Circumventing the MEB process before it begins (ARMY)

AberrantOutlaw

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
Hello, First post.

I have seen a huge trend lately using CH5-17 to circumvent the MEB process. Essentially this comes down to a broad legal vision of "other physical" conditions. At this time the unit level provider is deciding they are not fit for duty but doesn't amount to disability, thus allowing for CH5-17. It appears by the regulation(AR635-40) they are not the decision authority to decide what amounts to disability, but they use AR 40-501 as the standard for what will be referred and what will not be referred (they ignore p3-41e(1)). Meaning if its not in AR40-501 it likely won't get referred. They have limited the issuance of profiles across the board due to the impact it has on the readiness slides. Soldiers are forced to take PT test and fail because of their injuries or they repeated got to get seen for the injury and get a memo directing legal to do a ch5-17. Regardless on how they get out it is: A) shorter then the MEB, B) makes them appear more ready in the reports. It appears they also limit their diagnostics and rarely give referrals.

- They have begun "reevaluating permanent profiles" but essentially the unit level provider schedules an appointment and looks at your old paper work and tells you he is lifting it; there were no examinations or diagnostic test of any kind, he stated "he didn't even look at my knee." This source is a very reliable senior NCO.

- Another case the soldier had been on profile for 30 days, in the memo claimed he had been on profile for 7 months (the new profiles actually track it for you). They reached out to refer him to an MEB but they determined that the MRDP had not been reached. The provider recommended him for separation because he could not perform duties as a 11B with his knee condition. (note they stopped using the word injury early on after I warned them that sounded illegal)

- Another soldier had a serious hip condition. He had multiple operations and the surgeons recommended him for the MEB process. The unit level provider and BDE surgeon would not refer him. The experts wrote letters in support of the Soldier discrediting the unit level provider (which was kind of entertaining as old surgeon practically said the PA was still wet behind the ears). Eventually the Soldier grew tired of the mistreatment and took the ch5-17

I have seen this well over a dozen times. We also do legitimate CH5-17 for mental conditions not amounting to disability. We do have some MEBs that get referred though I don't personally track them or know of them(ie unverified claim).

The have a few schools of thought here. Pretty much the climate is readiness, readiness, readiness! Next, most soldier are faking their injuries. Others feel that only combat injuries deserve MEB, don't think a Soldier should get compensation pay, MEB takes too long, and the VA can take care of it. This process came to be when someone opened Pandora's box for people who felt soldier were faking and/or didn't have diagnosed condition. You can't diagnose if you don't do diagnostics (at least that's the direction they are heading).

Things I see wrong but please correct me.
1. Providers to not determine if a soldier meets medical retention standards.
2. Providers do not determine is a soldiers condition amounts to disability.
3. AR 635-40 states that is a Soldier "appears" unfit they "will be referred."
4. AR 40-501 is not an all encompassing regulation of MEB referral criteria.
-The language they currently use "Soldier does not qualify for MEB IAW AR 40-501" I haven't found any disqualifying language. There is a DODi that outlines Qualified/Disqualified but nothing else.
5. Soldiers lose out on A LOT of rights that the MEB process would afford to them.
6. The unit level providers in tandem with the BDE surgeon limit access to the MEB system.


If I am correct, where do I got to sort this out? When pointed out to high level officials on post the response was "that's just the way we do things here." Would this be AMEDD IG, DA IG, etc. Legal/medical aren't options as they are a part of the chain of command or powerless in the process (TDS has very little authority to stop an action).


*the views and opinions in this post are that of my own and do not represent those of any group or party I may be affiliated with*
 

YellowHammer

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
The items you commented on are nothing new and I'm not surprised to see them more formalized. As far back as I can remember (into the pre-ides days) BN & BDE commands hate putting people into IDES. As you noted, this is less out of disdain for the Soldier and more out of the rigamarole that the process is/was. I can remember sitting in on staff meetings discussing guys that had been in legacy MEB/PEB for over 2 years. From a commander perspective that is a long time to carry somebody on your books that prevents you from getting a replacement. You can try to list them as excess personnel and get a backfill for that MTOE slot but good luck with that.

