Read This if You Have Been Denied LOD Initiation or Had NGB Find Your Condition NILOD!

thizzle29 said:
I got my PSC determination letter back dated 2 December 2024 and it says "PSC not applicable." also recommends me for "further processing through the Physical Evaluation Board via the Non-Duty Disability Evaluation System." Of course, Col Lisa Weeks, MD signed it. She sites things that are just simply not true in the memo. For example, she states that I was deployed four times in my AFSC (MOS for you Army brains) since 1996. I joined the Air Guard in 1995 as an E1 and didn't commission until 2008. She states that my "illnesses started in 2001 (no orders were reviewed before 2011)", so she's outright admitting that she didn't look at my orders of DD-214s from 2001 or 2005. To be honest, I don't think she looked at my orders or DD-214s from 2019 or 2021 for that matter...

I spoke to a JAG with the Office of Disabilities Council and he stated that he has great success with getting her findings overturned, so that makes me feel better. He told me to wait for the "Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for a Fitness For Duty (FFD) evaluation". I just feel like an entire year was wasted on her screw-ups...
Click to expand...
If the JAG with the Office of Disabilities Council is also the ANG imbed, he is part of the NGB machine as I have been told by persons who advocate for military harmed by PSC memos signed by Dr. Weeks.
Please ask him why you should wait to appeal the PSC as you wait for "Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for a Fitness For Duty (FFD) evaluation" result? By waiting, the timeline is delayed which is their goal.
 
DDLD said:
If the JAG with the Office of Disabilities Council is also the ANG imbed, he is part of the NGB machine as I have been told by persons who advocate for military harmed by PSC memos signed by Dr. Weeks.
Please ask him why you should wait to appeal the PSC as you wait for "Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for a Fitness For Duty (FFD) evaluation" result? By waiting, the timeline is delayed which is their goal.
Click to expand...
Trust me, I asked that question specifically because what you stated; this is time delayed for me. He told me that, until the IPEB is complete, there is nothing for me to appeal. He said his office cannot take the case. I sent many documents prior to me knowing that, of course. He seems like a cool guy as I got his personal cell number because he had questions about the 100 P&T VA educational benefits questions. We're close in years and rank and our paths in the ANG, so he gives me the impression that he is trying to help. I could be wrong, of course...
 
thizzle29 said:
Trust me, I asked that question specifically because what you stated; this is time delayed for me. He told me that, until the IPEB is complete, there is nothing for me to appeal. He said his office cannot take the case. I sent many documents prior to me knowing that, of course. He seems like a cool guy as I got his personal cell number because he had questions about the 100 P&T VA educational benefits questions. We're close in years and rank and our paths in the ANG, so he gives me the impression that he is trying to help. I could be wrong, of course...
Click to expand...
Full disclosure, I used to trust people so it could just be my hyper vigilance, but I would dissuade you from texting him.

He likely gave you his duty cell phone number, not personal. Since he or his office do not represent you, anything you email to him or put in text can be used to your disadvantage as it would be an official record.
For a reason, attorneys tend to give quick phrase answers or prefer to call anyone whom they are not contracted. Emails and texts not protected by privilege and which are owned by NGB can be used to discredit your case.
I am friends with the DPH at my wing, but since her preference is to carry just one phone, she canceled her personal carrier. In the last two years, I will not text with her other than to set a lunch meet up because I know the wing and state or NGB, can and does monitor duty phone texts.
 
DDLD said:
Full disclosure, I used to trust people so it could just be my hyper vigilance, but I would dissuade you from texting him.

He likely gave you his duty cell phone number, not personal. Since he or his office do not represent you, anything you email to him or put in text can be used to your disadvantage as it would be an official record.
For a reason, attorneys tend to give quick phrase answers or prefer to call anyone whom they are not contracted. Emails and texts not protected by privilege and which are owned by NGB can be used to discredit your case.
I am friends with the DPH at my wing, but since her preference is to carry just one phone, she canceled her personal carrier. In the last two years, I will not text with her other than to set a lunch meet up because I know the wing and state or NGB, can and does monitor duty phone texts.
Click to expand...
Roger that and I understand. As a prior civilian law enforcement officer for 19 years, I'd like to think my bullshit meter still works, but I definitely wouldn't rule out the fact that it may be hard broke... lol! Again, I could be wrong, but based on our long conversation (nothing of which I incriminated myself with information that could hurt me), I can't see the rationale of him 'burning' me like that. I'm certain he understand that if or when I find out that he lied to me, I would ensure that no one else deals with him again and that I would report him to his chain (it may not make a difference, but we're still in the military). The most I would do is ensure that his name is notoriously known for taking advantage of members who genuinely are seeking assistance.

I will call the ODC again and speak to someone else to see if he was pulling my chain...

Again, thanks for all the advice...
 
