Hi everyone. I'm an avid reader and am looking for some guidance as I begin a process that I hope will not only help me but others that are stuck waiting on ratings from DRAS. It's a lot to read and absorb, but I would love to muster all the wisdom and try and present a concise and compelling case through Army channels using existing policies and case histories.
I have read many threads about the issue, but I wanted to keep it Army specific and IDES specific for reasons I will highlight shortly. So far I have had negative pushback from the Company Commander, but have spoken with the PEBLO supervisor and seem to have support there. The problem is no one knows about it or how to deal with it. Any examples of requests specific to IDES and a quick description of their efforts would be helpful.
The details are below, but BLUF I would very much like to see an Army type directive issued to address the issue and help provide some sort of predictability to this highly unpredictable phase of IDES. I think for that to happen there has to be precedence and justification.
I am looking at getting authorized PCS leave awaiting orders as per AR 600-8-10 Section VIII 4-15
4–15. Rules to request permanent change of station leave pending orders for disability separation
a. Soldiers who are awaiting results of disability separation proceedings may request to be ordered home on PCS
leave (AR 635–40).
b. PCS leave is charged to the extent of maximum leave accrued. Any authorized absence in excess of maximum
accrued leave is not chargeable as leave (Soldier remains entitled to pay and allowances).
c. The unit commander is the approval authority.
However this regulation refers to AR 635-40, which appears to have conflicting guidance with more specific requirements.
E–5. Administrative control of Soldiers after PEB action
After PEB proceedings have been completed, the Soldier’s disposition will be according to the recommended findings of the board as indicated in a and b, below. Do not separate the Soldier from the service before notice is received of the final decision from HQDA.
a. Physically fit. The MTF commander will process the Soldier according to AR 40–3 if the Soldier concurs in the finding. If the Soldier does not concur with the PEB’s finding of fit, or is being processed in connection with mandatory or voluntary retirement, the MTF commander will retain the Soldier under control, pending final action on the case at HQDA. If an inpatient, the MTF commander may place the Soldier on duty within the MTF or with a nearby organization pending final action on the case. If the Soldier is an outpatient, he or she will remain assigned to his or her parent organization pending final action on the case.
b. Physically unfit. The MTF commander will retain a Soldier under his or her control pending final review and approval of his or her case.
c. Inpatient processing. A Soldier who is an inpatient when his or her case is referred to a PEB may be—
(1) Retained as an impatient at the option of the MTF commander.
(2) Placed on duty within the MTF, if assigned to the medical holding unit, to perform such duties as his or her condition permits. DA Form 3349 will be furnished to the Soldier and duty supervisor.
(3) Authorized to reside elsewhere pending completion of PEB action.
(4) Ordered on a permanent change of station. The MTF commander may authorize a Soldier to “PCS in awaiting orders status” to await final disposition of the disability case under certain conditions. The Soldier must apply in writing through the PEBLO to the MTF commander. All the requirements listed below must be met.
(a) The Soldier cannot be a MC officer whose case requires review by ASD (HA).
(b) A determination of in LD has been made.
(c) Permanent change of station from continental United States (CONUS) to CONUS and outside continental United States (OCONUS) does not exceed normal separation or retirement entitlements specified by the JFTR.
(d) Soldier must be assigned to medical hold unit within CONUS.
(e) Soldier must be on extended active duty.
(f) Case must have been evaluated by the PEB with a finding that the Soldier is unfit, and the recommended disposition must be disability retirement or discharge with or without severance pay.
(g) Soldier must have agreed with the informal PEB findings.
(h) Soldier must not have requested COAD or submitted a rebuttal requesting retention on active duty.
(i) Soldier must be competent.
(j) Soldier must not need further medical care at a military or VA facility.
(k) Soldier must not have a nondisability retirement or separation action pending.
(l) Soldier must be counseled on movement of dependents and households goods.
(m) Soldier must be advised that while in a permanent change of station status, he or she must return to unit of assignment, referring medical facility, or the PEB if directed to do so. A Soldier will not have to return if the PEB recommendations are approved.
(n) Soldier must give the MTF commander a nonmilitary address and phone number where he or she can be reached and must advise the MTF commander of changes to that address or phone number.
(o) Soldier must acknowledge understanding that the number of days in PCS awaiting orders status must be deducted from the number of days leave accrued as of the date of retirement or discharge.
Here are the specific issues.
(f) Case must have been evaluated by the PEB with a finding that the Soldier is unfit, and the recommended disposition must be disability retirement or discharge with or without severance pay.
(g) Soldier must have agreed with the informal PEB findings.
