Codes on Informal Unfit Findings

Yvonne

Registered Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
4
Likes
0
#1
I just received my Request for Rating memo for the following UNFIT conditions: Cervical disc degeneration with non-unfitting radiculopathy to right arm (V1-No; V3-No; V4-No), Lumbar disc degeneration (V1-No; V3-No; V4-No), and Chronic posttraumatic stress disorder with recurrent moderate major depressive disorder (V1-Yes; V3-Yes; V4-Yes). Does anyone have any clue what those "V1, V3, and V4" codes mean?
 

pebble

Registered Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
8
Likes
0
#3
v4 = onset was in a combat theater. Gets some people a little extra cash
v1/v3 = combat injury or similar such as a parachute jump during training. Gets tax exemption on cash
A full explanation would be pages and pages of reading.
Your mental health condition is related to combat stressors so you likely get extra cash due to tax exemption.
 

eagleone

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
391
Likes
117
#4
I just received my Request for Rating memo for the following UNFIT conditions: Cervical disc degeneration with non-unfitting radiculopathy to right arm (V1-No; V3-No; V4-No), Lumbar disc degeneration (V1-No; V3-No; V4-No), and Chronic posttraumatic stress disorder with recurrent moderate major depressive disorder (V1-Yes; V3-Yes; V4-Yes). Does anyone have any clue what those "V1, V3, and V4" codes mean?
It refers to tax free stuff:
V1 = direct combat
V3 = Combat related
V4 = In a combat area (separation only)

The above was confirmed when a couple of us got our 199. It is under section V of the new 199.
 

Yvonne

Registered Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
4
Likes
0
#5
Thank you so much ohalty, pebble, & eagleone! We all dislike the "unknown" and my PEBLO had no clue what those codes meant. My whole process so far has gone pretty quickly. Thank goodness for documentation.
 

bigfig

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
82
Likes
11
#6
Those codes relate to block 10 A-C on the 199. I don't have them in front of me and I don't rely on memory as to the exact meaning, that is why they are tacked to the wall of my cubicle. But the post above is more than likely correct.The way they are worded is confusing. The PEB can provide the PEBLO the meaning to those codes.

That PEBLO should know or have them on hand to explain these codes.
 

eagleone

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
391
Likes
117
#7
Those codes relate to block 10 A-C on the 199. I don't have them in front of me and I don't rely on memory as to the exact meaning, that is why they are tacked to the wall of my cubicle. But the post above is more than likely correct.The way they are worded is confusing. The PEB can provide the PEBLO the meaning to those codes.

That PEBLO should know or have them on hand to explain these codes.
Bigfig,
FYI: The new 199 doesn't have a "block 10." It has been replaced by "Section V." Means the same (V1 vs 10a, V2 vs 10b,...) It was the only part of my DA199 that I disagreed with and asked the IPEB to reconsider (5 weeks ago). Don't you hate it when they change a 50 year old form... :eek:

That was major part of the confusion in this website's "Section V" forum.
 

bigfig

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
82
Likes
11
#8
I know, left out "old" in front of 199. Yeah and I do hate when they change the form.
 

Chris Conn

Registered Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
18
Likes
4
#9
My PEB Request for Rating memo states no for all V codes 1,3, and 4; since they wording on thoes codes are all negative the double negative no seems to indicate that the PEB aknowladges direct combat, combat related, and hazardous duty for the one service limiting condition.

When my VA proposed ratings came back every singel condition, both the one service limiting and service connected disabilities "service connected, Gulf War, Incurred" followed by their respective percentages. Yet when my DA199 came back from the PEB Section V states "The disability did no result from a combat-related injury under the provisions of...." The DA199 does state that the onset was deemed to be in a combat zone.

Why the inconsistances? Can I fight it now, or later? If I don't fight it should I just submit for the CRSC I'm entitled to?

Side question: Can I submit CRSC requests for service-CONNECTED disabilities or only the one service-LIMITING condition I have.
 

eagleone

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
391
Likes
117
#10
My PEB Request for Rating memo states no for all V codes 1,3, and 4; since they wording on thoes codes are all negative the double negative no seems to indicate that the PEB aknowladges direct combat, combat related, and hazardous duty for the one service limiting condition.

When my VA proposed ratings came back every singel condition, both the one service limiting and service connected disabilities "service connected, Gulf War, Incurred" followed by their respective percentages. Yet when my DA199 came back from the PEB Section V states "The disability did no result from a combat-related injury under the provisions of...." The DA199 does state that the onset was deemed to be in a combat zone.