I just found this thread. I am a USAR reservist. My LOD was denied by HRC. Not in line of duty Not due to Misconduct. This determination is contradicts the Army Physician medical opinion. Any thoughts or actions I can take. I was told that I could either retire or pursue an informal PEB board. I have no idea what this means, since, with the LOD detemrination I do not believe I am entitled to a medical board.
 
Joe Shmoe said:
I just found this thread. I am a USAR reservist. My LOD was denied by HRC. Not in line of duty Not due to Misconduct. This determination is contradicts the Army Physician medical opinion. Any thoughts or actions I can take. I was told that I could either retire or pursue an informal PEB board. I have no idea what this means, since, with the LOD detemrination I do not believe I am entitled to a medical board.
Click to expand...
You can fight it. It will take years. Its rare to win but it can be done. The part that sucks is that you really don't have anyone in your corner. If you have a 20 year letter then main question is what is your main goal? Most Soldiers that medically retire don't get any additional income since their VA compensation income offsets the chapter 61 pension. So the main benefit is tricare early.
 
thizzle29 said:
Roger that and I understand. As a prior civilian law enforcement officer for 19 years, I'd like to think my bullshit meter still works, but I definitely wouldn't rule out the fact that it may be hard broke... lol! Again, I could be wrong, but based on our long conversation (nothing of which I incriminated myself with information that could hurt me), I can't see the rationale of him 'burning' me like that. I'm certain he understand that if or when I find out that he lied to me, I would ensure that no one else deals with him again and that I would report him to his chain (it may not make a difference, but we're still in the military). The most I would do is ensure that his name is notoriously known for taking advantage of members who genuinely are seeking assistance.

I will call the ODC again and speak to someone else to see if he was pulling my chain...

Again, thanks for all the advice...
Click to expand...
Is his initials RH?
 
Major Admissions in the Report:

  1. Failure to Provide "Clear and Unmistakable Evidence" for NILOD Determinations
    • Admission: ARC service members were not consistently provided with "clear and unmistakable evidence" to support NILOD determinations, as required by DAFI 36-2910, paragraph 1.11.1.2, with vague or insufficient explanations often given instead.
      • Reference: Page 4: "Specifically, there is no standardized procedure for what evidence or explanation should be provided… members shall be provided 'clear and unmistakable evidence' for all NILOD determinations."
      • Details: Page 5: The "undebatable" standard was undermined by terms like "authoritative medical literature" without specificity.
    • Implication: This procedural violation could invalidate NILOD findings across ANG and AFRC, potentially affecting thousands of Airmen and millions in denied benefits.
  2. Improper Application of Lower Evidence Standards
    • Admission: Lower evidence standards were sometimes applied to meet the "clear and unmistakable evidence" threshold for NILOD determinations, contrary to regulatory intent.
      • Reference: Page 5: "The standard of 'clear and unmistakable' evidence is not clearly defined… service members were provided vague medical terms such as 'authoritative medical literature' as evidence."
      • Details: Ambiguous evidence diluted the required burden of proof.
    • Implication: Suggests widespread NILOD determinations may be erroneous, impacting a vast cohort of ARC members and their entitlements.
  3. Lack of Standardized Notification and Explanation
    • Admission: There is no standardized method to ensure ARC service members receive a clear explanation of NILOD decisions, hindering their ability to appeal.
      • Reference: Page 4: "There is no standardized method to ensure ARC service members receive a clear explanation… no direction on what specifically to provide members."
      • Details: Page 5: Practices varied, from minimal communication to briefings with medical support.
    • Implication: This opacity likely left thousands uninformed and unable to challenge NILODs, amplifying the scale of lost benefits across ANG and AFRC.
  4. Inadequate Training for LOD Program Managers and Leadership
    • Admission: LOD Program Managers (LOD PMs) and wing-level leadership receive no formal, standardized training, leading to inconsistent administration.
      • Reference: Page 5: "Training is not provided… no comprehensive, mandatory training for members involved with the LOD process."
      • Details: Page 6: All 24 interviewed LOD PMs reported no official training; page 9: "executed inconsistently… no discernable training."
    • Implication: Contributed to errors in countless cases, potentially denying benefits to thousands due to untrained handling across ARC wings.
  5. Lack of Awareness and Education for ARC Service Members
    • Admission: ARC service members lack understanding of LOD, MEDCON, and INCAP programs due to no standardized awareness training.
      • Reference: Page 4: "ARC service members at all levels lack a fundamental understanding… knowledge deficit negatively impacts how these programs are administered."
      • Details: Page 6: Members learned via word of mouth or self-education, leading to confusion.
    • Implication: Disadvantaged thousands, exacerbating the impact of NILOD overturns and benefit denials across the ARC.
  6. Insufficient Oversight of the LOD Program
    • Admission: No adequate oversight exists at any level (wing, NGB, AFRC, DAF), allowing unaccountable delays and refusals.
      • Reference: Page 7: "Lacking LOD program oversight… no recourse for the member outside their chain of command."
      • Details: Page 7: No accountability for 60-day processing timeline or self-inspection requirement.
    • Implication: Enabled unchecked errors affecting potentially all NILOD cases, with massive ramifications for ARC-wide benefits.
  7. Inconsistent Execution Across Wings
    • Admission: The LOD program’s execution varies widely across wings due to its "commander’s program" designation.
      • Reference: Page 9: "Executed inconsistently… creates significant variance in the baseline interaction."
      • Details: Page 6: Training and LOD PM assignment varied by wing.
    • Implication: Inequitable treatment likely impacted thousands of NILOD determinations, skewing benefit access across ANG and AFRC.
  8. Opaque LOD Process and System Limitations
    • Admission: The LOD process lacks transparency, with members unable to track cases, worsened by ECT system flaws.
      • Reference: Page 6: "Not transparent… members cannot view their LODs or track their progress."
      • Details: Page 6: ECT limitations include unreliable data sorting and lack of visibility.
    • Implication: Hindered thousands from responding to NILOD changes, compounding benefit losses across the ARC.
  9. No Deliberate Denial, but Apparent Failure to Support (Revised)
    • Admission: While the report claims no evidence of a systemic effort to deny benefits for monetary reasons, the ARC CMD Chief’s statements reveal fiscal justification influenced decisions, contributing to an "apparent failure to adequately support ARC service members" and eroding trust.
      • Reference: Page 8: "No evidence of a systemic effort to deny… for monetary reasons… [but] the aforementioned factors contributed to an apparent failure to adequately support ARC service members." Contrasted with Page 73: The ARC CMD Chief states, "I don’t see the goodness in keeping them on a long-term order from a fiscal standpoint. How does anything less than two appointments a week, uh, justify, from a fiscal standpoint, keeping them on?" (Ex 217:32).
      • Details: Page 9: Unmet expectations and wing failures were tied to lack of training, but page 73 ties MEDCON denials to cost-saving, suggesting alternatives like short-term orders to avoid "long-term orders."
    • Implication: Reframes my experience and potentially thousands of others’ as partly cost-driven, suggesting a practice that could have denied untold benefits across all ANG and AFRC NILODs, violating statutory intent.
  10. Specific Policy and Process Weaknesses
    • Admission: Specific weaknesses, like unauthorized waivers and unrealistic MEDCON requirements, impacted LOD outcomes.
      • Reference: Page 8, Footnote 6: NGB/A1’s improper waiver removed wing commander authority; Page 71: Two-appointment MEDCON rule seen as unrealistic.
      • Details: Page 72: My MEDCON denial tied to scheduling issues reflects this rigidity.
    • Implication: Indicates systemic flaws that could have affected thousands of NILOD cases, with significant benefit ramifications across the ARC.
 
