I have been in the navy 4 years now and have chronic knee pain. I am not able to do much anymore i can't run and have pain walking up and down ladder wells even sitting down i am in pain. I have 4 waivers for the cardio portion of the PRT 3 consecutive and 1 a year later,and I have on failed one PRT because of the BCA. I've done Physical Therapy and Ortho appointments and was told i was not eligible for a PEB and was recommended for a Admin Separation. Its getting to be to much I have been going through the same thing for 3 years now and i don't mind the Admin Separation long as its Honorable and i am can receive my GI Bill. The issue is my chain of command doesn't know what to put on my Admin Separation papers and sadly neither does medical. I really need advice on this tired of the many medical appointments and running around.
Recommended for Admin Seperation
- Thread starter dee1545
- Start date
Jason Perry
Founder and Leader
Site Founder
Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
There is no reason that is apparent you would not be "eligible" for MEB/PEB. They do this all the time. They are wrong.
Below is an email I sent earlier this year to Admiral Nathan (Navy Surgeon General) on similar cases. Both individuals discussed in the email were subsequently given a MEB/PEB. Let me know if you want me to notify Admiral Nathan on your case as well.
Mike
Admiral Nathan,
Thank you for your time on Wednesday at the Recovering Warrior Task Force meeting to discuss the issue of the Navy/USMC administratively separating members due to conditions that should be referred for DES processing. Below are the details as requested centering on a current Navy case and a current USMC case.
First, I need to provide some necessary background. As a wounded warrior advocate, I was dealing with cases where the Navy/USMC were administratively discharging individuals for unsuitability due to a medical condition deemed fitting by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). As a result, these members would be separated due to disability but without DoD disability benefits. I raised this issue to the HASC and SASC. They in turn passed legislation that prohibited the Services from administratively separating members due to a condition the PEB found fitting. The following year, Congress passed legislation that prohibited the Services from denying reenlistment due to a condition a PEB found fitting.
I, along with other wounded warrior advocates, remained concerned that the provisions passed into law by Congress required a fit finding by the PEB. Thus the admin separation practice could continue by simply not referring the member for DES processing thus avoiding a PEB fit finding. The cases of IT2 X and Sgt Y confirm this concern. Both have been notified they will be administratively separated for disabilities that are required to be submitted for DES processing.
Enclosure 4 of DoDI 1332.38 lists conditions requiring referral to a MEB. This enclosure lists specific conditions but also includes a generic provision:
E4.1.3. Any condition that appears to significantly interfere with performance of duties appropriate to a service member's, office, grade, rank or rating will be considered for MEB evaluation.
Enclosure 4 of DoDI 1332.38 also provides that an individual should be submitted for a MEB if they have a condition that:
E4.1.2.2. May seriously compromise the health or well-being of the individual if he or she were to remain in the Military Service. This may involve dependence on certain medications, appliances, severe dietary restrictions, or frequent special treatments, or a requirement for frequent clinical monitoring.
IT2 X's and Sgt Y's cases clearly show they have conditions that interfere with their duties and/or met the criteria of paragraph E4.1.2.2 and thus they should be submitted for DES processing.
In IT2 X's case, she has nearly 10 years of active duty and has Turner Syndrome. One of the manifestations of her Turner Syndrome is osteoporosis. She was scheduled to be assigned to a destroyer. However, she failed operational suitability screening due to concerns of stress factures from serving on a destroyer coupled with the lack of X-ray equipment on destroyers to detect and monitor any stress fractures she may develop. Her operational screening message and admin separation message are both attached. I wonder why she is not just reassigned to a larger platform or shore duty where her disability can be properly monitored.
Sgt Y's has over 11 years of active duty and has multiple musculoskeletal issues to include his foot, knee and back with his back being most problematic. I have attached Sgt X's admin separation notice and a relevant ALTHA note. In the ALTHA note, Sgt X's physician stated:
Due to the patient’s inability to run, perform a CFT/PFT, and continue his duties as a marine, I recommend admin separation from the Marine Corps for a medical condition not considered a disability. Patient has condition of lumbar spondylosis and lumbargo, which is unlikely to improve in a timely manner. Patient has exhausted medical resources available to him/her at this time.
Given that Sgt Y's back condition prevents him from performing his duties as a marine, I am perplexed as to why he has not been submitted for disability evaluation. More troubling is the fact his physician stated Sgt Y's should be administratively separated for a “condition not considered a disability”. Sgt Y's admin separation notice also cited the basis for separation was the fact he had a condition not considered a disability.
