profile and was finally diagnosed in June 2009 with Spondylolisthesis, Degenerative Disk Disease, Arthritis, Bulging Disk and pinched nerves. I cannot stand for long periods of time, no running, no lifting, no type of exercise and normally cant walk more than 50 ft! I also have problems standing to clean my house, walk up and down stairs, wash dishes ect.....I've done Chiropractic and Physical Therapy but nothing helps. I cannot do any form of PT and my doc put me up for MEB in Aug 2009. I'm currently waiting on the narritive summary from my doc and then my case goes to Texas to the IPEB. I am really worried about how the IPEB and VA will rate me and I'm not sure where to go for answers. My PEBLO has given me the "offical answers" but I would like to hear some from other ppl going through this as well. I'm not sure where to go from here and it's really scary. My doc says they probably wont rate me very well because they wont feel any "loyalty" since I've only been in 2 years. She says that they usually feel more compliant to give higher ratings to ppl who have been "beat up" by the military for so many years. And that I'm so new, it probably exsisted before hand and is service aggravated. Please help; any advice or wisdom on MEB and IPEB is greatly appreciated.
IPEB after only 2 years! Please help
- Thread starter airbabygurl
- Start date
airbabygurl: Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in your post. The DoD needs to change the rating criteria for back issues considering the severity of issues that can happen with back injuries. I, like you, had just under two years in the Army and was separated from Active Duty with 10% severance, for a back injury. This back injury was just like yours---sitting, standing, walking further than 50ft, running, you name it, it bothers me. However, the only answer I was ever given was-DDD. Therefore, I wasn't rated well, and with a horrible reading of my MRI I couldn't prove much to fight it. The VA would wind up finding a BUNCH of issues wrong with my spine, once I returned home.
The fortunate (for your case, not you personally) is that you have some clearly defined issues with the spondy, DDD, disc bulging, pinched nerves all showing up on the MRI (just guessing it was an MRI that revealed this). That will have some weight with your case. The biggest thing that will count will be your range of motion (ROM). If you check the VASRD link on this site you will see what kind of rating you could get. There is a possiblity of you being rated according to incapacitating episodes---which would mean how much "bed rest" ordered by your docs you have had in the course of a year. This is where the better ratings come from, but usually overlooked.
Now, from first hand experience the VA will rate you better for your injuries. Not saying that it will be easy, and you will probably have to appeal to get what you deserve, but remember the VA will rate for all conditions that came about on active duty service. So, if you have experienced depression, irritable bowel habits, knee pains, etc., the VA will rate those along with your back injury(ies). So, remember when you get to that phase, to list ALL conditions.
Lastly, make sure that your NARSUM describes the pain in full, states that the multitude of therapies are not helping, the list of meds you are on, EVERYTHING. I do not know what your ROM is, but make sure you do-and make sure it is in the NARSUM. Also, another thing to remember is that the examining doctor is supposed to do a ROM three times to account for fatigue, weakness, etc.; then he/she is supposed to take an average of the three measurements. This is IMPORTANT. Oh-and all medical conditions you have experienced need to be placed on the NARSUM as well. DO NOT let them tell you (THEM being your PEBLO) that only the unfitting condition is to be placed on there.
Make sure you fight for what is yours. If you do not feel it is right, do not sign anything, APPEAL. If you need to, retain counsel through JAG or an outside attorney. This WILL affect the rest of your life! DO it RIGHT! I wished I would've known what I know now! Remember, you can always come on here and ask questions-and feel free. Strive for the 30% at least----it doesn't hurt to appeal anything under 30%, you never know. Good luck and keep us informed. Wish you lots of luck and look forward to hearing back.
V/R
Nick
The fortunate (for your case, not you personally) is that you have some clearly defined issues with the spondy, DDD, disc bulging, pinched nerves all showing up on the MRI (just guessing it was an MRI that revealed this). That will have some weight with your case. The biggest thing that will count will be your range of motion (ROM). If you check the VASRD link on this site you will see what kind of rating you could get. There is a possiblity of you being rated according to incapacitating episodes---which would mean how much "bed rest" ordered by your docs you have had in the course of a year. This is where the better ratings come from, but usually overlooked.
Now, from first hand experience the VA will rate you better for your injuries. Not saying that it will be easy, and you will probably have to appeal to get what you deserve, but remember the VA will rate for all conditions that came about on active duty service. So, if you have experienced depression, irritable bowel habits, knee pains, etc., the VA will rate those along with your back injury(ies). So, remember when you get to that phase, to list ALL conditions.
Lastly, make sure that your NARSUM describes the pain in full, states that the multitude of therapies are not helping, the list of meds you are on, EVERYTHING. I do not know what your ROM is, but make sure you do-and make sure it is in the NARSUM. Also, another thing to remember is that the examining doctor is supposed to do a ROM three times to account for fatigue, weakness, etc.; then he/she is supposed to take an average of the three measurements. This is IMPORTANT. Oh-and all medical conditions you have experienced need to be placed on the NARSUM as well. DO NOT let them tell you (THEM being your PEBLO) that only the unfitting condition is to be placed on there.
