THIS IS A BIG DEAL!!! DoD Retention Policy for Non-Deployable Service Members

salute.jpg


This is the link to the DoD policy and PEB FORUM resource for the DOD Retention Policy for Non-Deployable Service Members .

Let's discuss the most important parts of the policy memorandum.

"The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the following interim policy guidance, which will remain in effect until the Department issues a DoD Instruction on reporting and retention of non-deployable Service members:
• Service members who have been non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months, for any reason, will be processed for administrative separation in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, or DoD Instruction 1332.30, Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned Officers, or will be referred into the Disability Evaluation System in
accordance with DoDI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System (DES) . Pregnant and post-partum Service members are the only group automatically excepted from this policy.

The Military Services have until October 1, 2018, to begin mandatory processing of non-deployable Service members for administrative or disability separation under this policy, but they may begin such processing immediately."

This is a big deal. We will have to see what the ultimate guidance states. (And, how the services implement this- either through policy guidance or execution of the DoD policy memorandum.) However, I see a few potential issues and points.

First, if the requirement is to process non-deployable members for separation (including DES processing) this may help members who are "strung along" in getting referred or processed through the DES. It is forward looking, but, this policy may help those who are separated erroneously in challenging their separation and access to adjudication through the DES.

Second, this policy would seem to aid in the claims for continued compensation for those who are separated or not paid for active duty pay despite having conditions that make then non-deployable.

Third, this may impact adjudication of conditions for the folks on the TDRL.

Finally, this may impact members who hoped to continue service despite being technically "non-deployable." I can see this impacting the calculus for members in how they present their conditions to their providers and how they approach their cases.
 
Jason Perry

Comments

Honorable Mr. Perry, would you be willing to explain what you perhaps foresee as issues with:

"Third, this may impact adjudication of conditions for the folks on the TDRL?"

I ask for several reason's, 1) While I was on TDRL, I was told by TDRL examiner at Ft. Benning, those placed on TDRL MH Conditions are in fact almost "never" returned to active duty!" If, this is in fact case, which based on your experience as JAG Formal PEB Chief in TX would "assume" you would know-perhaps, then why are they placed on TDRL at all to begin with?"

2) While on TDRL, and after, the US DVA MH Provider treating me, (who died of brain tumor), told me he had "patients" on TDRL in local Gulf Coast VA System for over the "five" year limit, and were in fact so bad off could not "take" care of themselves and had "funds" cut off, as well as significantly "low" VA ratings, that further contributed to their "issues," as well as placing sigificant burden "famly" etc....! So my question here would be, if case number one, hardly any members on TDRL MH reason's returned "duty,"- is "true" and if still on TDRL after 5-year limit, what is the point of TDRL for MH Conditions, anyway, and what impact this "Directive" will in fact on anyone in above situation still possibly on TDRL past 5-year limit?

3) Would you make any recommendations' as what should be done/changed/modified- in light of this "Directive," with the whole convoluted and overly complex, "TDRL" system??????

4) Perhaps, deyond your purvue, but US State Department Officals' and Merchant Mariners, can utilize the US DVA System, are they in fact held to same "rating" and compensation "standards" as US Armed Services Members'????? If so are they "considered" "non-deplorable," etc...within-in their own "system's" like etc... US Armed Service Members affected by this "Directive"...?????

Thank you Honorable Mr. Perry, and belive this best website out there for Veterans', etc.. issues......"being no "expert" by any means in these matters, but a simple "yokel," myself, which as per "Merriam-Webster" word of day 20- FEB 2018, "365 New Words-A-Year Page-A-Day Calendar 2018- Calendar – Day to Day Calendar, August 3, 2017" by Merriam-Webster (Author) (at https://www.amazon.com/Words-Year-Page-Day-Calendar/dp/0761193863/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1519208424&sr=8-2&keywords=365+words+a+day+calendar), is "a naive or gullible inhabitant of a rural area or small town...!"
 
Last edited:
View attachment 2571


This is the link to the DoD policy and PEB FORUM resource for the DOD Retention Policy for Non-Deployable Service Members .

Let's discuss the most important parts of the policy memorandum.