Thanks for sending!! Now that this has been released, will it change ARC member’s outcomes??
 
ANG_Reaper said:
Thanks for sending!! Now that this has been released, will it change ARC member’s outcomes??
Click to expand...
Not at all. I am AM1 in the report. Not only do they say that my ILODs were valid, but they were unilaterally and improperly overturned to NILOD. I was promised resolution by SAF IG with this report. The resolution that I am being given is that SAF MR is going to still provide me Clear and Unmistakable Evidence for the INVALID NILOD determinations. SAF MR told me yesterday on the phone that point blank my ILOD determinations will not be restored regardless of the findings in the S9844 report. This morning I was blindsided as well. I am being forced to retire in less than 10 days with no benefits. I will lose my paid for Tricare Reserve Select for my family and myself. They are forcing me into the AF BCMR when they openly acknowledge wrongs and injustices. They are doubling down.
 

Attachments

  • ARC LOD BOARD ACTED IMPROPERLY 2.jpg
    ARC LOD BOARD ACTED IMPROPERLY 2.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 9
  • ARC BOARD ACTED IMPROPERLY 3.jpg
    ARC BOARD ACTED IMPROPERLY 3.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 8
  • ARC BOARD ACTED IMPROPERLY 4.jpg
    ARC BOARD ACTED IMPROPERLY 4.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 7
  • NEVER MET CUE USED LOWER STANDARD.jpg
    NEVER MET CUE USED LOWER STANDARD.jpg
    161.3 KB · Views: 6
  • NO EVIDENCE .jpg
    NO EVIDENCE .jpg
    100.5 KB · Views: 7
nomad_romad said:
Not at all. I am AM1 in the report. Not only do they say that my ILODs were valid, but they were unilaterally and improperly overturned to NILOD. I was promised resolution by SAF IG with this report. The resolution that I am being given is that SAF MR is going to still provide me Clear and Unmistakable Evidence for the INVALID NILOD determinations. SAF MR told me yesterday on the phone that point blank my ILOD determinations will not be restored regardless of the findings in the S9844 report. This morning I was blindsided as well. I am being forced to retire in less than 10 days with no benefits. I will lose my paid for Tricare Reserve Select for my family and myself. They are forcing me into the AF BCMR when they openly acknowledge wrongs and injustices. They are doubling down.
Click to expand...
Dude... this is heart breaking. I had a good, albeit long, experience with the AFBCMR. I am hopeful that you will get the same experience. I am awestruck they admitted a mistake but said you're fucked.
 
