I Just found out today from the Patient Care Advisor that the PEB for the Air Force has changed the standard for an injury to be Combat Related. They are now using the Army guidelines and I have uploaded what I was sent in reference to this. Basically unless you were in direct combat with the enemy it doesn't count as combat related, now they still consider training and instruments of war just not the PTSD. The advisor stated that he has seen more PTSD cases come back as non combat regardless of the circumstances due to this.
Combat related contradiction
- Thread starter buckstr
- Start date
Wow! Oh my goodness; this is an interesting concept of operations adaptation by the U.S. Air Force!
Moreover, is this another attempt at a joint operation in support of the Improving Implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act 2010?
In all seriousness, since the official adaptation by the USAF from the USA combat-related guidelines, does your PTDS now potentially qualify as combat-related since it follows under the "Injuries sustained when an Airman dives for cover from incoming rounds" via the example cited in the direct result of armed conflict category? That said, please inform us as to the official outcome of your unique situation.
To that extent, in the distant future and based upon statistics compiled by the USAF referencing these type of potential combat-related situations, it won't surprise me if the U.S. Army revise their future combat-related guidelines to reflect the USAF changes/mentality for yet another attempt at military cost-savings of disability compensation benefits!
Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."
Best Wishes!
Misty123
PEB Forum Regular Member
Buckster: when were you at Balad? I was there in 2004 as a sqdn commander. We had many rockets/mortars daily...many were NOT recorded as events because the radar and other systems did not detect these coming over the wire. And yes, the Air Force has had a long history of looking at the rockets/mortars at Balad as "indirect fire" and very different from "direct fire" when engaging the enemy outside the wire. This discrimination has was used in 2004 for determing who to recommend for Bronze Stars and "V" devices at Balad. Yes, incredible that we were inside the wire, subjected to 24/7 wear of body armor because of the incoming threat, knocked off our feet by the blasts, and some even wounded and killed by these rocket attacks--yet not considered to be "in combat". If you were there in 2004 and connected with the 332 ELRS, let me know....if you were, I might be able to give a statement to support your event as related to your PTSD.
Good Luck!
Good Luck!
Misty
I was actually there Jan-May 2008 with the comm unit. What gets me is that the Air Force is using a policy from the Army that's almost two years old, I thought we had our own AfI's to follow. The inside the wire excuse is what I am hearing and the blast I was caught in was around 200 ft away, that percussion wave hurts and is hot, and there was no alarm.
Warrior644
I will look more into the example you pointed out. Thank you
I am also looking thru the USC codes and AFI's for the actual combat relation definition. If anyone already knows where this is located I would appreciate. The letter they are using seems more like a way to exclude people so they can save money.
I was actually there Jan-May 2008 with the comm unit. What gets me is that the Air Force is using a policy from the Army that's almost two years old, I thought we had our own AfI's to follow. The inside the wire excuse is what I am hearing and the blast I was caught in was around 200 ft away, that percussion wave hurts and is hot, and there was no alarm.
Warrior644
I will look more into the example you pointed out. Thank you
I am also looking thru the USC codes and AFI's for the actual combat relation definition. If anyone already knows where this is located I would appreciate. The letter they are using seems more like a way to exclude people so they can save money.
That's good to hear, brother! Continue the fight and you are welcome!
Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."
Best Wishes!
I heard yesterday from the PEB lawyer that I do no have to travel to Lackland for the formal board to get the combat relation determination made. I was scheduled to leave Sunday the 25 and report to Lackland for the board on 26 August. Due to the evidence I was able to provide and he went through my records again he presented what was there and the board agreed with the combat relation and will submit the change and send the new paperwork out for me to review this coming week. Now all that is left is to get the ROM's corrected and retirement here I come. I am very blessed to have a lawyer on my case that is thorough, proficient, and cares about what is going on.
Indeed, it seems there were two blessings! One for the USAF's adaptation of the USA combat-related guidelines, and second for your PEB lawyer's fine efforts to obtain a combat-related determination.
Nonetheless, congratulations are in order! Please continue the fight until successful resolution on all expectations while in the DoD IDES MEB/PEB process! Good deal, but better job!
Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."
Best Wishes!
Nice
Wow, just read this entire thread. I found it interesting as I was deployed to Balad twice, once in 2007 and again in 2009-2010. While there was a significant reduction in mortar attacks during the 2009-2010 tour, they were still occurring almost daily.
Mortar attacks were pretty frequent both tours. In spring 2007, Balad was hit with 11 mortars in under 3 minutes, with most of them landing in H-5 housing and on the flight-line, but two were injured in that attack (1 with a good chunk of schrapnel to the hip) and I know a lot of people personally who were shaken up by it. How anyone can tell me that when you are in a combat zone are being fired upon by the enemy and is injured was not in combat is silly. Just because you were not attacking does not mean you weren't in the crossfire of combat. The military can be unbelievable with how they interpret the world.
Mortar attacks were pretty frequent both tours. In spring 2007, Balad was hit with 11 mortars in under 3 minutes, with most of them landing in H-5 housing and on the flight-line, but two were injured in that attack (1 with a good chunk of schrapnel to the hip) and I know a lot of people personally who were shaken up by it. How anyone can tell me that when you are in a combat zone are being fired upon by the enemy and is injured was not in combat is silly. Just because you were not attacking does not mean you weren't in the crossfire of combat. The military can be unbelievable with how they interpret the world.
Indeed, as such the use of the DoD IDES appeals process should potentially assist military service members in rectifying those injustices.
Nonetheless, never default acceptance to potential injustice; continue the fight in my opinion!
Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."
Best Wishes!
It is my sole opinion that they interpret things this way because it saves the (DoD) money. emember we are the beans and they are the bean counters. It is especially important for them to save every dime they came because of the sequester. The only problem I see with all of this is they will keep flight demonstration teams, service bands, and a whole range of other things that are not essential to the mission and then tell members they weren't hurt in combat when hit by a mortar. It is also my opinion that if any of these bean counters were on a visit to a FOB and a mortar came over the wire and they were injured by it, they would want their situation to be considered combat related.
Having been assigned to Anaconda both during the Surge as well as the draw down Indirect fire hit frequently and many missed, however each time the alarms went off most would take cover(Complacency set in). Its worth the fight and again getting unclassified portions of Sigacts would help if you don't have witness statements.
2 cents given
2 cents given