"The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the following interim policy guidance, which will remain in effect until the Department issues a DoD Instruction on reporting and retention of non-deployable Service members:
• Service members who have been non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months, for any reason, will be processed for administrative separation in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, or DoD Instruction 1332.30, Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned Officers, or will be referred into the Disability Evaluation System in
accordance with DoDI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System (DES) . Pregnant and post-partum Service members are the only group automatically excepted from this policy.

The Military Services have until October 1, 2018, to begin mandatory processing of non-deployable Service members for administrative or disability separation under this policy, but they may begin such processing immediately."

This is a big deal. We will have to see what the ultimate guidance states. (And, how the services implement this- either through policy guidance or execution of the DoD policy memorandum.) However, I see a few potential issues and points.

First, if the requirement is to process non-deployable members for separation (including DES processing) this may help members who are "strung along" in getting referred or processed through the DES. It is forward looking, but, this policy may help those who are separated erroneously in challenging their separation and access to adjudication through the DES.

Second, this policy would seem to aid in the claims for continued compensation for those who are separated or not paid for active duty pay despite having conditions that make then non-deployable.

Third, this may impact adjudication of conditions for the folks on the TDRL.

Finally, this may impact members who hoped to continue service despite being technically "non-deployable." I can see this impacting the calculus for members in how they present their conditions to their providers and how they approach their cases.
 
Hello Mr. Perry and posters,

I've been a visitor of this site for about two years and finally decided to register once I gained interest in the "Deploy or get out" directive situation as it can affect me individually.

I am E7 in the air force reserves (Robins AFB) with 15 good years (3yrs AD Reg Army & 12yrs AF Res). I was placed on a Code 37 profile (which is still current) for PTSD (diagnosed by VA 2014 @ 100%) December 2016. The MEB initiation was put on hold until an LOD investigation has been completed. An LOD investigation was initiated (by me) Mar 2017. As of right now the LOD has been someone's desk and the medical review board section since 13 June 2017 per the LOD program manager. Since LODs have such a major impact on medical readiness, benefits and retention, how do you see the new directive affecting members on permanent profiles waiting for one process while being held up by another? ALL insight and opinions from all are welcome. Thanks!
 
View attachment 2571
This is a big deal. We will have to see what the ultimate guidance states. (And, how the services implement this- either through policy guidance or execution of the DoD policy memorandum.) However, I see a few potential issues and points.

I understand the need for a ready force. That being said the details to come bear watching. The devil is always in the details.

Perhaps, as you pointed out this may help some who are lingering. My concern is the flood is coming and the system will likely not handle it well.
 
View attachment 2571


This is the link to the DoD policy and PEB FORUM resource for the DOD Retention Policy for Non-Deployable Service Members .

Let's discuss the most important parts of the policy memorandum.

"The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the following interim policy guidance, which will remain in effect until the Department issues a DoD Instruction on reporting and retention of non-deployable Service members:
• Service members who have been non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months, for any reason, will be processed for administrative separation in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, or DoD Instruction 1332.30, Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned Officers, or will be referred into the Disability Evaluation System in
accordance with DoDI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System (DES) . Pregnant and post-partum Service members are the only group automatically excepted from this policy.

The Military Services have until October 1, 2018, to begin mandatory processing of non-deployable Service members for administrative or disability separation under this policy, but they may begin such processing immediately."

This is a big deal. We will have to see what the ultimate guidance states. (And, how the services implement this- either through policy guidance or execution of the DoD policy memorandum.) However, I see a few potential issues and points.

First, if the requirement is to process non-deployable members for separation (including DES processing) this may help members who are "strung along" in getting referred or processed through the DES. It is forward looking, but, this policy may help those who are separated erroneously in challenging their separation and access to adjudication through the DES.

Second, this policy would seem to aid in the claims for continued compensation for those who are separated or not paid for active duty pay despite having conditions that make then non-deployable.

Third, this may impact adjudication of conditions for the folks on the TDRL.

