Appeal to the FPEB

[Chief2025]

Good Afternoon group,
I am trying to gather any info I can about the next step. I have appealed the formal PEB as the board still refuses to combat relate a condition that clearly should be coded as such. Legal was confused after the PEB that they still denied the code. Legal said that I would be assigned a new lawyer for the next step which I was told would be an appellate hearing but I have not been able to find anything in the forums. Does this step have a name?

 

[Provis]

Good Afternoon group,
I am trying to gather any info I can about the next step. I have appealed the formal PEB as the board still refuses to combat relate a condition that clearly should be coded as such. Legal was confused after the PEB that they still denied the code. Legal said that I would be assigned a new lawyer for the next step which I was told would be an appellate hearing but I have not been able to find anything in the forums. Does this step have a name?

So you are appealing the FPEB correct? That is an option but rarely used. I believe its an appeal to the president of PEB board if I remember correctly. You won't find a lot on here as its very rare. Good option to take if you think you deserve it because it will help your case even if you lose down the line if you later on file with the Board of Corrections and Reviews with your branch. If that doesn't do it then the last chance step is to appeal in federal court.

 

[Provis]

Good Afternoon group,
I am trying to gather any info I can about the next step. I have appealed the formal PEB as the board still refuses to combat relate a condition that clearly should be coded as such. Legal was confused after the PEB that they still denied the code. Legal said that I would be assigned a new lawyer for the next step which I was told would be an appellate hearing but I have not been able to find anything in the forums. Does this step have a name?

@johnbgately , @Jason Perry , @JoelPettit can you please chime in on what the appeal of the FPEB results is called?

 

[Chief2025]

So you are appealing the FPEB correct? That is an option but rarely used. I believe its an appeal to the president of PEB board if I remember correctly. You won't find a lot on here as its very rare. Good option to take if you think you deserve it because it will help your case even if you lose down the line if you later on file with the Board of Corrections and Reviews with your branch. If that doesn't do it then the last chance step is to appeal in federal court.

That is correct. I am appealing the FPEB, the PEB and FPEB are violating 1332.18 as well as US code by denying combat relation. I may not be an expert, but I have read through both about 50 times to look for anyway that they could deny me as well as spent countless hours researching it. Everyone says don't worry because that doesn't effect CRSC however they have the same verbiage and thus should be the same criteria. Either way I am fighting the fight because according to regulation and federal law I know that I am owed a combat relation code. That being said. I appreciate the insight. I have read where this next step is in the 1332.18 but I can't find any further information about it. Army BTW.

 

[Provis]

That is correct. I am appealing the FPEB, the PEB and FPEB are violating 1332.18 as well as US code by denying combat relation. I may not be an expert, but I have read through both about 50 times to look for anyway that they could deny me as well as spent countless hours researching it. Everyone says don't worry because that doesn't effect CRSC however they have the same verbiage and thus should be the same criteria. Either way I am fighting the fight because according to regulation and federal law I know that I am owed a combat relation code. That being said. I appreciate the insight. I have read where this next step is in the 1332.18 but I can't find any further information about it. Army BTW.

So its the PEB's discretion so don't think its automatic to win. In fact, you have an uphill battle.

Also, other are correct. The laws for CRSC are different from the ones for IDES to determine combat related injuries. My wife was one of those casualties where due to the PACT act she was approved for CRSC but did not get combat related designation for the same condition as determined by the PEB.

My wife was Army. You really need to consider private counsel. I will send you references. The contact information for the 3 users I asked for the name of the appeal to the FPEB. They make up the majority of the attorneys that specialize in IDES. Its a small group but they have decades of experience and at the very least can tell you if you have any chance of succeeding and can let you know the cost if they are willing to represent you now.

 

[SEG]

Good Afternoon group,
I am trying to gather any info I can about the next step. I have appealed the formal PEB as the board still refuses to combat relate a condition that clearly should be coded as such. Legal was confused after the PEB that they still denied the code. Legal said that I would be assigned a new lawyer for the next step which I was told would be an appellate hearing but I have not been able to find anything in the forums. Does this step have a name?

Hello Chief,
I don’t have the answer but I have a question. I submitted FPEB writing appeal since 18 February, but still waiting. I don’t want to go to the formal appeal , just waiting for the writing appeal. Legal initially told me it will take 2months. How long did your take?