Why the inconsistances? Can I fight it now, or later? If I don't fight it should I just submit for the CRSC I'm entitled to?

Side question: Can I submit CRSC requests for service-CONNECTED disabilities or only the one service-LIMITING condition I have.
- Incorrect: "No"s for V1,3,4 is the old 10a,b,c,d. Combat related, extra hazardous duty, pre1975, and combat-zone related. It is shown in "Section V" as well as the individual claims of the 199. All "no"s = Not combat, nor Combat-zone related.

- The VA's documentation should show "service connected, Gulf War, Incurred." This is the time and Operational Contingancy that occured in that time-frame. It isn't a determination on "Combat Related" nor location the injury occured. Only your service can make the determination on "Combat Related." The VA for the most part doesn't care.

- For most people getting the PEB to agree to a combat-related determination doesn't matter. In my case, it did. You will have to look at it yourself. My retirement was more than the VA disability, so the tax-free status on the additional retirement is good for me.
With the advise of the appointed JAG, he recommended that I do a written appeal to the IPEB for their reconsideration. He said it would only open an administrative review of the 199, and wouldn't risk the claims themselves under additional review. i waived the FPEB. To avoid any risk to my ratings, Jason recommended, that if the IPEB review "goes South" to sign, and appeal through the Board of Corrections as a Veteran.

Talk to your attorney and family, and decide what is in YOUR interests. I was told it would only take "2 or 3 weeks" for the IPEB to review my file, but that was close to 2 1/2 months ago. Having the HRC computer system down for 3 weeks, Thanksgiving, and the upcoming Christmas break hasn't helped.
 

Chris Conn

Registered Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
18
Likes
4
#11
- Correct: "No"s for V1,3,4 is the old 10a,b,c,d. Combat related, extra hazardous duty, pre1975, and combat-zone related. It is shown in "Section V" as well as the individual claims of the 199. All "no"s = Not combat, nor Combat-zone related.
You say "Correct" indicating you agree with my that no's on the V codes indicate that the injury/illness IS combat related, or in a combat zone, or as an instrument of war. My uploaded document (granted no form/pub number given) supports that too.

But then you say all no's (V1-No, V3-No, and V4-No) equate to the injury/illness NOT being combat related, combat zone incurred, or as an instrument of war.

Sorry if I missed your point or misunderstood your reply, but do you agree that a V code of No actually means that the condition is true as indicated by my OMBUDSMAN provided document. Or if you are disagreeing and stating that V codes of No mean that the injury/illnesses are NOT combat related and such...

Hate to ask for clarification, but sometimes I'm a bit slow on my understanding. Hence my posts and forum lurking.
 

eagleone

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
391
Likes
117
#12
You say "Correct" indicating you agree with my that no's on the V codes indicate that the injury/illness IS combat related, or in a combat zone, or as an instrument of war. My uploaded document (granted no form/pub number given) supports that too.

But then you say all no's (V1-No, V3-No, and V4-No) equate to the injury/illness NOT being combat related, combat zone incurred, or as an instrument of war.

Sorry if I missed your point or misunderstood your reply, but do you agree that a V code of No actually means that the condition is true as indicated by my OMBUDSMAN provided document. Or if you are disagreeing and stating that V codes of No mean that the injury/illnesses are NOT combat related and such...

Hate to ask for clarification, but sometimes I'm a bit slow on my understanding. Hence my posts and forum lurking.
Reedited - Incorrect. I caught my error as I was re-reading your post.
 

Chris Conn

Registered Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
18
Likes
4
#13
Reedited - Incorrect. I caught my error as I was re-reading your post.

I respectfully disagree with the incorrect edit. I am looking for, and would have loved to already have a copy of the publication the excerpt I uploaded comes from, but this is what it states for those who don't download attachements.


Note in Section V that each V1, V3, and V4 (the ones that pertain to the PEB unfit finding memos I've seen.) all state that the condition is NOT what the code states. So this is what it seems to mean to me:

E.G. An unfit memo with V1-No means that the disability IS based on disease or injury incurred in the line of duty. Due to the double negative of no on the code and not in the description. The others would follow the same double negative semantics. This was what my OMBUDSMAN told me as well.

The V1 code could be proved by checking anyone who is receiving military retirement and has V1-No, because if no meant that the injury was not in the line of duty then they would not be elegible for benefits.