Finally, this may impact members who hoped to continue service despite being technically "non-deployable." I can see this impacting the calculus for members in how they present their conditions to their providers and how they approach their cases.
Hello,
I am found unfit by the peb for pancreatitis and goalblader issue. and recomended for permanent retireent. I am told by Doctors if I get my goalblader removed I might not have the reecurring pain I have been having. What are the chances of convincing the peb to let me have my already appoved surgery and return me to duty? I also worry about the new deploy or out policy. I've been non deployable for 8 months now. am I take a bad risk?
 
Question for folks out there... Has anyone out there witnessed any changes with the services due to this recent retention policy memo? Anyone have any visibility in regard to what the services are doing to meet the intent of the new policy?
 
I know on the navy side. They are putting together a list for the big wigs of everyone at the command who falls under that retention rule
 
I wonder if this will apply for me. I enlisted in 2008, was sent to PEB in 2010. Found fit but not worldwide deployable by PEB in 2011. Got NEC 0091 added in my records. Has been on shore duty the whole time in the Navy. I just got new orders and will PCS in May, still on shore orders.
 
Air National Guard 28 years and ticking.
Just diagnosed by VA with an Aortic Aneurysm 4.4cm, and dyspnea (shortness of breath/ on some meds). I disclosed to medical on drill weekend. They found those two items unfit for duty. They are referring me to FSS for a briefing and ask if I want a waiver or not. Not sure what to do with this new guidance. Will they just administratively retire me, should I inquire about a medical disqualification or just not bother and retire? I humbly ask Mr. Perry, what would you suggest?
 
No updates yet, I have an appointment with VA liaison to submit a claim package for Aneurysm and dyspnea. Currently have rating of 60% for other issues. Next month I need to give an answer to FSS if i want to get a waiver or force my hand to retire (E-8 over 20 ANG).
 
I would think you will see far more admin separations compare to folks being referred to the board. We will have to see the numbers once it rolls out.
 
I think this policy will at least be helpful for people, like my husband, who have conditions rated at an amount straddling the retirement line (he has type1 diabetes, and it's only rated at 20%). If this policy were in place at the time he was discharged, he never would have tried to be returned to duty due to his code-c2 status, and would have put all his energy into being medically retired.
 
I wonder if this will apply for me. I enlisted in 2008, was sent to PEB in 2010. Found fit but not worldwide deployable by PEB in 2011. Got NEC 0091 added in my records. Has been on shore duty the whole time in the Navy. I just got new orders and will PCS in May, still on shore orders.
I’m in the same ‘boat’. FFD by PEB in 2015, but permanently non-deployable. I’d be mentally prepared for it to happen. My only question is for all of us in this position , will we have the option of medical retirement and not just be administratively separated?
 
I’m in the same ‘boat’. FFD by PEB in 2015, but permanently non-deployable. I’d be mentally prepared for it to happen. My only question is for all of us in this position , will we have the option of medical retirement and not just be administratively separated?
Have you heard anything about being non deployable and staying in? i was found Fit for continued service in the Marine Corps but HQMC told me that if i can't do physical activities that i can't reenlist but the Med Board accepted my limitations. I go speak with my doctor today because its almost been 6 months so i can possibly resubmit.
 
Have you heard anything about being non deployable and staying in? i was found Fit for continued service in the Marine Corps but HQMC told me that if i can't do physical activities that i can't reenlist but the Med Board accepted my limitations. I go speak with my doctor today because its almost been 6 months so i can possibly resubmit.
I haven’t heard any definitive guidance from the Army. My chain of command is not in a hurry to get rid of me as I’m in a non deployable unit and commanding a company. Their stance right now is to not pursue, but take action on the guidance if and when it becomes an emphasis from big army.
 
Franco1970; Strabo100-ALL_ first “Thank You For Your Service”- that being said think your cases highlight some of the difficulties that “those whom can make and implement” these system and “directives” in fact face.

I know a “local” veteran whom “tried to help” train the National Guard for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, and was left feeling many “emotions” regarding not only the National Guard and Reserve System, but other things as well…..

It is a well-established fact, “beyond” any refute there exists much animosity between the Active Forces and the US Guard and Reserve systems…. As “when” this “local” veteran was “assigned” to a Training Support Brigade, everyone asked him if sure knew what was doing, and also, not to “upset” anyone in Guard/Reserve System….