A few observations from both the commander & MEB'd SM perspective (I had both experiences):

1. You have to be your best advocate. My MEB/PEB took almost 2 years to complete. My 1SG tried to do the "let VA take care of it" game but I just told him "no". Rank should not matter in regards to regulations and who gets what but the fact is that it does matter. If you are passive you can get steam-rolled. If you have a legitimate case go see legal aid first and get their opinion…most commanders keep legal on speed-dial and there is usually some kind of back channel line of communication in that regard. I ran every potentially controversial decision I made in a commander role past the brigades lawyer first. Most prudent commanders do the same and, if they have that officer-to-officer conversation they may be more likely to do right.

2. In order to be your best advocate you have to educate yourself. I was hospitalized/convalescing for an extended period and I didn't have much to do other than read every applicable regulation/DODi/memo etc on the MEB/PEB process. My PEBLO (a bad one) didn't know half the stuff I did on the process. She was so used to pushing stuff down people's throats that she didn't know how to handle somebody that had the standing & knew how to push back.

3. The fact is that the MEB/PEB system is being exploited on both sides of the equation. Commanders are doing what they think is legal/proper in their own best interests and Soldiers should be doing the same. Almost everything in the process is subjective and you run across many inconsistencies. I actually had a MEB doctor tell me he would try to keep me from being retired because it took him 30 years to retire and all of us young(er) folks don't deserve it. Again, I had the knowledge to know what the rules said and, even though it took awhile, I eventually won that particular argument.

4. Another fact is that different ranks will be treated differently in the process; not saying it's right or wrong but that's how it is. If your rank is working against you then that is all the more reason to work through the enablers built into the system. Use lawyers, ombudsman, etc to your advantage when warranted but don't become boy who cried wolf. If you consistently bring up frivolous claims you will make a name for yourself (in a bad way).

I've got to run for now but will return to this later.
 

AberrantOutlaw

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
You mean like this? I'd recommend a Congressional as the IG may be too protective of the organization.

View attachment 2324
The thing about a congressional is they are sent to the command much like IG and once they respond initially there is really no follow up procedure or requirements. Additional congressional are often sent the same letter resigned. I will try that avenue eventually.

Attached is the newer version of the memo. This guy may or may not warrant an MEB or at all but it appears that it won't get that far. This soldier is already separated.
 

Attachments

AberrantOutlaw

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
The items you commented on are nothing new and I'm not surprised to see them more formalized. As far back as I can remember (into the pre-ides days) BN & BDE commands hate putting people into IDES. As you noted, this is less out of disdain for the Soldier and more out of the rigamarole that the process is/was. I can remember sitting in on staff meetings discussing guys that had been in legacy MEB/PEB for over 2 years. From a commander perspective that is a long time to carry somebody on your books that prevents you from getting a replacement. You can try to list them as excess personnel and get a backfill for that MTOE slot but good luck with that.

A few observations from both the commander & MEB'd SM perspective (I had both experiences):

1. You have to be your best advocate. My MEB/PEB took almost 2 years to complete. My 1SG tried to do the "let VA take care of it" game but I just told him "no". Rank should not matter in regards to regulations and who gets what but the fact is that it does matter. If you are passive you can get steam-rolled. If you have a legitimate case go see legal aid first and get their opinion…most commanders keep legal on speed-dial and there is usually some kind of back channel line of communication in that regard. I ran every potentially controversial decision I made in a commander role past the brigades lawyer first. Most prudent commanders do the same and, if they have that officer-to-officer conversation they may be more likely to do right.

2. In order to be your best advocate you have to educate yourself. I was hospitalized/convalescing for an extended period and I didn't have much to do other than read every applicable regulation/DODi/memo etc on the MEB/PEB process. My PEBLO (a bad one) didn't know half the stuff I did on the process. She was so used to pushing stuff down people's throats that she didn't know how to handle somebody that had the standing & knew how to push back.

3. The fact is that the MEB/PEB system is being exploited on both sides of the equation. Commanders are doing what they think is legal/proper in their own best interests and Soldiers should be doing the same. Almost everything in the process is subjective and you run across many inconsistencies. I actually had a MEB doctor tell me he would try to keep me from being retired because it took him 30 years to retire and all of us young(er) folks don't deserve it. Again, I had the knowledge to know what the rules said and, even though it took awhile, I eventually won that particular argument.

4. Another fact is that different ranks will be treated differently in the process; not saying it's right or wrong but that's how it is. If your rank is working against you then that is all the more reason to work through the enablers built into the system. Use lawyers, ombudsman, etc to your advantage when warranted but don't become boy who cried wolf. If you consistently bring up frivolous claims you will make a name for yourself (in a bad way).