Make sure you fight for what is yours. If you do not feel it is right, do not sign anything, APPEAL. If you need to, retain counsel through JAG or an outside attorney. This WILL affect the rest of your life! DO it RIGHT! I wished I would've known what I know now! Remember, you can always come on here and ask questions-and feel free. Strive for the 30% at least----it doesn't hurt to appeal anything under 30%, you never know. Good luck and keep us informed. Wish you lots of luck and look forward to hearing back.
V/R
Nick
XENO-is it either person's fault though? I personally believe that if they had to choose between who got the better rating (even with the two being totally equal in the disabilities, jobs, w/e) the one with 17 years in should! Just should. Is it fair, in a way YES. In a way NO. I have a lot of respect for seniority, rank, etc. Combat vet vs non combat vet. I really believe you should get yours first----but don't forget about me. So I understand that pretty well. However, if the facts are there for a great rating, but missed because she has less time in service, that's messed up.
So-I think both are entitled to what they are entitled to. I understand that the 17 yrs should be considered first and given less scrutiny. However, if 2 yrs. has a bunch of health issues caused by the Army, shouldn't she be deserving too?
V/R
NICK
So-I think both are entitled to what they are entitled to. I understand that the 17 yrs should be considered first and given less scrutiny. However, if 2 yrs. has a bunch of health issues caused by the Army, shouldn't she be deserving too?
V/R
NICK
Jason Perry
Founder and Leader
Site Founder
Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
Thanks for all the great answers guys!
nlaw37~ I have went to the VA already and the Doctor didnt do any measuring. He pretty much just talked about my basic injuries, I got all the back issues there and insomnia (caused by my pain) all the different sprains and things I've obtained in the military. Headaches ect.... But I dont think I have the VASRD yet?. I have the VA report but no rating yet. I do agree that an individual should probably recieve more for 17 years in rather than 2years Obviously the person with 17years has dedicated more of their life and is like you said, a combat vet, so I understand that but my disabilites are still there. And because I'm so young (shouldnt have these problems at my age) It's going to be a little harder for me, the person with 17 years has more job experience and probably a degree. I however just started my career so....
I will make sure the NARSUM is to my liking and hopefully the Doc will put everything in there. I'm having issues being in the "radar" of my squad. not sure what to do about that. And my ER is hard to get bed-rest. I went in there one night in Oct and I couldnt straighten my leg or anything they put me on 72 hour quarters and then gave me some prescreptions but the doc told me that going/coming back to the ER isnt going to help and pretty much made me feel like they cant do anything for me. I've only been on hosiptal quarters like twice in the past year but I've had to leave work more than 10 or had issues at work.
nlaw37~ I have went to the VA already and the Doctor didnt do any measuring. He pretty much just talked about my basic injuries, I got all the back issues there and insomnia (caused by my pain) all the different sprains and things I've obtained in the military. Headaches ect.... But I dont think I have the VASRD yet?. I have the VA report but no rating yet. I do agree that an individual should probably recieve more for 17 years in rather than 2years Obviously the person with 17years has dedicated more of their life and is like you said, a combat vet, so I understand that but my disabilites are still there. And because I'm so young (shouldnt have these problems at my age) It's going to be a little harder for me, the person with 17 years has more job experience and probably a degree. I however just started my career so....
I will make sure the NARSUM is to my liking and hopefully the Doc will put everything in there. I'm having issues being in the "radar" of my squad. not sure what to do about that. And my ER is hard to get bed-rest. I went in there one night in Oct and I couldnt straighten my leg or anything they put me on 72 hour quarters and then gave me some prescreptions but the doc told me that going/coming back to the ER isnt going to help and pretty much made me feel like they cant do anything for me. I've only been on hosiptal quarters like twice in the past year but I've had to leave work more than 10 or had issues at work.
The case discussed was not described as contributed to a specific injury. So none/combat is not an issue.
What we have is a complaint of xxxx, wasn't from being beat up/worn out for 17 years. I was trying to help the person understand why the Doc would say such a thing:
I would think that:
didn't happen overnight, unless you had injury, and I'm sure you would have remembered the day that xxxx happened to your back in the last 2 years.
Ok with that out of the way, what is Med retirement for?
Was the career cut short by 3 years or cut short by 17 years?
airbabygurl
PEB Forum Regular Member
I understand all of this, however, it was not an injury and no it didnt happen overnight. I was told it was originally Spondy and probably congenital (since birth) and the DDD, pinched nerves and arthrits came because of it. I never had any back problems before I joined, I liked to dance and was a VERY active and social person. I didnt play any sports or run or anything but I went skiing, walking, hiking, camping, dancing, skating, ect... and NEVER had any back issues. The doc thought, the Spondy and DDD developed overtime and was Service Aggrevated since I didnt have any problems in Basic and they didnt start till late in my Tech school. She thinks the PT and heavy gear (from my job) is what caused it to "flare up" and cause pain.