While, IAW this veteran, it is in fact beyond “noble” that many in US Guard and Reserve, place their civil careers and lives on hold to serve abroad- especially those “self-employed” and whom after being “involuntarily” retained on “active-status” for so long, that their “personal businesses” totally collapse and when “released” from “active” status have to start almost completely over….. there is a “huge” gap not only in Training, Mentality, but also in “benefits” and “standards” that does not sit well with neither side of the “coin”…..

For instance, and example only….as Franco1970 states- “No updates yet, I have an appointment with VA liaison to submit a claim package for Aneurysm and dyspnea. Currently have rating of 60% for other issues. Next month I need to give an answer to FSS if i want to get a waiver or force my hand to retire (E-8 over 20 ANG).” And, Strabo100, states, “I wonder if this will apply for me. I enlisted in 2008, was sent to PEB in 2010. Found fit but not worldwide deployable by PEB in 2011. Got NEC 0091 added in my records. Has been on shore duty the whole time in the Navy. I just got new orders and will PCS in May, still on shore orders.” Really highlight “some” of the issues here “regarding” these more than “perceived” disparities…..

First- in case of Franco1970- stating “currently have a rating of 60% for other issues” hits to heart of matter. No one in the active “armed forces” would more than likely, unless “extreme” outlying case would be permitted to have remain on “active duty status very long, and if so would have been more that considered a “second class” citizen and/or worse- particularly in Combat Arms Branches…!!!!! Furthermore, no one on “active-duty” would also, be getting US DVA benefits, National Guard Pay and Incentives as well as a “civilian” pay-check of some sort….etc…..

Second, in the case of Strabo100- whom, as stated enlisted in “2008” and found unfit two years (+/-) later…and allowed to stay on active duty- but not worldwide deployable… would “most likely” upset those whom have spent most of their “natural-adult” lives in “active military” service to the nation, with a “whole” lot of “real-world” experience, that they could in fact pass on to the “next” generation of warriors, if in fact their “disabilities’ where of such a nature as to pose “no-risk” and/or “minimal to moderate-risk” to the “safety” of others…. Furthermore, and do not know, nor want know “injuries and or illness” but if in fact rated US DVA 100%- disabled after only 3-years or so on active duty, without a either visible and or “perceived” serious “illness” and or “injury” it would in fact highly “upset” those whom, either Active and or National Guard-Reserves, whom “had” given most of their “adulthood” in service to the Nation…..

So, hopefully without upsetting either honorable Mr. Strabo100 and Mr. Franco1970, therein lies the “numerous” and “complex” system of not only Medical Benefits and issues, but also just “normal” and routine” differences between Active and National Guard/Reserve Forces…. Not to mention many, whom have supposedly expressed it, to this local veteran about very “junior-soldiers” and NCO’s-Officer’s being “medically” removed from service after short time frame and being, yet again, rated US DVA 100% without any “clearly” perceived signs of serious injury and/or illness or just one “condition!”

This, therefore is not a case of “Alexander the Great” suddenly taking out his sword and cutting the “Gordon-Knot!” It, is more of a case of the “king Solomon” and the “baby” dispute, and King Solomon “threatening” to cut the baby in half- to determine whom the “mother” really was…. i.e. “the truth” lies somewhere in-between….

All, of us can in fact be, at times blinded by the fact of believing we have “X-Ray” vision and can see “inside” the inner workings of a “human-body!” This, can if fact cause “perception” issues, especially with “those” of the “unseen” signature wounds of the Global War on Terror- PTSD, Depression, Insomnia, etc… not to mention “exposure” to highly toxic physical “environments” … as well as other things “service related”…..