I've got to run for now but will return to this later.
I can definitely understand it from the commands point of view. My biggest issue is that some day I could be in their position. I am not going through an MEB or plan to but IF I was hurt in the line of duty and it limited my abilities to perform my job I would like the chance to at least see professionals who specialize in a field and let a group determine my ability to do my job etc.

"let the VA deal with it" is a common line around here. Its very sad for that to be the attitude and its not the right answer.
 

Camp P Marine

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
The thing about a congressional is they are sent to the command much like IG and once they respond initially there is really no follow up procedure or requirements. Additional congressional are often sent the same letter resigned. I will try that avenue eventually.

Attached is the newer version of the memo. This guy may or may not warrant an MEB or at all but it appears that it won't get that far. This soldier is already separated.
The best route (if seeking "correction of an injustice") for that Solider is probably a board of corrections at HRC level, but the burden on proof is on him. If he is already separated, as you mentioned.

Assuming he had under 36 months of service, this would limit his GI Bill entitlement %. However if separated for a service connected disability, he'd rate full 36 months at 100%. That's where the board of corrections could help, but already being separated makes this a long and uphill battle.

A med sep (likely for a knee), would have warranted the Solider disability severance pay (which is then recouped from future VA disability payments) 10% for knee DOD = 133.57 withheld until the DSP is paid back. So other than the GI Bill issue, the long term financial consequences are mostly moot for this case. Hopefully the Solider filed for VA disability, that memo shouldn't stop him.

PS That memo reads to me "Paragraph 1...Solider is good medically to get out and meets retention standards.
Paragraph 2....Solider can't do Solider stuff, but let's just say he's fit (even though I'm a CPT and don't have authority to make that call)."

Interested as to what a MEB review committee is, (Commander, XO, SgtMaj and BN Surgeon/author of memo, who will do whatever the command wants?)
 
Last edited:

AberrantOutlaw

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
Man, I never really considered the GI bill scenario.... that sucks.

What happens at the MEB etc isn't too much a concern for me. At least they will have a chance to have their to be considered is their injury amounts to a disability IAW AR635-200 p5-17. It does make me feel even more uncomfortable when I see they loose out on rights afforded to them when circumventing the process.

I haven't head back from our Office of the Soldiers Counsel yet but I believe it (the MRDP) is at an installation level. Not sure yet.

****UPDATE****
The process may get cut even shorter. One battalion is starting to do CH13s (unsatisfactory performance) based on inability to perform and unlikely to become a satisfactory Soldier (based around their injury, esstially failure to overcome profile). Doesn't take much to satisfy the counseling/rehab/1-16 requirements and after all they can be waived by the approval authority (The battalion commander).
 

YellowHammer

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
The CPT writing that memo appear to be a PA in a BN Surgeon's Slot meaning he is likely the PCM for the Soldiers in that BN. He runs the sick call clinics in the mornings and sees some patients for appointments at other times of the day. IMO he is qualified to write that letter and state that the SM is medically qualified IAW AR 40-501. However, then turning around and saying his medical condition prevents him from doing his job as an 11B and he needs to go seems to be contradictory.

That memo reads like they suspect a malingerer, particularly since he is claiming an orthopedic condition which should show on imaging.

In regards to the Soldier, he should have requested a 2nd opinion from an off post orthopedic specialist complete with new MRI/CT scans.

The Army told me my foot perpetually hurt because I "needed to stretch more". Requested 2nd opinion off-post and the podiatrist found that foot had been fractured 3 times with some being older than others. Because I kept running on it things were pushed into places they shouldn't have gone. That foot was (and still is) a mess which will be with me forever.
 

AberrantOutlaw

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
The CPT writing that memo appear to be a PA in a BN Surgeon's Slot meaning he is likely the PCM for the Soldiers in that BN. He runs the sick call clinics in the mornings and sees some patients for appointments at other times of the day. IMO he is qualified to write that letter and state that the SM is medically qualified IAW AR 40-501. However, then turning around and saying his medical condition prevents him from doing his job as an 11B and he needs to go seems to be contradictory.

That memo reads like they suspect a malingerer, particularly since he is claiming an orthopedic condition which should show on imaging.

In regards to the Soldier, he should have requested a 2nd opinion from an off post orthopedic specialist complete with new MRI/CT scans.