Also, I'd have to agree with both XENO and Nick! XENO~ yeah you are absolutly correct. It shouldnt matter if it was cut short, they should be treated the same. However, agreeing with Nick, my injuries could have been military aggrevated whereas the person with 17 years in could have been CAUSED by the military. The one with 17 years, even if they had the same problems as me, had endured more pain in 17 years than I have in 2. As well as still going to fight and be in combat, I was never given that chance. So I think it depends on the situation. Def.
XENO-I did not mean for that post to be rude at all, and would never do such. I just find it to be very difficult for all the above. I mean like me for instance; I had a definite cause and effect to my injury. Caused for sure by military service. Yes, I only had 2 years in myself, but it has now affected everything from work to my personal life. Not cool. However, because of it being a back injury (and also the weight of only being in two years) I was not rated fairly at all. In fact, the VA did an MRI before I was released from AD and found a whole slew of issues the Army said "was never wrong". So that makes it harder for me to stomach. You know what I mean? Like in her case, her doc has found it to be service aggravated-but it has made her life be flipped upside down. All around this is a bad deal. Real bad.
Have a great day.
Nick
Have a great day.
Nick
Jason Perry
Founder and Leader
Site Founder
Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
Just to point out some things that were touched on in this thread (mainly because some of this things seemed to miss the point that some concerns are already addressed by the current system).
Remember, different from the VA, the military does compensate someone with 2 years less than someone with 17 years in by virtue of the fact that the percentage assigned is applied to base pay or retired base pay (separation vs. retirement). The percentages just measure degree of disability. Payment is driven by base pay which for the military as a whole, is driven by rank and years of service.
The issue of compensability is an entirely different matter. But, the regulations as written (not as always applied) already provide for a pretty low threshold for compensability for all members. If on orders, your injuries are presumed compensable and incurred in the line of duty or service aggravated. We do give those with longer years an extra measure, though- the Eight Year Rule. But, the presumptions are the same for all members regardless of length of service (if you want to discuss the application of these rules and how they play out, that is a different matter).
There are a great many proposals out there for changing the award of benefits, etc. To a degree, there is an arbitrary element to every benefit regime. Why pick base pay only and not base pay plus $200 or $2000 for that matter? Why use a schedule for ratings instead of an assessment by an Occupational expert as to the dollar amount of the value of the degree of disability? Why use an objective measure (i.e., how an average person would be impacted by a disability) rather than asking how is each individual person impacted? I can't tell you that I have the answer, but I suspect that the main reason is that once you start to look to closely at many issues, it becomes very time and resource intensive to adjudicate cases (even more than now). Imagine not having presumptions about compensability. The hearing rooms and courts would be flooded with claimants. Same with an very individualized approach to what the value of a disability means for compensation. You would basically need a Trial for every single case, with expert witnesses, detailed testimony and evidence, and it would start to become very costly to administer. As a result, you have an approach that is uniform for how it evaluates folks, but it may not be what people consider "fair." (Please understand, I am talking about the system as it is meant to work...there are very serious issues that go way outside of "fair" for many cases; basically, I am saying that the system we have is arbitrary, but for a reason. Still, this arbitrary system, which may or may not be the best policy choice out there, still needs to operate according to its own rules).
Interesting issues, though.
Remember, different from the VA, the military does compensate someone with 2 years less than someone with 17 years in by virtue of the fact that the percentage assigned is applied to base pay or retired base pay (separation vs. retirement). The percentages just measure degree of disability. Payment is driven by base pay which for the military as a whole, is driven by rank and years of service.
The issue of compensability is an entirely different matter. But, the regulations as written (not as always applied) already provide for a pretty low threshold for compensability for all members. If on orders, your injuries are presumed compensable and incurred in the line of duty or service aggravated. We do give those with longer years an extra measure, though- the Eight Year Rule. But, the presumptions are the same for all members regardless of length of service (if you want to discuss the application of these rules and how they play out, that is a different matter).
There are a great many proposals out there for changing the award of benefits, etc. To a degree, there is an arbitrary element to every benefit regime. Why pick base pay only and not base pay plus $200 or $2000 for that matter? Why use a schedule for ratings instead of an assessment by an Occupational expert as to the dollar amount of the value of the degree of disability? Why use an objective measure (i.e., how an average person would be impacted by a disability) rather than asking how is each individual person impacted? I can't tell you that I have the answer, but I suspect that the main reason is that once you start to look to closely at many issues, it becomes very time and resource intensive to adjudicate cases (even more than now). Imagine not having presumptions about compensability. The hearing rooms and courts would be flooded with claimants. Same with an very individualized approach to what the value of a disability means for compensation. You would basically need a Trial for every single case, with expert witnesses, detailed testimony and evidence, and it would start to become very costly to administer. As a result, you have an approach that is uniform for how it evaluates folks, but it may not be what people consider "fair." (Please understand, I am talking about the system as it is meant to work...there are very serious issues that go way outside of "fair" for many cases; basically, I am saying that the system we have is arbitrary, but for a reason. Still, this arbitrary system, which may or may not be the best policy choice out there, still needs to operate according to its own rules).
Interesting issues, though.