It is in fact useful, to as the US DVA MH providers themselves in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to simply on occasion “Challenge One’s Belief’s” and examine all sides of the issues…

Case in point- “another” local veteran attended a US DVA PTSD Program, where there was a “cook” in the class! No one really thought much of a simple “cook’s” claims of combat related PTSD- as said “cook” never let on what in fact really did! However, if one were to take a step back, and/or read something- say about- the US Military’s “long-standing” tradition of “Individual Taskings” – this simple “cook” could have in fact been “temporarily” reassigned to serve in another capacity on the “front-lines” say as a “gunner” in an undermanned “combat” unit!!!! The same can apply to US Military “Drone-UAV” operations- as those whom have “served” in the “line” so to speak do not readily understand, how these “soldiers” can in fact experience both “burn-out,” PTSD, Depression, etc… the same as they do….(See PEB Forum Post: “NYT: As Stress Drives Off Drone Operators, Air Force Must Cut FlightsForums Service Specific Forums Service Specific Forums Air Force Forum Air Force News at web-address: http://pebforum.com/threads/nyt-as-stress-drives-off-drone-operators-air-force-must-cut-flights.28952/#post-144722 as well as other posts/threads this issue alone! )

Furthermore, one of these “local” veterans supposedly “attempted” to read all the regulations “regarding” National Guard and Reserve Soldiers, as well- and merely out of sheer “frustration”- a whole host of the regulations regarding the US DVA, TDRL System, etc… and they are all more than beyond complex, and in fact the US Military Senior Leadership, in fact has “specialists” whom they rely on to “interpret” them as supposedly “experts” by virtue of years and decades “deciphering” all the obscure and more than “convoluted” rules and regulations….regarding Active Forces, National Guard-Reserve, Medical Boards, TDRL, etc…… but ultimately in the end it is not so much the US Active-or Reserve Component’s that make the rules, but more so are the enforcers, of the rules and regulations set forth by “congress” that are in fact the very “heart” of the issue….. (I would recommend PEB Forum Posts: “Receiving a Service Dog” at PEBFORUM Forums Resources and Files General Military Resources web-address: http://pebforum.com/threads/receiving-a-service-dog.25947/#post-209055 about H. R. 4764-To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program to provide service dogs to certain veterans with severe post-traumatic stress disorder.” Which yet, as my understanding has not been passed into law!)

Another, and final case in point, is simply the US DVA’s Individual Un-employability or I/U Standard, as it too creates many “perceived” issues, such as why must an individual on I/U “not work-attend school” and/or do various other things” without fear of losing I/U”- which in fact is almost harder to get than a straight 100%-disabled rating vs. and individual whom is rated straight 100% Disabled and can in fact work “full-time” without any significant “special accommodations” and attend school freely without too much fear of losing their “straight” 100% Disabled US DVA Rating….???? (See PEBForum Post/Thread: Individual Unemployability at Forums Transition Forum: Veterans Affairs and SSDI Veterans Affairs, SSDI, and other Benefits at web-address: http://pebforum.com/threads/individual-unemployability.20347/#post-209523 among many others as well!)

Bottom-line: Per many “psychology” works we are all geared to simply “initially” to simply “believe” what our major sense’s (eyes, ears, smell, etc..) “tell us to believe” when in fact there may be “much” more behind the “magic-curtain” of “perception and mis-perception!” Take for example the issue of “sleep-apnea!” A local veteran, once again, was recently denied after having spent years having their claim tossed like the wind, back and forth between the local state of Alabama US DVA regional office and the “Board of Veterans Appeals” mighty “Veterans Law judges” whom initially “remanded” or sent it back to “regional Office” as more than warranted re-examination, and then was yet again denied by another Veterans Law Judge! Among not only the US DVA higher-leadership, but in the halls of Congress itself “Sleep Apnea” has been a more than “politically” charged subject as “usually” warranted an “automatic” 50% disabling rating (Please take upon one’s self look up various media related articles!) Now, certain folks would have one believe “Sleep Apnea” is not a “serious issue and other’s claim it simply is such as in- “VA Sleep Apnea Field Manualby Chris Attig (see Barnes And Nobles web-address: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/va-sleep-apnea-field-manual-chris-attig/1124797385?ean=9780991659494 among other book retailers!) So, whom, is simply correct and whom is simply not? I would leave that to those much more educated than myself to ponder, however as “the average” citizen, I myself am more than confused- given all the “opposing” viewpoints and “studies” out there????? It is kind of like the same “raging” _political-charged_ debate over “Islamic Law” that most US Citizens, IAW various web-sites, also do not in fact know very much about such as in book’s like “Islamic Law: Theory and Practiceby Robert Gleave (Editor), Eugenia Kermeli (Editor) (available at such retailers as Barnes And Nonles web-address: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/islamic-law-robert-gleave/1112315281?ean=9781860646522 )! While reading one or two books on either Sleep Apnea and or Islamic Law, will not by any means make one an, expert, it will on the “other-hand” possibly assist one in making “informed-decisions” on what they themselves may or may not perhaps choose to for example “vote” for due to some sense of “situational” awareness! For example, in case of “local” veteran above, the decision, with “expert” advice (that all did not agree with decision) was simply made not to “pursue” Sleep Apnea, any further- despite years of effort by numerous personalities!!!!