The Army told me my foot perpetually hurt because I "needed to stretch more". Requested 2nd opinion off-post and the podiatrist found that foot had been fractured 3 times with some being older than others. Because I kept running on it things were pushed into places they shouldn't have gone. That foot was (and still is) a mess which will be with me forever.
Basically if its not in AR 40-501 you can not get referred to an MEB? how about p3-41e of that regulation?

The contradictory statement is the issue. AR 635-40 states that if a SM "appears" unfit they "will be" referred to an MEB. They spell out the case saying he isn't "medically qualified" but use the definition of "unfit" in their analysis of how they are/are not medically qualified. (unfit as defined in the Dodi) Why is AR 635-40 relevant? because that is the regulation AR 635-200 p5-17 refers to when deciding if the condition amounts to disability.

The memo's do read as if the Soldiers are malingering I agree and I am sure that is the intent without actually saying it. The memo above was provided with his profile (which now documents days spent on profile) he was only on profile for 30 days out of the last 24 months. There was a briefing from the OSC that essentially said they could use 5-17 for Soldiers without a diagnosed condition. From what I have seen they will refrain from running diagnostics, I was surprised to see they actually did an MRI on this Soldier in particular. That briefing IMO was the opening of pandoras box.
 

Gmaddux3132

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
AberrantOutlaw:
To address your concerns in order I will state your concern, and give you my answer and location I found it.
QUESTIONS:
1. The unit level provider is deciding they are not fit for duty-
Answer: According to AR 40-501 para 7-4 sec b(1)(2)(3) state:
b(1)that if the profile is permanent, the profiling officer must assess if the soldier meets the medical retention standards. If they dont meet it then refer to MEB. THE PROFILE OFFICER REFERS TO MEB!!!
I am assuming the PCM is being told not to refer to the MEB. This is considered neglegence and if persued by the soldier the PCM will be held accountible for failure to perform his duties.
b(2) Soldiers who have 1 or more conditions that do not meet the standards MUST BE REFERED TO THE MEB AFTER MRDP (please look up MRDP). NOTE: if the Soldier is determined to not be able to return to duty in 1 year then the PCM can refer the soldier to MEB earlier than MRDP
b(3) Soldier who meet retention standards but have a 3 or 4 PULHES (profile) will be refeered to a medical MOS retention Board (MMRB) in accordance with AR 600-60 unless waived by the MMRB convening authority

2. CH5-17 "Other Physical Disabilities"
Answer: kinda answered above but heres a little information on that check out ALARACT Message 159/2012 - Clarifies enlisted administrative separation processing for soldiers identified as not meeting medical retention standards. There is a current alaract message that superceeds this I do not have access anymore to AKO so I am not sure what it is sorry.
3. AR635-40 states they(assuming your are refering to the unit provider or PCM) are not the deciding authority of what amounts to disability.
ANSWER: THEY ARE!!! THEY are the primary initiator of MEB lol
4. AR40-501 but ignore (p3-41e) --I am assuming you mean Chapter 3 para 41 sec E(1)(2)(3) -- "Miscellaneous conditions and defects"
ANSWER: If a soldier has a disability that might not meet retention standards they are supposed to be refered to the MEB process.

5. Forced to take PT test and fail because of their injuries.
ANSWER: AR 635-200 Chapter 1-32 states "Commanders will ensure that Soldiers initiated for separation will obtain a physical exam and mental eval will compy with AR 40-501 and per 10 USC 1145 obtain such.
*** I am aware that the chain of command will use "unlawful command influence" in order to prevent the medical providers from issuing a diagnosis that will result in an MEB, but this is your first step. If you believe your chain of command has stepped in (which they will) and has prevented you from getting a far evaluation go to the ombudsmen on your post. I went through this. see the form titled "MEB vs Officer separation" to read my situation.
6. "Reevaluating permanent profiles"
ANSWER: once again in order to reevaluate the situation and clear the soldier they have to do something! If a soldier is on a profile he should be going to get treatment. If they pull hit profile and he is still getting treatment then this will look very bad on them! DO NOT JUST SIT ON A PROFILE AND NOT GET TREATMENT! because if they pull it and you are seeing pt, pain management, etc. Tell your doctor or go to the ombudsmen for help. Other references are COL KENT published and information paper on 02JAN2012 about what the chain of command can and can not do. here is the link: www.crdamc.amedd.army.mil/meb/_files/Impact_Misconduct.pdf
7. Where do I source this out too?
ANSWER: ombudsman!! GO TO THEM!! I know of two outstanding ombudsman if yours will not help you Mr. Maniscalco at 315-772-6466 and 315-405-6249, or Mr. Fish at 315-772-9658 and 315-408-6972. For kicks and giggles when they ask how you got their number please say this: "From an recent retired LT who used to sit in Mr. Maniscalco's Office for hours" They will know who you are talking about.