 

[Jason Perry]

Thanks everyone for posting....I will start with the idea that everyone has a valid point, but let's not confuse issues or lose the forest for the trees.

Here is my first take and summary, with more below.

What many folks (including many participants along the way, PEBLOs, MEB or PEB Attorneys, and well-meaning folks) get wrong is what matters and what is the impact of a "Combat-Related finding" at the PEB versus at the CRSC board.

A brief set of comments-

First, the main goal of a "combat-related finding" is to potentially "double-dip" and get both DoD retirement and VA compensation. Where this finding happens is key. The main result of a PEB/DoD branch finding that a condition is "combat-related" is that DoD compensation will be tax-free, and the member will qualify for Federal Civil Service "points" if they want to seek post-service government employment. Nice to have, but not the "real deal."

The main goal for most folks is getting to "double dip," or getting both DoD retirement compensation and VA compensation simultaneously. To get that, a retiree must apply to the services CRSC board (via a DD Form 2860- https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd2860.pdf ).

I hate what the PEBs and the CRSC boards often state in their narratives or decisions. They often go along the lines of something like (and this is a quote from a recent case),
"The CRSC program is managed under the provisions of 10 USC 1413a and DoD FMR 7000.14-R Volume 7B, Ch 63. Due to the differences in program guidance, our
office must verify your condition is combat-related, independent from the PEB's findings." This is misleading at best and wrong- the "combat-related" criteria are the same, and I believe these statements are misleading at best. I have never lost an appeal on this point. About 2 years ago, in an Air Force case, I had a client with combat-related findings from the PEB. When we applied to the CRSC board, they came back with a denial and a very similar statement to the above about "difference in program guidance." When I replied pointing out that the standards for "combat-related" findings are the same at the PEB and the CRSC board and are defined under the common regulation of DoD FMR 7000.14-R Volume 7B, Ch 63., my client was granted CRSC.

Good Afternoon group,
I am trying to gather any info I can about the next step. I have appealed the formal PEB as the board still refuses to combat relate a condition that clearly should be coded as such. Legal was confused after the PEB that they still denied the code. Legal said that I would be assigned a new lawyer for the next step which I was told would be an appellate hearing but I have not been able to find anything in the forums. Does this step have a name?

First, @Chief2025 states he has "appealed the FPEB." There is an APDA appeal/disagreement with the findings of the FPEB. Details of the procedural actions are in AR 635-40. Not sure that is the best course in your situation, but it is an option. The reason I state this is that the CRSC board findings are what likely really matter for you.

So you are appealing the FPEB correct? That is an option but rarely used. I believe its an appeal to the president of PEB board if I remember correctly. You won't find a lot on here as its very rare. Good option to take if you think you deserve it because it will help your case even if you lose down the line if you later on file with the Board of Corrections and Reviews with your branch. If that doesn't do it then the last chance step is to appeal in federal court.

Pretty much, but the really important outcome is the CRSC board. I tend to think that the really important step for getting what most folks care about is an application to the branch CRSC board.
As far as procedural issues, you have to at least apply once to the CRSC board before any option to appeal to to BCMR/BCNR or in Federal Court. I tend to think that in these cases, as BCMR/BCNR application is a waste of time, a claim in the US Court of Federal Claims is the best route.

That is correct. I am appealing the FPEB, the PEB and FPEB are violating 1332.18 as well as US code by denying combat relation. I may not be an expert, but I have read through both about 50 times to look for anyway that they could deny me as well as spent countless hours researching it. Everyone says don't worry because that doesn't effect CRSC however they have the same verbiage and thus should be the same criteria. Either way I am fighting the fight because according to regulation and federal law I know that I am owed a combat relation code. That being said. I appreciate the insight. I have read where this next step is in the 1332.18 but I can't find any further information about it. Army BTW.

My instinct is that, while it is nice to have a combat-related finding from the PEB to bolster your application for CRSC, I really don't know how much sense it makes to get after the issue at the PEB level. The PEB can't give you what you really want- CRSC findings post-retirement that allow you to "double-dip."

So its the PEB's discretion so don't think its automatic to win. In fact, you have an uphill battle.

