Navy: Surprised "Fit" Finding and Short Timeline

I sent my package to the PEB on 28 April, 2022 and received a "fit" finding today, 9 May, 2022. This was surprising for two reasons:

1. The turnaround rate of not even ten business days was shocking. I was told that it would take until at least August.
2. The condition for which I was referred is ARVC, a cardiac condition that requires implantation of an ICD.

The turnaround time is shocking but not of great concern. I'm more confused by the fit finding. Every case that I have seen that concerned ARVC resulted in an unfit finding. If nothing else, DOD INSTRUCTION 6130.03, VOLUME 2 clearly states when it comes to ICDs:

"c. Cardiomyopathy or heart failure; including:
d. Clinical indication or presence of pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. This condition is not compatible with retention and the Service should initiate appropriate medical and personnel
actions upon diagnosis. Paragraph 5.11.a does not apply"

The 5.11.a passage reads:

"a. When considering the conditions listed in this paragraph, the condition must persist despite appropriate treatment and impair function to preclude satisfactory performance of required military duties of the Service member’s office, grade, rank, or rating. Conditions in this paragraph do not meet the standards if the Service member cannot meet Service-specific cardiac functional assessment (e.g., a Service-defined trial of duty period) or if medical clearance cannot be given for safe participation in Service-specific physical fitness testing due to risk of disease progression or adverse cardiac event"

If I'm reading these both correctly, just having an ICD as a response to a disease characterized by cardiomyopathy precludes retention. Am I missing something here? It seems like the instruction in this case just wasn't referenced.
 
Click to expand...
hopper626 said:
I sent my package to the PEB on 28 April, 2022 and received a "fit" finding today, 9 May, 2022. This was surprising for two reasons:

1. The turnaround rate of not even ten business days was shocking. I was told that it would take until at least August.
2. The condition for which I was referred is ARVC, a cardiac condition that requires implantation of an ICD.

The turnaround time is shocking but not of great concern. I'm more confused by the fit finding. Every case that I have seen that concerned ARVC resulted in an unfit finding. If nothing else, DOD INSTRUCTION 6130.03, VOLUME 2 clearly states when it comes to ICDs:

"c. Cardiomyopathy or heart failure; including:
d. Clinical indication or presence of pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. This condition is not compatible with retention and the Service should initiate appropriate medical and personnel
actions upon diagnosis. Paragraph 5.11.a does not apply"

The 5.11.a passage reads:

"a. When considering the conditions listed in this paragraph, the condition must persist despite appropriate treatment and impair function to preclude satisfactory performance of required military duties of the Service member’s office, grade, rank, or rating. Conditions in this paragraph do not meet the standards if the Service member cannot meet Service-specific cardiac functional assessment (e.g., a Service-defined trial of duty period) or if medical clearance cannot be given for safe participation in Service-specific physical fitness testing due to risk of disease progression or adverse cardiac event"

If I'm reading these both correctly, just having an ICD as a response to a disease characterized by cardiomyopathy precludes retention. Am I missing something here? It seems like the instruction in this case just wasn't referenced.
Click to expand...
What branch are you?
 
Thanks for your post with this info. I’m currently awaiting the process to get started as I got a pacemaker a couple months ago. I feel great and want to stay in but wasn’t sure if possible.

I’ve heard that the reference above apply to MEB but PEB has more discretion? Don’t know for sure.

Regardless it does seem shocking that you got fit and also so fast.

Do you mind me asking how you did with METS for evaluation of your cardiac condition?
 
There are a lot of errors in Navy cases (above the norm). They have a huge backlog of cases, and they are seating 2 member IPEBs (instead of 3 members, which is the normal situation). Some of the 2 member IPEBs are being done without a medical officer.
My thought is to continue with the process and push for what you think is the proper outcome.
Any comment @johnbgately?
 
Sorry, I missed this post and Jason's comments. Here is my input- your lawyer should require a copy of the TRIM file, check out the rationale in the voting packet, and see how the IPEB members came to that decision. The voting packet is not the findings sheet- it is a compilation of the notes of the IPEB members and is usually a treasure trove of information. It is unique to the Navy system- the Army and the Air Force do not provide their working notes to members and their counsel. Typically, Jason and I use it on behalf of our clients to reverse engineer how to overcome either a fit finding or an unfit finding that is incomplete or inaccurate. In your case, you and your counsel will have to work together to draft a brief supported by medical and non-medical evidence showing why the original decision was in error or that there is new evidence not previously available to the IPEB such that you should be granted a formal hearing. Note- when you are found fit, you do not receive a formal hearing in the Navy system as a matter of right- you have to show good cause to do so. It is hard work, but it is worth the effort. Start by having your Navy MEB counsel or private counsel request a copy of the TRIM file to see what it contains and what it might be missing. Good luck!
 
Apologies for the delay in response. The lawyer and I generated a formal request based on the IPEB reasoning which was ultimately denied. I just got my suitability screening and am now eligible for orders. I’d like to go overseas but have some serious doubts about whether or not that can happen now. Any insights into overseas detailing (to Japan specifically) while having an ICD or any other heart condition would be welcome.

It appears that the rapid turnaround on my case was due to flag input. Whether this input came into play in the ultimate “fit” determination is unclear but seems likely.
 
hopper626 said:
It appears that the rapid turnaround on my case was due to flag input. Whether this input came into play in the ultimate “fit” determination is unclear but seems likely.
Click to expand...
Medical flag? Like, “Hey, there’s more medical research that shows these can be fit cases?” Or operational flag, like, “we know this guy and we want him over here with us?” And if it’s the second….um, excuse me, that should not be a good enough reason to sway a medical decision.
 
Not a medical flag. The formal board petition was also denied. Below is an excerpt from my request which cites
SECNAV M-1850.1

“6. It is my understanding that a service member will be found unfit under Chapter 4, paragraph 3 of reference (c), when,

(1) … a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the member, due to disability, is unable to reasonably perform duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating, including duties during a remaining period of Reserve obligation.

(2) A Service Member may also be considered unfit when a preponderance of the evidence establishes that:

(a) The Service Member’s disability represents adecided medical risk to the health of the member or to the welfare or safety of other members.


(b) The Service Member’s disability imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to maintain or protect the Service Member.”

I can sort of understand why (1) doesn’t apply because my role isn’t particularly physically demanding and doesn’t require deployment (already restricted line). I don’t understand how (a) wasn’t met in my case and with respect to (b) I can only assume that their threshold for “unreasonable requirements” was fairly high in my case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top