In Closing - Soldier should never settle for a CH5-17. Not all smiles are genuine and sometimes you need to get your pound of flesh. I personally went through the nonsense of a BAD chain of command and you CAN fight them! I was very successful. If you have any questions or need more information please PM me and I will help you. best of luck man. This issue will never be fix, but soldiers individually can fight it and win.
 

AberrantOutlaw

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
Set back. When I started this endeavor almost a year ago I printed the regulations, Dodi, etc., and studied them. Within the last 6 months they have redone AR 635-40 and AR 40-501. So now I will have to do some reading and rewiring in my head to solidify my argument.

I guess specifically I would need something that says "regardless of your diagnostic criteria, if the Soldier cannot perform duties of his rank, position, etc he will be referred to an MEB" I spoke with one of the Bde Nurses and they are under the impression that not everyone who has issue gets an MEB, if they have done all they can with no improvement and no objective findings they will get an MEB. I brought up to him issues like non radicular idiopathic back pain as criteria for referral to an MEB. Diagnostic tests would probably show nothing and improvement could be nonexistent. I asked the Nurse (whom was very nice and respectful despite my aggressiveness, a short coming of mine) where that authority of discretion comes from, in regards to referral to MEB. From my readings the only discretion is if the Soldier can perform his duties or not. If he can, truck on with rehab and get the Soldier back in the fight. If he can't and/or; the issue is unlikely to resolve within a year, the soldier can't reclass, more harm may come to the soldier, etc. he should be referred to an MEB. I have to bring my new CoC on board before I go to IG.

AberrantOutlaw:
To address your concerns in order I will state your concern, and give you my answer and location I found it.
QUESTIONS:
1. The unit level provider is deciding they are not fit for duty-
Answer: According to AR 40-501 para 7-4 sec b(1)(2)(3) state:
b(1)that if the profile is permanent, the profiling officer must assess if the soldier meets the medical retention standards. If they dont meet it then refer to MEB. THE PROFILE OFFICER REFERS TO MEB!!!
I am assuming the PCM is being told not to refer to the MEB. This is considered neglegence and if persued by the soldier the PCM will be held accountible for failure to perform his duties.
b(2) Soldiers who have 1 or more conditions that do not meet the standards MUST BE REFERED TO THE MEB AFTER MRDP (please look up MRDP). NOTE: if the Soldier is determined to not be able to return to duty in 1 year then the PCM can refer the soldier to MEB earlier than MRDP
b(3) Soldier who meet retention standards but have a 3 or 4 PULHES (profile) will be refeered to a medical MOS retention Board (MMRB) in accordance with AR 600-60 unless waived by the MMRB convening authority

2. CH5-17 "Other Physical Disabilities"
Answer: kinda answered above but heres a little information on that check out ALARACT Message 159/2012 - Clarifies enlisted administrative separation processing for soldiers identified as not meeting medical retention standards. There is a current alaract message that superceeds this I do not have access anymore to AKO so I am not sure what it is sorry.
3. AR635-40 states they(assuming your are refering to the unit provider or PCM) are not the deciding authority of what amounts to disability.
ANSWER: THEY ARE!!! THEY are the primary initiator of MEB lol
4. AR40-501 but ignore (p3-41e) --I am assuming you mean Chapter 3 para 41 sec E(1)(2)(3) -- "Miscellaneous conditions and defects"
ANSWER: If a soldier has a disability that might not meet retention standards they are supposed to be refered to the MEB process.