Also, other are correct. The laws for CRSC are different from the ones for IDES to determine combat related injuries. My wife was one of those casualties where due to the PACT act she was approved for CRSC but did not get combat related designation for the same condition as determined by the PEB.

My wife was Army. You really need to consider private counsel. I will send you references. The contact information for the 3 users I asked for the name of the appeal to the FPEB. They make up the majority of the attorneys that specialize in IDES. Its a small group but they have decades of experience and at the very least can tell you if you have any chance of succeeding and can let you know the cost if they are willing to represent you now.

The bolded part, above, is really an important distinction. The "laws" (and the regulations about "combat-related" findings are actually the same. The "application" or what the different boards (PEB and CRSC) pretend the differences are, in practice, different. This is an important distinction- they come to different findings based on the same evidence. In my opinion, when that happens, there is a strong basis for a successful appeal. However, I don't necessarily think it makes sense to fight at the PEB level for a finding that, by definition, does not impact the outcome of the CRSC board's findings. Depending on the rest of your circumstances, you may well earn more as a retiree than while continuing to serve.

I hope all goes well for you! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

 

[Jason Perry]

. I have appealed the formal PEB as the board still refuses to combat relate a condition that clearly should be coded as such.

Regarding the merits of your case, you didn't provide any information/evidence showing that this is the case. If you want any comments on the merits of your case, you have to share those details to get any comments on that conclusion.

 

[Chief2025]

Hello Chief,
I don’t have the answer but I have a question. I submitted FPEB writing appeal since 18 February, but still waiting. I don’t want to go to the formal appeal , just waiting for the writing appeal. Legal initially told me it will take 2months. How long did your take?

from the PEB to the FPEB it was 6 months for me. they reviewed my request for formal in about a month

 

[Provis]

Thanks everyone for posting....I will start with the idea that everyone has a valid point, but let's not confuse issues or lose the forest for the trees.

Here is my first take and summary, with more below.

What many folks (including many participants along the way, PEBLOs, MEB or PEB Attorneys, and well-meaning folks) get wrong is what matters and what is the impact of a "Combat-Related finding" at the PEB versus at the CRSC board.

A brief set of comments-

First, the main goal of a "combat-related finding" is to potentially "double-dip" and get both DoD retirement and VA compensation. Where this finding happens is key. The main result of a PEB/DoD branch finding that a condition is "combat-related" is that DoD compensation will be tax-free, and the member will qualify for Federal Civil Service "points" if they want to seek post-service government employment. Nice to have, but not the "real deal."

The main goal for most folks is getting to "double dip," or getting both DoD retirement compensation and VA compensation simultaneously. To get that, a retiree must apply to the services CRSC board (via a DD Form 2860- https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd2860.pdf ).

I hate what the PEBs and the CRSC boards often state in their narratives or decisions. They often go along the lines of something like (and this is a quote from a recent case),
"The CRSC program is managed under the provisions of 10 USC 1413a and DoD FMR 7000.14-R Volume 7B, Ch 63. Due to the differences in program guidance, our
office must verify your condition is combat-related, independent from the PEB's findings." This is misleading at best and wrong- the "combat-related" criteria are the same, and I believe these statements are misleading at best. I have never lost an appeal on this point. About 2 years ago, in an Air Force case, I had a client with combat-related findings from the PEB. When we applied to the CRSC board, they came back with a denial and a very similar statement to the above about "difference in program guidance." When I replied pointing out that the standards for "combat-related" findings are the same at the PEB and the CRSC board and are defined under the common regulation of DoD FMR 7000.14-R Volume 7B, Ch 63., my client was granted CRSC.




First, @Chief2025 states he has "appealed the FPEB." There is an APDA appeal/disagreement with the findings of the FPEB. Details of the procedural actions are in AR 635-40. Not sure that is the best course in your situation, but it is an option. The reason I state this is that the CRSC board findings are what likely really matter for you.

Pretty much, but the really important outcome is the CRSC board. I tend to think that the really important step for getting what most folks care about is an application to the branch CRSC board.
As far as procedural issues, you have to at least apply once to the CRSC board before any option to appeal to to BCMR/BCNR or in Federal Court. I tend to think that in these cases, as BCMR/BCNR application is a waste of time, a claim in the US Court of Federal Claims is the best route.