I am open to further discussion on this topic. I love disagreements, as they really bring out new ways of thinking which often lead us to the truth.
----


SECTION III -MEDICAL CONDITIONS DETERMINED TO BE UNFITTING

Section V

v1. The disability disposition is NOT based on disease or injury incurred in the line of duty in combat with an enemy of the United States and as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war (5 USC 8332, 3502, and 6303). (This determination is made for all compensable cases but pertain to potential benefits for disability retirees employed under Federa! Civil Service.)

v2. Evidence of record reflects the Soldier was not a member or obligated to become a member of an armed force or Reserve thereof, or the NOAA or the USPHS on 24 September 1975. (DOESN'T SEEM TO APPLY)

v3. The disability did NOT result from a combat—related injury under the provisions of 26 USC 104 or 10 USC 10216.

v4. The disability severance pay was NOT awarded for disability incurred in a combat zone or incurred while performing comba —related operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense (10 USC 1212).


----
 

eagleone

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
391
Likes
117
#14
You say "Correct" indicating you agree with my that no's on the V codes indicate that the injury/illness IS combat related, or in a combat zone, or as an instrument of war. My uploaded document (granted no form/pub number given) supports that too.

But then you say all no's (V1-No, V3-No, and V4-No) equate to the injury/illness NOT being combat related, combat zone incurred, or as an instrument of war.

Sorry if I missed your point or misunderstood your reply, but do you agree that a V code of No actually means that the condition is true as indicated by my OMBUDSMAN provided document. Or if you are disagreeing and stating that V codes of No mean that the injury/illnesses are NOT combat related and such...


Hate to ask for clarification, but sometimes I'm a bit slow on my understanding. Hence my posts and forum lurking.
I saw your document posted on the the other thread. Thanks. It is the first time that I've seen the actual instruction. It helps explain your confusion. If the "unfitting" claim is V1,2,3, or 4 = "No"s. The answers on the 199 will be:
- "Not based on disease or injury incurred in the line of duty in
combat with an enemy of the United States and as a direct..."
If the any answer on the "unfitting" claim is "yes." The answer on the 199 will be:
- "Is based on disease or injury incurred in the line of duty in combat with the enemy of the United States and as a direct..."

The examples that they used on your directions looks like are the standard, "not combat related" responses. The author did a poor job explaining himself. (Much like I did earlier.) I also think that it is the directions for a typist (i.e. use these words unless the board found the soldier's injury - Combat related - yes.)

Either way the directions are incomplete.
 

Chris Conn

Registered Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
18
Likes
4
#15
So confusing... Thanks for the clarification.

Even understanding it now by anxiety and ocd symptoms need me to do constant searches for the entire document from which the excerpt came from; even though my my head now understands it my feelings keep telling look and read then repeat until exhaustion.
 

eagleone

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
391
Likes
117
#16
So confusing... Thanks for the clarification.

Even understanding it now by anxiety and ocd symptoms need me to do constant searches for the entire document from which the excerpt came from; even though my my head now understands it my feelings keep telling look and read then repeat until exhaustion.
Understood, and me "fat fingering" my responses didn't help. Just remember:
Yes = IPEB finding "IS related."
No = IPEB finding "is NOT related."
 

No Slack Bayonet

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
416
Likes
59
#17
look at mine it might help u.

  • Avulsion fragment and prominent talar beak of right ankle. (MEB Dx 1) (V1-Yes; V3-Yes; V4-Yes)
  • Avulsion fragment and prominent talar beak of left ankle. (MEB Dx 1) (V1-Yes; V3-Yes; V4-Yes)
  • Cervical strain. (MEB Dx 2) (V1-No; V3-No; V4-Yes)
  • Neurocognitive deficits. (MEB Dx 3) (V1-Yes; V3-Yes; V4-Yes)
  • Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). (MEB Dx 4) (V1-Yes; V3-Yes; V4-Yes)
  • Metatarsus vargus and dorsal talar beak of the right foot. (MEB Dx 5) (V1-Yes; V3-Yes; V4-Yes)
  • Metatarsus vargus and dorsal talar beak of the left foot. (MEB Dx 5) (V1-Yes; V3-Yes; V4-Yes)
  • Lumbar spondylosis. (MEB Dx 6) (V1-No; V3-No; V4-Yes)
  • Postconcussive headaches. (MEB Dx 7) (V1-Yes; V3-Yes; V4-Yes)
 

bigfig

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
82
Likes
11
#18
Just one thing for clarification for me and you don't have to answer,

Are your uinjuries the results of a blast (IED etc) in theater?
 

No Slack Bayonet

PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
416
Likes
59
#19
all in theater brother, and not exactly an i e d but being exposed to blast falling and hitting my head . It happened doing the job so thats how they saw it