Enclosure 5 of DoDI 1332.38 covers conditions not considered a disability. They include such issues as sleepwalking, stuttering, bedwetting and motion sickness. Such conditions are eligible for administrative separation. The key paragraph in Enclosure 5 of DoDI 1332.38 states:
E5.1.2.1. Certain conditions, circumstances and defects of a developmental nature designated by the Secretary of Defense do not constitute a physical disability and are not ratable in the absence of an underlying ratable causative disorder. If there is a causative disorder it will be rated in accordance with other provisions of this Instruction.
A key provision of this paragraph is that the Secretary of Defense must designate the conditions that are not considered disabilities. The second key provision of this paragraph is the fact any condition that has a ratable causative disorder is subject to the provisions of DoDI 1332.38. Sgt Y's back condition is not listed in Enclosure 5 nor has the Secretary of Defense designated his back problem as a condition that is not a disability. Further, Sgt Y's back condition is a ratable under the DES and therefore should be subject to DES evaluation. Over the years, the Navy and Marine Corps have abused the “conditions not considered a disability” provision to remove disabled sailors and marines for disability without having to pay them DoD disability benefits. This practice simply has to stop.
I can provide other examples of the problems discussed above upon request. Pebforum.com has a specific thread dedicated to administrative separations. It is a great resource for monitoring medical administrative discharge issues.
http://www.pebforum.com/site/forums/administrative-separations.95/
Thank you for letting me bring this issue to your attention.
V/R,
Michael A. Parker
LTC, USA (Retired)
Wounded Warrior Advocate
Mike
Admiral Nathan,
Thank you for your time on Wednesday at the Recovering Warrior Task Force meeting to discuss the issue of the Navy/USMC administratively separating members due to conditions that should be referred for DES processing. Below are the details as requested centering on a current Navy case and a current USMC case.
First, I need to provide some necessary background. As a wounded warrior advocate, I was dealing with cases where the Navy/USMC were administratively discharging individuals for unsuitability due to a medical condition deemed fitting by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). As a result, these members would be separated due to disability but without DoD disability benefits. I raised this issue to the HASC and SASC. They in turn passed legislation that prohibited the Services from administratively separating members due to a condition the PEB found fitting. The following year, Congress passed legislation that prohibited the Services from denying reenlistment due to a condition a PEB found fitting.
I, along with other wounded warrior advocates, remained concerned that the provisions passed into law by Congress required a fit finding by the PEB. Thus the admin separation practice could continue by simply not referring the member for DES processing thus avoiding a PEB fit finding. The cases of IT2 X and Sgt Y confirm this concern. Both have been notified they will be administratively separated for disabilities that are required to be submitted for DES processing.
Enclosure 4 of DoDI 1332.38 lists conditions requiring referral to a MEB. This enclosure lists specific conditions but also includes a generic provision:
E4.1.3. Any condition that appears to significantly interfere with performance of duties appropriate to a service member's, office, grade, rank or rating will be considered for MEB evaluation.
Enclosure 4 of DoDI 1332.38 also provides that an individual should be submitted for a MEB if they have a condition that:
E4.1.2.2. May seriously compromise the health or well-being of the individual if he or she were to remain in the Military Service. This may involve dependence on certain medications, appliances, severe dietary restrictions, or frequent special treatments, or a requirement for frequent clinical monitoring.
IT2 X's and Sgt Y's cases clearly show they have conditions that interfere with their duties and/or met the criteria of paragraph E4.1.2.2 and thus they should be submitted for DES processing.
In IT2 X's case, she has nearly 10 years of active duty and has Turner Syndrome. One of the manifestations of her Turner Syndrome is osteoporosis. She was scheduled to be assigned to a destroyer. However, she failed operational suitability screening due to concerns of stress factures from serving on a destroyer coupled with the lack of X-ray equipment on destroyers to detect and monitor any stress fractures she may develop. Her operational screening message and admin separation message are both attached. I wonder why she is not just reassigned to a larger platform or shore duty where her disability can be properly monitored.