I believe that the conflict is the lack of specificity as applied to IDES vs the legacy system. In the legacy system the IPEB would determine fitness and provide ratings, whereas in the current system the IPEB provides a preliminary decision of fitness and then sends a request for ratings to DRAS. Regulatory guidance for that step is supposed to be 15 days. However, we all know that it is much longer.
The argument is that part (f) is not applicable until you receive your 199 at which time you can comply with (g). Unfortunately, this does not address abject failure on the timeline at this phase of IDES, which in turn sets a soldier up for failure when backwards planning for their transition and employment or education.
However, I believe that this policy is referring to the legacy system and has not been updated to reflect IDES. I have read through DTM 11-015 to better understand the PEB wording.
Appendix 10 to Attachment 4
1. GENERAL. The IPEB and FPEB determines a Service member’s fitness in accordance with existing policy but does not assign disability ratings to conditions. The IPEB and FPEB supports IDES quality control review processes.
2. IPEB PROCEDURES. The IPEB members shall:
a. Within 15 days of receiving the complete and correct MEB case file from the PEB administrator, adjudicate the Service member’s case and forward the findings and recommendations to the PEB administration staff.
b. Within 15 days of receiving proposed disability ratings from the D-RAS, apply the ratings using the diagnostic code(s) provided by the D-RAS to the Service member’s unfitting conditions and publish the disposition recommendation. ...
Furthermore
Appendix 9 to Attachment 4 States:
PEB ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES
1. GENERAL. PEB administration ensures the IDES case file that was received from the PEBLO is processed through the IPEB or FPEB. PEB administration also supports the IDES quality control review process.
a. Upon receiving the complete and correct MEB case file from the PEBLO, the PEB administrator prepares the case for the PEB.
b. The PEB administrator notifies the PEBLO of the IPEB fit findings within 3 days of receiving the fit findings from an IPEB.
c. For all unfit findings from the IPEB, the PEB administrator forwards a copy of the request for rating with the documentation upon which that assessment was made and the pertinent findings of the PEB to the D-RAS for rating of the claimed disabilities by encrypted electronic transfer or overnight mail for processing.
Based on how the system works now there is a partial truth because there is a preliminary decision that is adjudicated according to the DTM. Therefore the only option after this phase is medical separation or retirement pending ratings. The system never intended for the Ratings phase to take more than the 15 days as prescribed.
The reoccurring theme in all my discussions is to defer blame to the VA and DRAS with no one able to provide any clear guidance. I am trying to make the case to get Command buy-in that with existing policies there should be an attempt to have the policy clarified to reflect IDES. If not, then the purpose of even discussing the PCS leave awaiting orders is nullified because the time it would take to generate that order would likely match the current regulatory requirement of 45 days to have orders for separation or retirement. I have to believe that it would not be in AR 600-8-10 and in AR 635-40 and also mentioned DoD Instruction 1327.06 if it wasn't meant to be utilized. To me this is the ideal situation to take advantage of the policies.
The unintended consequence of merging DoD and VA ratings has been to exchange post separation delay of receiving VA benefits with a pre-separation delay of transitioning and a complete nullification of any type of timeline. Under normal circumstances a separating soldier would have their ETS/retirement date well established in advance to allow a smooth transition. With the effort to promote Wounded Warrior transition, it becomes defeating if the soldier does not have a transition date. To make matters worse, after disregarding the standard for the timeline at this phase of the IDES process, it suddenly becomes critical to meet the standard when going to TRANSPROC which then leaves a soldier with little time to prepare to PCS and secure employment. The end result is the soldier suffers. However, there are 2nd order effects because the Army is not meeting its goals to provide the conditions for successful transition. Finally their is the unintended cost that are incurred because of this chain reaction.
To alleviate the ambiguity of transition, by approving PCS Home for soldiers that have met the requirements and are beyond the regulatory guidance set by the DoD and Sec Army for completing the PEB timeline they should be authorized PCS leaving awaiting orders status.
Furthermore, from a financial standpoint, the Army stands to save money because soldiers will have exhausted their leave and will not need PTDY once they come on retirement orders. This will potential remove them from service up to 80 days sooner than currently prescribed. There is no additional cost provided the soldier is only using their guaranteed entitlement (i.e. HOR move or I believe anywhere if over 8 years)
It will also free up space in the WTUs for soldiers that have been denied because of a lack of free billets.
For the transitioning soldier they will have the stability and time to complete their employment or education goals in the area where they will reside which will provide a greater chance of success for everyone. This has the potential to reduce unemployment claims and other hardships.
I think this would be a big victory for the Army and great PR for showing that the Army is truly interested in the Warrior in Transition by providing the best conditions for success with a much greater degree of predictability because the Army has corrected their issues of meeting the timelines up to the DRAS point.