My instinct is that, while it is nice to have a combat-related finding from the PEB to bolster your application for CRSC, I really don't know how much sense it makes to get after the issue at the PEB level. The PEB can't give you what you really want- CRSC findings post-retirement that allow you to "double-dip."

The bolded part, above, is really an important distinction. The "laws" (and the regulations about "combat-related" findings are actually the same. The "application" or what the different boards (PEB and CRSC) pretend the differences are, in practice, different. This is an important distinction- they come to different findings based on the same evidence. In my opinion, when that happens, there is a strong basis for a successful appeal. However, I don't necessarily think it makes sense to fight at the PEB level for a finding that, by definition, does not impact the outcome of the CRSC board's findings. Depending on the rest of your circumstances, you may well earn more as a retiree than while continuing to serve.

I hope all goes well for you! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Thank you for correcting me! I thought it was the variance of the regulations itself that lead to different outcomes since the CRSC board isn't bound by the PEB's decision. Its good to know that its the interpretation that is the difference. That must be frustrating especially when one group says yes and the other says no utilizing the same regulations!

 

[Jason Perry]

Yeah, it is very frustrating that they just recite this meaningless justification for denial and do not provide any reference showing the allegedly "different program guidance." To me, the effect is that otherwise eligible folks may be discouraged and give up based on this bogus statement. In my opinion, it is a big issue that at so many levels of the process, they just deny, deny, deny, and benefit from people not appealing. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, as the saying goes. Maddening when they succeed in grinding people down who should be getting the compensation they earned.

 

[Provis]

Yeah, it is very frustrating that they just recite this meaningless justification for denial and do not provide any reference showing the allegedly "different program guidance." To me, the effect is that otherwise eligible folks may be discouraged and give up based on this bogus statement. In my opinion, it is a big issue that at so many levels of the process, they just deny, deny, deny, and benefit from people not appealing. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, as the saying goes. Maddening when they succeed in grinding people down who should be getting the compensation they earned.

I thought it was a slam dunk for my wife to get combat related for 50% chronic Sinusitis due to the Pact Act recently passing. She didn't get that changed even though CRSC later did approve it. Since my wife was an officer she needed both the PEB and CRSC to determine combat related since she had 2k residual after VA offset. Thankfully, the PEB found a different condition combat related so she reached her goals. I just get frustrated that even the PACT act can't convince the PEB to find a condition combat related due to being a presumptive condition. So its not just the CRSC board that denies things they shouldn't. The PEB does the same thing regarding presumptive Pact Act conditions.

 

[Chief2025]

Regarding the merits of your case, you didn't provide any information/evidence showing that this is the case. If you want any comments on the merits of your case, you have to share those details to get any comments on that conclusion

I am appealing a combat relation code on the basis that I am a UH-60 pilot that unfortunately ended up with PTSD induced insomnia from a very near-death experience. The event was incurred while flying a stateside border mission to search and detain drug and human smugglers working with CBP agents. While flying enroute to the border under Night vision in the early morning we encountered fog that initially wasn't very bad but rapidly progressed and we lost all visual reference. We ended up inadvertent IMC between 2 mountains at 300 ' AGL. I ended up with spatial disorientation and transferred the controls. My copilot put the aircraft into a maneuver that we were rapidly descending and turning between the mountains that we could not see. Thankfully I was able to make inputs that likely prevented us from crashing, and we were lucky enough to walk away that day. Unfortunately, I not been able to shake that event and the insomnia that has come from it has grounded me and i am no longer within retention standards resulting in the MEB.

I argued that in accordance with DODI 1332.18 ch.10.2.b Combat Related (2) While engaged in Hazardous Service applies to my condition as it states such service will include, but not be limited to, aerial flight duty.

Under conditions simulating war (3) as this was a mission that had increased risk associated due to the threat from cartels that we were instructed to fly at or below 500' AGL, we were instructed to turn mode 3 off on our transponder so that we couldn't be tracked. This meant that ATC could not see us to assist. We also were authorized to carry side arms as well as having armed agents on board. I believe that this would fall under tactical exercises.

Caused by an instrumentality of war, (4) as this incident was incurred in a UH-60L blackhawk helicopter while flying with NVG's. The NVG's made it very hard to see how bad the fog was until it was really bad. The aircraft has no radar, autopilot, or altitude hold which made the conditions much more dangerous.

