Physical Evaluation Board Forum

A resource for Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), Board for Correction of Military Records, Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR), and Wounded Warrior issues.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvJAj_XpEe_duyA6jYCCtNAlMz9LWURmf8xCGun0EKsVUEZw_k
From the Army Times: Senators to Army: Stop misconduct discharges until review is completed A group of lawmakers wants the Army to stop discharging soldiers who have been diagnosed with mental health problems because of their service in Iraq or Afghanistan. The move comes one month after the Army announced it would conduct a “thorough, multidisciplinary” review in response to a call from 12 senators to investigate reports that the service discharged for misconduct as many as 22,000 combat veterans who had been diagnosed with mental health problems. “It doesn’t make sense to continue these discharges while the practice is in the midst of multiple reviews,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said in a statement. “Soldiers prevented from serving due to post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury should be treated like we treat those with physical injuries, not be discharged, cast aside and ignored. They fought for their country and have earned the benefit of the doubt.” Murphy was one of the 12 senators to initially call on the Army to investigate the reports regarding the 22,000 soldiers. The issue was first reported by National Public Radio. Eric Fanning, who was then the acting Army secretary, directed the Army review. In a Nov. 30 letter to Murphy, Fanning wrote that the Army strives to have a process that is “fair, objective and deliberate, and that ensures due process and the maintenance of good order and discipline within the ranks.” “The decision to separate a soldier from the Army for any reason is not an easy one, which is why we require a thorough review of the facts in each and every case,”...
military-times-logo.jpg
Fellow PEB FORUM members: On a positive front, media interest seems to be building for more stories about what members face going through the military disability evaluation system. Yesterday, I was contacted by a reporter for Military Times regarding the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. (She has signed up here, as well). I was asked to post this thread asking if there are folks who would like to discuss their experienced- good, bad, or indifferent- with the IDES process. You can post replies in this thread or you can contact her directly: Patricia Kime Senior Staff Writer Military Times/Gannett Government Media, LLC. E-mail: pkime@militarytimes.com w. 703.642.7317 c. 703.906.7155 Here is your opportunity to share your story and help publicize the continuing challenges that members face being evaluated and compensated for their disabilities (or difficulties in continuing their career). Thanks for any input!
nbcbay_logo.png
All: One of the reporters/producers of the recent NBC Bay Area story on the fiasco that is the processing of Army National Guard LOD determinations has asked me to further link/publicize the story. I am linking the story here. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investiga...-on-Critical-Benefits-Requests-330750862.html The story is not over. I have been told that there are follow up stories planned and additional reporting on this important topic. If you have your own story, please post your interest in discussing the problems you have faced and/or the impact on your life by not being properly processed (or even being given the opportunity to be processed) through the Line of Duty investigative process. (Feel free to post your own story, your desire to be "heard," and or to contact me via private message to share the above or contact information that I will pass along to the reporters).
Thanks to all who have interest in this issue nationally or as it relates to the situation in California. The previous story is important and has raised many issues of concern. My hope is that this story will continue to resonate and will gain steam. That said, I have been contacted by the local NBC affiliate station with a request to do a follow up story locally (this means locally, in Florida....so far, three different news markets in Florida have expressed interest in a local story about this ; my thought is that the wider the publication of this issue, the better). Given the previous story on this issue (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investiga...-on-Critical-Benefits-Requests-330750862.html), my question is whether are folks with FL ARNG experiences (or otherwise relevant experiences) that are interested in sharing their experiences with the local NBC affiliates. I can't say that doing so will help your case. But, the more publicity and opportunity for the media to pick this issue up, it would seem to help those who have had little luck (or no luck or flat out denial of benefits and compensation) previously. The more folks publicize their cases, the better for everyone. What do you want to share?
I normally post a "Happy Birthday" PEB FORUM Post every year. I missed that this year- for a number of reasons, including being busy with a number of cases, with personal issues and....well, damn, I just missed it. But, since that time (which was May 15, 2016...with the forum being started officially on May 15, 2007), we have come far...this is a listing of our current "stats": "Forum Statistics Discussions: 21,344 Messages: 133,708 Members: 33,454" My main point was to thank all of the folks who have been members and who contribute. I really believe that this site helps a lot of folks (and probably multiples of those who actually register and become members....I really can't put a number on it, but, I suspect that for those who take the time to register, the number of folks who read the forums are probably at least 2 to 3 times that number.... Enough about all of that....who I really want to thank are those who have spent time and invested their effort in helping those along the trail. I am posting a screenshot of the "usual suspects." But, I believe that is not enough...I want to call certain folks out by name: Thank you, one and all: @Warrior644 , @maparker , @grizz13 , @nwlivewire , @ranger2992 , @pittpan2005 , @TSgt Twitch , @scoutCC , @ceilingfan , @usafaviator , @xeno , @Combat Eng , @robs42 , @gsfowler , (There are many others- including those with only one or two posts- that have helped others with your input....you never know how much just a few words of support or encouragement matters...it matters a lot to the young Sailor, Soldier, Coastie, Airman, or Marine or their family who gets some help from your input....to all, Thank you). And thanks the many others who have posted, shared, and...
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3vvguFX19Pz0frA2sm5b3vp8p4A8YmRmZtzSzLNNgjOHQBu9Zow
The Army, in the past few years, have "pre-printed" a number of statements in Block 30 of the DA Form 3947 (which is stated as a "continuation of block #24, which states: 24. I have been informed of the approved findings and recommendation of the board. I agree with the board's findings and recommendation. [OR] I do not agree with the board's findings and recommendation. My appeal is attached as inclosure." Not to be unclear or to be overly polite- this is complete BS. This is what Block 30 states: “Continuation of Block #24: I have reviewed the contents of the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) packet and read the attached (Medical Board Proceedings), Narrative Summary (NARSUM), and the Physical Profile (DA Form 3349). a. ln regard to issues relating to fitness for duty and disability compensation, I understand that the PEB will consider and review only those conditions listed on the DA Form 3947. b. The DA Form 3947 includes all my current medical conditions and whether or not they meet medical retention standards. c. The conditions which do not meet medical retention standards are properly listed on the following three documents: DA Form 3947; the Narrative Summary; and the Physical Profile (DA Form 3349). d. All documentation of military medical care in my possession has been provided to the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer for inclusion in this MEB. e. I agree that this MEB accurately covers all my current medical conditions. f. lf I do not agree with any of these statements and/or I do not agree with the contents of the MEB as reflected in my election at item 24, above, I am aware of my right to an independent Medical Review and my right to appeal. If I do not concur, I have provided all my disagreements and concerns in the attached appeal.” I vociferously object to this language being inserted into the DA Form 3947 in...