Examples, input, arguments, precedence... All will be greatly appreciated. In return I will be sure to provide a status update and any documents that I produce to make the case.
I have read many threads about the issue, but I wanted to keep it Army specific and IDES specific for reasons I will highlight shortly. So far I have had negative pushback from the Company Commander, but have spoken with the PEBLO supervisor and seem to have support there. The problem is no one knows about it or how to deal with it. Any examples of requests specific to IDES and a quick description of their efforts would be helpful.
The details are below, but BLUF I would very much like to see an Army type directive issued to address the issue and help provide some sort of predictability to this highly unpredictable phase of IDES. I think for that to happen there has to be precedence and justification.
I am looking at getting authorized PCS leave awaiting orders as per AR 600-8-10 Section VIII 4-15
4–15. Rules to request permanent change of station leave pending orders for disability separation
a. Soldiers who are awaiting results of disability separation proceedings may request to be ordered home on PCS
leave (AR 635–40).
b. PCS leave is charged to the extent of maximum leave accrued. Any authorized absence in excess of maximum
accrued leave is not chargeable as leave (Soldier remains entitled to pay and allowances).
c. The unit commander is the approval authority.
However this regulation refers to AR 635-40, which appears to have conflicting guidance with more specific requirements.
E–5. Administrative control of Soldiers after PEB action
After PEB proceedings have been completed, the Soldier’s disposition will be according to the recommended findings of the board as indicated in a and b, below. Do not separate the Soldier from the service before notice is received of the final decision from HQDA.
a. Physically fit. The MTF commander will process the Soldier according to AR 40–3 if the Soldier concurs in the finding. If the Soldier does not concur with the PEB’s finding of fit, or is being processed in connection with mandatory or voluntary retirement, the MTF commander will retain the Soldier under control, pending final action on the case at HQDA. If an inpatient, the MTF commander may place the Soldier on duty within the MTF or with a nearby organization pending final action on the case. If the Soldier is an outpatient, he or she will remain assigned to his or her parent organization pending final action on the case.
b. Physically unfit. The MTF commander will retain a Soldier under his or her control pending final review and approval of his or her case.
c. Inpatient processing. A Soldier who is an inpatient when his or her case is referred to a PEB may be—
(1) Retained as an impatient at the option of the MTF commander.
(2) Placed on duty within the MTF, if assigned to the medical holding unit, to perform such duties as his or her condition permits. DA Form 3349 will be furnished to the Soldier and duty supervisor.
(3) Authorized to reside elsewhere pending completion of PEB action.
(4) Ordered on a permanent change of station. The MTF commander may authorize a Soldier to “PCS in awaiting orders status” to await final disposition of the disability case under certain conditions. The Soldier must apply in writing through the PEBLO to the MTF commander. All the requirements listed below must be met.
(a) The Soldier cannot be a MC officer whose case requires review by ASD (HA).
(b) A determination of in LD has been made.
(c) Permanent change of station from continental United States (CONUS) to CONUS and outside continental United States (OCONUS) does not exceed normal separation or retirement entitlements specified by the JFTR.
(d) Soldier must be assigned to medical hold unit within CONUS.
(e) Soldier must be on extended active duty.
(f) Case must have been evaluated by the PEB with a finding that the Soldier is unfit, and the recommended disposition must be disability retirement or discharge with or without severance pay.
(g) Soldier must have agreed with the informal PEB findings.
(h) Soldier must not have requested COAD or submitted a rebuttal requesting retention on active duty.
(i) Soldier must be competent.
(j) Soldier must not need further medical care at a military or VA facility.
(k) Soldier must not have a nondisability retirement or separation action pending.
(l) Soldier must be counseled on movement of dependents and households goods.
(m) Soldier must be advised that while in a permanent change of station status, he or she must return to unit of assignment, referring medical facility, or the PEB if directed to do so. A Soldier will not have to return if the PEB recommendations are approved.
(n) Soldier must give the MTF commander a nonmilitary address and phone number where he or she can be reached and must advise the MTF commander of changes to that address or phone number.
(o) Soldier must acknowledge understanding that the number of days in PCS awaiting orders status must be deducted from the number of days leave accrued as of the date of retirement or discharge.
Here are the specific issues.
(f) Case must have been evaluated by the PEB with a finding that the Soldier is unfit, and the recommended disposition must be disability retirement or discharge with or without severance pay.
(g) Soldier must have agreed with the informal PEB findings.
I believe that the conflict is the lack of specificity as applied to IDES vs the legacy system. In the legacy system the IPEB would determine fitness and provide ratings, whereas in the current system the IPEB provides a preliminary decision of fitness and then sends a request for ratings to DRAS. Regulatory guidance for that step is supposed to be 15 days. However, we all know that it is much longer.