5. Forced to take PT test and fail because of their injuries.
ANSWER: AR 635-200 Chapter 1-32 states "Commanders will ensure that Soldiers initiated for separation will obtain a physical exam and mental eval will compy with AR 40-501 and per 10 USC 1145 obtain such.
*** I am aware that the chain of command will use "unlawful command influence" in order to prevent the medical providers from issuing a diagnosis that will result in an MEB, but this is your first step. If you believe your chain of command has stepped in (which they will) and has prevented you from getting a far evaluation go to the ombudsmen on your post. I went through this. see the form titled "MEB vs Officer separation" to read my situation.
6. "Reevaluating permanent profiles"
ANSWER: once again in order to reevaluate the situation and clear the soldier they have to do something! If a soldier is on a profile he should be going to get treatment. If they pull hit profile and he is still getting treatment then this will look very bad on them! DO NOT JUST SIT ON A PROFILE AND NOT GET TREATMENT! because if they pull it and you are seeing pt, pain management, etc. Tell your doctor or go to the ombudsmen for help. Other references are COL KENT published and information paper on 02JAN2012 about what the chain of command can and can not do. here is the link: www.crdamc.amedd.army.mil/meb/_files/Impact_Misconduct.pdf
7. Where do I source this out too?
ANSWER: ombudsman!! GO TO THEM!! I know of two outstanding ombudsman if yours will not help you Mr. Maniscalco at 315-772-6466 and 315-405-6249, or Mr. Fish at 315-772-9658 and 315-408-6972. For kicks and giggles when they ask how you got their number please say this: "From an recent retired LT who used to sit in Mr. Maniscalco's Office for hours" They will know who you are talking about.

In Closing - Soldier should never settle for a CH5-17. Not all smiles are genuine and sometimes you need to get your pound of flesh. I personally went through the nonsense of a BAD chain of command and you CAN fight them! I was very successful. If you have any questions or need more information please PM me and I will help you. best of luck man. This issue will never be fix, but soldiers individually can fight it and win.
Responding in order, I appreciate your response!

1. Its been my limited experience that simply Soldiers will not get profiles to that extent because it would automatically trigger the MEB. Some how they (the PCM) determines they "meet medical retention standards but [does not] qualify for a medical evaluation board in accordance with AR 40-501." Two issues there are 1. they aren't the authority to decide that (in fact they present no evidence to disqualification) and 2. They actually do meet the criteria in the catch-all 3-41e1.

2. Kind of related to the first one they are some how determining that the Soldier meets medical retention standards but is unfit and should be chaptered under 5-17. Even though on of the qualifiers to that chapter is "not amounting to disability" When brought up they feel satisfied by not meeting MEB entry standards = not a disability. That's where one of my big walls is. If I can just get them on board with not accepting chapters where disability or not is determined, this wouldn't be so morally obtuse to me.

3. This is their position. They get to decide disability based on entry in the MEB process. I think that is why the entry is very relaxed on the entry into the MEB. Can the soldier do their job or not in relation to the injury, did it occur in the line of duty. It takes away that discretion from the way it reads. (this is a mix of the DODi, 635-40, and 40-501)

4. Correct and p3-41 is very broad. These Soldier being chaptered because the condition in part or in whole prevent them from performing their duties should get referred to an MEB but that isn't happening either.....

5. I will definitely look for your thread. The separation physicals for junior enlisted are rubber stamp mills. Even with an HQDA Exord directing people to be referred if a condition is found... they don't or else these guys would not be getting passed the phase 1/2. That is something I need to add to my IG complaint. Thank you for the revelation.

6. I can't speak too much on permanent profiles. The one mentioned above was specifically aggravated by running and as long he wasn't running he could function and didn't need treatment. Update on him, he is hurting again though he is a champ and actually tried to pick running back up in a healthy manner. Dudes just old (with all due respect to him.) I actually know COL Kent he gave me my first AAM and I have read that it is a little too focused on misconduct to get their attention many people sleep better by saying its not a negative chapter its simply administrative in nature and (for the most part) they will get an honorable.

7. If I were in their position I would do that. Unfortunately by the time it gets to my radar they are pretty much done in the separation process. I think I am going to call them and see if they can up their game .... I had never heard of them before all this came about and I doubt many of the Joes at the line level even get to see that word.

Thank you again for your time. Hopefully this thread helps someone in the future. I will keep adding to it when I finish my research of the updated regs.
 

AberrantOutlaw

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
Just wanted to update this.

I have been able to convince others to see the voice of reason and actually read the regulations. For the most part the 5-17s involving injuries have stopped. It is important to mention that the surgeon cell was not happy as they feel unit level providers should be able to make the distinction, however, regulations are regulations and thank fully have taken that discretion to a higher level with appellate/procedural rights (the MEB process). I still plan to file an IG complaint against the commander that started all of this and hopefully that prevents this from happening elsewhere by bringing it to the level of attention it deserves.
 
data-matched-content-ui-type="image_stacked" data-matched-content-rows-num="3" data-matched-content-columns-num="1" data-ad-format="autorelaxed">
Top