The Government keeps on going back to FIT
They never determined this in service.
So even if you were fit to do the thing they assigned and survived then why would they ignore the medical issues and then deny you support, because they say you are FIT?
------------------------
Seventh, the government continues to resist—if not ignore—this Court’s holding that the
BCNR should have found Mr. Hassay unfit for duty if, among other things, his continued service
presented a decided medical risk to his health. See Hassay v. United States, 150 Fed. Cl. 467, 479-
80 (2020) (citing the Disability Manual at § 3302(b)(1)). Specifically, the government argues that
“before there is a MEB referral, there must be some indication that an individual cannot or will
not be able to perform their duties due to a physical or mental impairment.” Def. X-Mot. at 25-26.
Relying on this erroneously narrow interpretation of the fitness for duty standard, the government
argues that the BCNR correctly concluded that Mr. Hassay was fit for duty because “[t]here is no
evidence in the record that indicates that Mr. Hassay’s mental conditions ever prevented him from
performing his duties.” Id. (citing AR2299) (emphasis added). This argument fails because it’s
contrary to this Court’s holding. This argument is also horrific; despite everything the Navy now
knows about mental illness and other silent wounds, the BCNR is still clinging to its antiquated,
medically disproven, and immoral view that future harm to a service member’s mental health is
irrelevant to a fitness for duty determination.
---------------------------------------I went to the board. The Board Said this----------------------
A review of your record shows that you entered the avy Reserve in September 1994 and served
through approximately eight years until your were discharged on 25 May 2002 at the end of your
enlistment. In August 1999, your record contained a medical entry that shows you suffered from
a history of depression that required Lithium as treatment. In addition, you provided evidence
that you failed to meet Army accession standards in 1998 due to psychological and
musculoskeletal reasons. On 8 July 2005, the ocial ecurity Administration (SSA) qualified
you for Social Security Disability Insurance for effective and anxiety disorder.
The Board concluded that sufficient evidence exists that you were suffering from a mental
disorder as early as 1998 but could not establish that your condition was incurred or aggravated
in connection with your military service.
Finally, the Board did not find the 2015 letter from your mental health provider persuasive
since it also failed to provide address the issues regarding fitness for duty.
They never determined this in service.
So even if you were fit to do the thing they assigned and survived then why would they ignore the medical issues and then deny you support, because they say you are FIT?
------------------------
Seventh, the government continues to resist—if not ignore—this Court’s holding that the
BCNR should have found Mr. Hassay unfit for duty if, among other things, his continued service
presented a decided medical risk to his health. See Hassay v. United States, 150 Fed. Cl. 467, 479-
80 (2020) (citing the Disability Manual at § 3302(b)(1)). Specifically, the government argues that
“before there is a MEB referral, there must be some indication that an individual cannot or will
not be able to perform their duties due to a physical or mental impairment.” Def. X-Mot. at 25-26.
Relying on this erroneously narrow interpretation of the fitness for duty standard, the government
argues that the BCNR correctly concluded that Mr. Hassay was fit for duty because “[t]here is no
evidence in the record that indicates that Mr. Hassay’s mental conditions ever prevented him from
performing his duties.” Id. (citing AR2299) (emphasis added). This argument fails because it’s
contrary to this Court’s holding. This argument is also horrific; despite everything the Navy now
knows about mental illness and other silent wounds, the BCNR is still clinging to its antiquated,
medically disproven, and immoral view that future harm to a service member’s mental health is
irrelevant to a fitness for duty determination.
---------------------------------------I went to the board. The Board Said this----------------------
A review of your record shows that you entered the avy Reserve in September 1994 and served
through approximately eight years until your were discharged on 25 May 2002 at the end of your
enlistment. In August 1999, your record contained a medical entry that shows you suffered from
a history of depression that required Lithium as treatment. In addition, you provided evidence
that you failed to meet Army accession standards in 1998 due to psychological and
musculoskeletal reasons. On 8 July 2005, the ocial ecurity Administration (SSA) qualified
you for Social Security Disability Insurance for effective and anxiety disorder.
The Board concluded that sufficient evidence exists that you were suffering from a mental
disorder as early as 1998 but could not establish that your condition was incurred or aggravated
in connection with your military service.
Finally, the Board did not find the 2015 letter from your mental health provider persuasive
since it also failed to provide address the issues regarding fitness for duty.