I think most forget that in the “US Armed Services,” at least both officer’s and NCO’s swear an oath, not to an “individual” but to an ideal theUS Constitutionsee below in red quoted from “United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office”From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at web-address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office accessed 0714 AM EDT 27 JULY 2018

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

And whilst on Active Duty, can vote, but are not to in fact supposed be “political” but instead carry out the “mandated- directives” of our duly elected National “officials” as long as legal and binding, as well as provide, when requested “expert” advice that is supposed to be neither “politically” driven as well! It is then up, to our Nation’s Elected Leadership to decide and vote on the rules, and laws that will govern whatever it is that was asked for “in expert opinion” to begin with…and the US Military act accordingly!
That, being stated, the biggest right, any soldier, veteran, service-member in fact has is the simply right to “vote” and where in “fact” situational awareness or an “informed-opinion,” so to speak about “issues” at hand more than comes into play… as we all simply get what we “vote” and or do not vote for at the end of the day…

Hopefully, as one can tell, and I have not affronted anyone here- particularly Franco1970 and Strabo100 as each “individual” veterans situation is unique in and of itself- that all these issues are more than simply “one” sided, but in fact more than complex and “multi-faceted” and perhaps not as simple as they “appear!” But that is the heart of the issue- as out of due discourse, debate and argument is in fact supposed to come the “middle-ground” of “King Solomon”, to some degree…. Which hopefully “encompasses” what is best for the “most” of US Veterans and service-members of all components of the US Armed Services….

So, numerous questions posed here that I do not have the answers to by any means- Such as in book “Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein (available numerous retailers such as Barnes and Nobles: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/starship-troopers-robert-a-heinlein/1100171692?ean=9780441783588#/ ) where “wounded” soldiers/veterans are utilized to train, and in the recruitment… of new soldiers, NCO’s and Officers, etc… among a whole host of other “issues” raised in the book “such” as voting, and “public-service” to the nation…..???? Simply, more than well worth the read, as it “simply” spawns one to think of things hopefully raised in this simple post… that are in fact for the US Elected Leadership to “sort” out and “decide”….?????

Thanks,
ALL- and hopefully other’s much more knowledgeable than myself here will chime in and “render” their “informed” thought’s… on much of this….as no easy answers…
 
An addendum was released recently stating that separation for wounded warriors would not happen. I placed that link in a new post earlier today.
 
navy had released a navadmin 267/18 for adsep sailors and on paragraph 3 it says

3. CnD is not appropriate, nor should it be pursued when ADSEP is warranted on the basis of unsatisfactory performance or misconduct. Separation of a service member for a condition for which the member has been found fit for continued naval service by a physical evaluation board is not authorized, unless the ADSEP is approved by the Secretary of Defense. ADSEP processing will not be initiated until the service member is notified in writing that the condition does not qualify as a disability. Prior to involuntary separation, the notification procedure in reference (b), enclosure (5), section 2, will be used. Documentation must include evidence that the service member is unable to function effectively because of a CnD.

so does that mean people with fit for contineued naval service by PEB can't be adsepped unless approved by SecDef?
 
data-matched-content-ui-type="image_stacked" data-matched-content-rows-num="3" data-matched-content-columns-num="1" data-ad-format="autorelaxed">

Online statistics

Members online
5
Guests online
101
Total visitors
106

Members online

Top