There is a lot that has gone on in this thread. Many issues raised, many points (and counterpoints) made. I will offer some thoughts, but, understand this caveat- if you don't fight for a benefit or compensation that has not been awarded (or has been denied) you will always lose (absent rare circumstances-
@scoutCC , I believe, mentioned getting awarded something he did not ask for....but, then again, they awarded it in the first place, so maybe my caveat does not apply).
((Some "extra-sauce" to consider; in the law, it is almost always the case that if you don't fight for something you won't get it. And expansions to the "law" are almost always made by people fighting for something. Once upon a time, Agent Orange did not matter. Then folks fought for it (and, also, changes to law were made). Perhaps a better example is PTSD. The law stated, for decades, that the VASRD applied to cases- and under the VASRD, PTSD, sufficient to warrant separation from the service, required a minimum rating of 50%. I raised this issue in 2006/2007 before PEBs, BCMRs, etc. Eventually, the Services acknowledged this, and the Sabo case forced more widespread application of the rule. The point is that absent challenging something, the "law" or the government's application of the law, may not change. It may be that RPA PTSD is one of these issues for combat-related consideration that will take folks fighting it and/or statutory/regulatory changes resulting from folks challenging it. A hypothetical question I have had in the past is "if" a sniper who is distant from his target and incurs PTSD from killing someone 1000 or more meters away, is in no immediate personal danger, and his "stressor" is seeing the results of his kill, how is this different from a RPA pilot or personnel sitting in Arizona and piloting an aircraft halfway around the globe. There are legal concepts that can be "borrowed" from negligence law, i.e., "zone of danger" that may explain some of the disparate treatment for remote operators, those in the "kill chain," etc.)).
Showed for the formal. Withdrew my appeal as recommended by my attorney as the board was supposed to convene. Shenanigans. Never even saw the board, never got a chance to appeal the combat related finding due to last minute information that my asthma (which I believe was unfitting, but my records are spotty) rating may be at serious risk. Based on that info, I couldn't risk it...and withdrew the appeal.
Not enough facts to weigh in on this. But, you made your decision based on what you knew at the time and the situation. By not appealing, you gave up that opportunity. Not sure, though, based on your years of service and the issues whether the rating issue mattered much. You still have later appeals options, in any event.
In MY mind, it looked very much like a threat to me....."withdraw your valid argument for a combat related finding, or we will find your asthma fitting (and have my total rating lowered from 70% to 50% TDRL)."
I think you are suggesting that your decision to withdraw your demand for the formal board was "coerced" or made under duress. I understand the point and your concern. But, at the end of the day, most likely, your decision will stand on its own (that is, the issue you raise would seem to be whether your election was valid and whether you should have a formal board granted; based on what you have written, I don't see this being a productive or likely avenue of appeal). Essentially, I think the outcome of this bad situation is that you made your decision and there is unlikely much to be gained by trying to go back- especially given that the "best" remedy you could get is a "new" opportunity for a formal board- which would be an uphill battle to secure- and you would be in the exact same position when you made the decision to forego the formal. That is, you would face some "risks."
Let's face it. PTSD is bullshit. If you can get PTSD from seeing people killed, maimed, bloodied, etc., then everyone that's seen any war movie or horror flick should have PTSD.
Not sure I understand this or agree with any of it. But, again, I may not be understanding the point or the argument here.
Or maybe there is something different about your life being centered around those events that a story just can't reproduce. Maybe seeing a video of something isn't the same thing as being responsible for decisions around those events.
This makes more sense. There are factual differences, I think. And, I think that there are likely legal differences. (Plus, in the later posts by Wally3430, there is a point of factual difference with perhaps "direct"/traditional PTSD stressors, and later events as a RPA personnel that may have exacerbated the PTSD. Note, though, that there is an entirely different thread to be looked at and addressed- "meeting PTSD diagnostic requirements" based on exposure to stressors and "combat related findings." Unfortunately, the "plot thickens."
Watching videos is nothing; being involved in the decision making process/kill chain/guidance makes it....different.
See my above comments, especially the point about distant snipers.
However, my attorney said that the AF is simply not awarding state-side RPA operators combat related PTSD...right or wrong.
This may be accurate and fine advice....but, what the AF does is not the definitive answer. It may take challenging things to effect either your own entitlement and award of a combat related finding and/or CRSC.
Now, I was stateside AND deployed (with a couple near miss rocket attacks), so my situation is different than probably 90% of the other RPA operators with PTSD.
I think this is a VERY IMPORTANT distinction.
I think I have combat connection pretty strong in the 3 page personal letter that I had planned to read before the board this morning....which never took place.
Not undercutting this (and, I have recently gotten a Federal Court decision regarding military disability matters on appeal that supported the value of lay statements). But, not sure a personal statement is the "best" evidence available.
I think the strongest option for me now is to do whatever I can to ensure the IPEB at the TDRL eval sees all my supporting information and changes to a combat related finding.
Not sure that the "strongest" option is to address your issues at the IPEB/TDRL re-eval level.
From what I know, applying for CRSC without a combat related finding is at best a waste of time and at worst, ineligible altogether.
Disagree in the strongest terms. But, even if I am wrong, appplying for CRSC is a necessary step. Don't apply for something, you can't get it. And, the passage of time does not help things (unless, of course, there is an intervening change in law and/or regulations....but the change may or may not be retroactive).
I got CRSC for conditions that were fitting. Obviously, since they were fit conditions, the PEB did not pass judgement about them being combat related or not. It is perfectly valid to view CRSC application as completely separate from the PEB, and not provide them with the PEB findings. They do not have access to your records apparently, nor should they really care what the PEB thinks. They could say it's not CRSC even if the PEB says it is combat related, and do, if you don't send in the stuff they need to decide themselves.
There is a lot here that I disagree with as to approach and view of the process and impact of intermediate decisions. I think you may not mean to say what I disagree with....but, I can't be sure. But, the most important part, probably, is the bolded piece. PEB findings in favor of the member are really important findings and evidence. A sub-point, though, that is valuable about what you raise, is that the CRSC board is a different entity and process than the PEB's findings. The two are not entirely unrelated. But, it is easier to get a CRSC finding with a PEB finding that the condition(s) are combat related.
Not meaning to sharpshoot you,
@scoutCC , and I don't think you specifically raised the issues that I am thinking about on reading the posts. You have provided some good input. I don't agree 100%, but, I am not sure, without writing a few dozen pages more, that I would cover the points that concern me about your post (again, not saying you are wrong....more that the issues are nuanced and potentially more complicated than suggested by a first read of what you posted).
That's what I got. Hope it helps.