Sgt Y's has over 11 years of active duty and has multiple musculoskeletal issues to include his foot, knee and back with his back being most problematic. I have attached Sgt X's admin separation notice and a relevant ALTHA note. In the ALTHA note, Sgt X's physician stated:
Due to the patient’s inability to run, perform a CFT/PFT, and continue his duties as a marine, I recommend admin separation from the Marine Corps for a medical condition not considered a disability. Patient has condition of lumbar spondylosis and lumbargo, which is unlikely to improve in a timely manner. Patient has exhausted medical resources available to him/her at this time.
Given that Sgt Y's back condition prevents him from performing his duties as a marine, I am perplexed as to why he has not been submitted for disability evaluation. More troubling is the fact his physician stated Sgt Y's should be administratively separated for a “condition not considered a disability”. Sgt Y's admin separation notice also cited the basis for separation was the fact he had a condition not considered a disability.
Enclosure 5 of DoDI 1332.38 covers conditions not considered a disability. They include such issues as sleepwalking, stuttering, bedwetting and motion sickness. Such conditions are eligible for administrative separation. The key paragraph in Enclosure 5 of DoDI 1332.38 states:
E5.1.2.1. Certain conditions, circumstances and defects of a developmental nature designated by the Secretary of Defense do not constitute a physical disability and are not ratable in the absence of an underlying ratable causative disorder. If there is a causative disorder it will be rated in accordance with other provisions of this Instruction.
A key provision of this paragraph is that the Secretary of Defense must designate the conditions that are not considered disabilities. The second key provision of this paragraph is the fact any condition that has a ratable causative disorder is subject to the provisions of DoDI 1332.38. Sgt Y's back condition is not listed in Enclosure 5 nor has the Secretary of Defense designated his back problem as a condition that is not a disability. Further, Sgt Y's back condition is a ratable under the DES and therefore should be subject to DES evaluation. Over the years, the Navy and Marine Corps have abused the “conditions not considered a disability” provision to remove disabled sailors and marines for disability without having to pay them DoD disability benefits. This practice simply has to stop.
I can provide other examples of the problems discussed above upon request. Pebforum.com has a specific thread dedicated to administrative separations. It is a great resource for monitoring medical administrative discharge issues.
http://www.pebforum.com/site/forums/administrative-separations.95/
Thank you for letting me bring this issue to your attention.
V/R,
Michael A. Parker
LTC, USA (Retired)
Wounded Warrior Advocate
Mr Parker,
Please post the response to this letter if you ever receive one. It will be interesting to see how Admiral Nathan responds. I also want to say thank you for all of the help you provide to military members who are going through these types of situations. It would be easy for someone to fight for his/her own benefits but the fact that you continue to look out for the well being others shows that you sir are a true leader.
Bobby
Bobby,
Admiral Nathan responded to that email by making sure the two individuals mentioned received MEBs/PEBs. One was found fit and the other's MEB/PEB is still ongoing. I relayed other cases to him that, despite the requirement for MEBs, did not turn out as good. I am reengaging Admiral Nathan on one of these cases next week via my Recovering Warrior Task Force public forum statement which I posted to this message. The meeting is 28/29 October in Crystal City, VA.
Mike
Admiral Nathan responded to that email by making sure the two individuals mentioned received MEBs/PEBs. One was found fit and the other's MEB/PEB is still ongoing. I relayed other cases to him that, despite the requirement for MEBs, did not turn out as good. I am reengaging Admiral Nathan on one of these cases next week via my Recovering Warrior Task Force public forum statement which I posted to this message. The meeting is 28/29 October in Crystal City, VA.
Mike
I read the attached file and it leaves me wondering why the Navy would do that because of a loophole in the law? The only reason I can think of is to save $$$$. Do they really care about their members or is it all about their budget and saving money even if it destroys people lives and careers? Has sequestration caused them to tighten their belts and become more stringent? I would really like to know who sits around in a room and decides they are going to deny people benefits they earned just to make sure the Blue Angels can fly... I guess Congress needs to write laws that pertain to the DoD and the various services that leave no room for interpretation and that don't allow for military lawyers to say, "Hey we found a way to save by kicking out these folks who don't meet this definition". This is morally and ethically wrong even if they think it is legal.
Bobby
It is morally and ethically wrong, but it does come down to dollars. They are looking at it from the standpoint of something they can use (people, equipment, or weapon) vs a financial liability that will provide them with no percieved benefit. A bean counter will always try and find a way to exploit these holes. Thankfully sites like this exist, and we have the Mike Parker's of the world to help.