During the FPEB hearing the president of the board kept stating that I was not engaged in combat and that the cartels do not qualify as terrorist, so it didn't count. Per DODI 1332.18 only (1) as a direct result of armed conflict would require an enemy combatant to be present. I argued that combat relation does not state that combat is required, only that 1 of the 4 criteria is met. They only cared that I was not engaged in armed conflict with an enemy. This is a shortened version of the events but i hope this puts some context to my case.

 

[Jason Perry]

I am appealing a combat relation code on the basis that I am a UH-60 pilot that unfortunately ended up with PTSD induced insomnia from a very near-death experience. The event was incurred while flying a stateside border mission to search and detain drug and human smugglers working with CBP agents. While flying enroute to the border under Night vision in the early morning we encountered fog that initially wasn't very bad but rapidly progressed and we lost all visual reference. We ended up inadvertent IMC between 2 mountains at 300 ' AGL. I ended up with spatial disorientation and transferred the controls. My copilot put the aircraft into a maneuver that we were rapidly descending and turning between the mountains that we could not see. Thankfully I was able to make inputs that likely prevented us from crashing, and we were lucky enough to walk away that day. Unfortunately, I not been able to shake that event and the insomnia that has come from it has grounded me and i am no longer within retention standards resulting in the MEB.

I argued that in accordance with DODI 1332.18 ch.10.2.b Combat Related (2) While engaged in Hazardous Service applies to my condition as it states such service will include, but not be limited to, aerial flight duty.

Under conditions simulating war (3) as this was a mission that had increased risk associated due to the threat from cartels that we were instructed to fly at or below 500' AGL, we were instructed to turn mode 3 off on our transponder so that we couldn't be tracked. This meant that ATC could not see us to assist. We also were authorized to carry side arms as well as having armed agents on board. I believe that this would fall under tactical exercises.

Caused by an instrumentality of war, (4) as this incident was incurred in a UH-60L blackhawk helicopter while flying with NVG's. The NVG's made it very hard to see how bad the fog was until it was really bad. The aircraft has no radar, autopilot, or altitude hold which made the conditions much more dangerous.

During the FPEB hearing the president of the board kept stating that I was not engaged in combat and that the cartels do not qualify as terrorist, so it didn't count. Per DODI 1332.18 only (1) as a direct result of armed conflict would require an enemy combatant to be present. I argued that combat relation does not state that combat is required, only that 1 of the 4 criteria is met. They only cared that I was not engaged in armed conflict with an enemy. This is a shortened version of the events but i hope this puts some context to my case.

Thanks for sharing the details. I imagine it's not "fun" to do so and to explain your position (again).

My instinct is that the best argument is this:

I argued that in accordance with DODI 1332.18 ch.10.2.b Combat Related (2) While engaged in Hazardous Service applies to my condition as it states such service will include, but not be limited to, aerial flight duty.

It's been my experience that the branches' PEB and CRSC boards shy away from granting on this basis. I try not to buy into "conspiracy theories," but if I were to go down a logical road, I think there's a plausible argument or idea that they don't grant on HS because it would mean that many folks should qualify on this basis. I think "they" don't want to do so.

I think you can (and should) "win." I am not sure the "juice is worth the squeeze" for worrying about getting a PEB determination of a combat-related finding. The more important and gainful finding will come from a good outcome from the CRSC board.

 

[Chief2025]

Thanks for sharing the details. I imagine it's not "fun" to do so and to explain your position (again).

My instinct is that the best argument is this:



It's been my experience that the branches' PEB and CRSC boards shy away from granting on this basis. I try not to buy into "conspiracy theories," but if I were to go down a logical road, I think there's a plausible argument or idea that they don't grant on HS because it would mean that many folks should qualify on this basis. I think "they" don't want to do so.

I think you can (and should) "win." I am not sure the "juice is worth the squeeze" for worrying about getting a PEB determination of a combat-related finding. The more important and gainful finding will come from a good outcome from the CRSC board.

Thank you Jason, you are probably right that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It just doesn't sit well with me to allow what appears to be gross negligence of law and regulations when I have been held to them my entire career. I just hope that I can force a review and maybe hold them to the standard that was set forth by congress, not what their personal opinions are. Thank you for your time and advice. This site is great for that!