The argument is that part (f) is not applicable until you receive your 199 at which time you can comply with (g). Unfortunately, this does not address abject failure on the timeline at this phase of IDES, which in turn sets a soldier up for failure when backwards planning for their transition and employment or education.
However, I believe that this policy is referring to the legacy system and has not been updated to reflect IDES. I have read through DTM 11-015 to better understand the PEB wording.
Appendix 10 to Attachment 4
1. GENERAL. The IPEB and FPEB determines a Service member’s fitness in accordance with existing policy but does not assign disability ratings to conditions. The IPEB and FPEB supports IDES quality control review processes.
2. IPEB PROCEDURES. The IPEB members shall:
a. Within 15 days of receiving the complete and correct MEB case file from the PEB administrator, adjudicate the Service member’s case and forward the findings and recommendations to the PEB administration staff.
b. Within 15 days of receiving proposed disability ratings from the D-RAS, apply the ratings using the diagnostic code(s) provided by the D-RAS to the Service member’s unfitting conditions and publish the disposition recommendation. ...
Furthermore
Appendix 9 to Attachment 4 States:
PEB ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES
1. GENERAL. PEB administration ensures the IDES case file that was received from the PEBLO is processed through the IPEB or FPEB. PEB administration also supports the IDES quality control review process.
a. Upon receiving the complete and correct MEB case file from the PEBLO, the PEB administrator prepares the case for the PEB.
b. The PEB administrator notifies the PEBLO of the IPEB fit findings within 3 days of receiving the fit findings from an IPEB.
c. For all unfit findings from the IPEB, the PEB administrator forwards a copy of the request for rating with the documentation upon which that assessment was made and the pertinent findings of the PEB to the D-RAS for rating of the claimed disabilities by encrypted electronic transfer or overnight mail for processing.
Based on how the system works now there is a partial truth because there is a preliminary decision that is adjudicated according to the DTM. Therefore the only option after this phase is medical separation or retirement pending ratings. The system never intended for the Ratings phase to take more than the 15 days as prescribed.
The reoccurring theme in all my discussions is to defer blame to the VA and DRAS with no one able to provide any clear guidance. I am trying to make the case to get Command buy-in that with existing policies there should be an attempt to have the policy clarified to reflect IDES. If not, then the purpose of even discussing the PCS leave awaiting orders is nullified because the time it would take to generate that order would likely match the current regulatory requirement of 45 days to have orders for separation or retirement. I have to believe that it would not be in AR 600-8-10 and in AR 635-40 and also mentioned DoD Instruction 1327.06 if it wasn't meant to be utilized. To me this is the ideal situation to take advantage of the policies.
The unintended consequence of merging DoD and VA ratings has been to exchange post separation delay of receiving VA benefits with a pre-separation delay of transitioning and a complete nullification of any type of timeline. Under normal circumstances a separating soldier would have their ETS/retirement date well established in advance to allow a smooth transition. With the effort to promote Wounded Warrior transition, it becomes defeating if the soldier does not have a transition date. To make matters worse, after disregarding the standard for the timeline at this phase of the IDES process, it suddenly becomes critical to meet the standard when going to TRANSPROC which then leaves a soldier with little time to prepare to PCS and secure employment. The end result is the soldier suffers. However, there are 2nd order effects because the Army is not meeting its goals to provide the conditions for successful transition. Finally their is the unintended cost that are incurred because of this chain reaction.
To alleviate the ambiguity of transition, by approving PCS Home for soldiers that have met the requirements and are beyond the regulatory guidance set by the DoD and Sec Army for completing the PEB timeline they should be authorized PCS leaving awaiting orders status.
Furthermore, from a financial standpoint, the Army stands to save money because soldiers will have exhausted their leave and will not need PTDY once they come on retirement orders. This will potential remove them from service up to 80 days sooner than currently prescribed. There is no additional cost provided the soldier is only using their guaranteed entitlement (i.e. HOR move or I believe anywhere if over 8 years)
It will also free up space in the WTUs for soldiers that have been denied because of a lack of free billets.
For the transitioning soldier they will have the stability and time to complete their employment or education goals in the area where they will reside which will provide a greater chance of success for everyone. This has the potential to reduce unemployment claims and other hardships.
I think this would be a big victory for the Army and great PR for showing that the Army is truly interested in the Warrior in Transition by providing the best conditions for success with a much greater degree of predictability because the Army has corrected their issues of meeting the timelines up to the DRAS point.
Examples, input, arguments, precedence... All will be greatly appreciated. In return I will be sure to provide a status update and any documents that I produce to make the case.