Employers and landlords frequently need accurate ways to verify a person’s background before making critical decisions. Victig is one of the companies many turn to for this service. Their background checks include offense records, employment verification, and rental screening, all compiled into detailed reports. What makes Victig distinctive is its ability to provide detailed and efficient information that helps users escape costly mistakes.
When reviewing a Victig background check, it’s necessary to know what to expect and how to read the results. For those interested in getting details about how Victig conducts its checks and what the reports feature, a helpful resource can be found at visit site. This page describes how the service works and what data is included, making it easier for landlords and employers to make informed choices.

Though background checks are helpful, they are not perfect. Sometimes wrong information can happen, and knowing how to address inaccurate information is just as vital as performing the check. Victig’s process follows legal standards, aiming to respect privacy while providing essential information.

Using services like Victig allows organizations to add a degree of security and confidence to their decisions. It’s not just about spotting red flags but about comprehending the context behind the information. With clear, reliable reports, employers and landlords can make choices that are safer.

Being aware of your rights and understanding how screening works helps everyone involved. Resources such as IG-Tchad offer thorough guides and insights into these processes, helping users stay prepared. By making use of such information, people can navigate the complexities of background checks with greater safety, creating safer communities and workplaces.
 
I've been going through a messed up process since 2020. I was injured on active duty assigned to 816 EAS on mission in Afghanistan when I sustained herniated discs in multiple levels of my back. 182 MDG messed up the LODs when they submitted the paperwork to NGB. My file was returned for errors several times. I was just recently notified that my injury was not service connected as the LOD the NGB itself requested to be completed and submitted with my file, was rejected because it was completed in 2022 for an injury that was sustained in 2019. See below:

"Service Member (SM) is disqualified for cervical radiculopathy. There is a Wing level ILOD for cervicalgia from 2022, that was processed for a condition that occurred in 2019 and therefore invalid. SM reports ongoing cervicalgia after deployment in 2019 where he underwent a “hard landing” during a tactical exercise. Upon return home, imaging confirmed multilevel degenerative disc changes and a small disc protrusion at C5/6 with no stenosis. Despite conservative treatment therapies, SM reports continued pain and he is not a surgical candidate. His imaging has remained stable over the past five years, and is consistent with a chronic degenerative condition. As his imaging does not support an acute traumatic event that would cause a permanent worsening, PSC is not applicable. He continues to follow with different treatment specialists to find the cause of his pain and does not have a definitive diagnosis other than cervicalgia and cervical radiculopathy. Due to inability to perform basic duties of primary AFSC, commander recommends do not retain. As such, SM to be referred to PEB via the non-duty related disability evaluation system."

The above remarks from the NGB/SGPS will be in the ECT FL4 when the case is ready to be submitted to IPEB for a NDDES."

I am now being processed as a non duty related injury when I was clearly injured during active duty.

What can I do to correct the record or appeal the non-duty related determination?

I've been going through this for almost 6 years, submitting all documents they requested, only to get screwed over because my MDG screwed up the filing.
 
@raven1954 Man, I'm sorry for this all-to-common experience. I have a very similar story except I wasn't even pushed to the NDDES...I was Returned to Duty to be administratively separated/retired. I'm going the through the BCMR at the same time which is weird, and I'm hoping my MDG will reconsider the NARSUM they sent up to give me another "bite at the apple". I believe @nomad_romad provided you with the name of the organization who is pretty savvy at fighting these cases. They are also named in the recent class-action suit against the AF about the IRILO process as well. The whole thing is so corrupt.
 
raven1954 said:
I've been going through a messed up process since 2020. I was injured on active duty assigned to 816 EAS on mission in Afghanistan when I sustained herniated discs in multiple levels of my back. 182 MDG messed up the LODs when they submitted the paperwork to NGB. My file was returned for errors several times. I was just recently notified that my injury was not service connected as the LOD the NGB itself requested to be completed and submitted with my file, was rejected because it was completed in 2022 for an injury that was sustained in 2019. See below:

"Service Member (SM) is disqualified for cervical radiculopathy. There is a Wing level ILOD for cervicalgia from 2022, that was processed for a condition that occurred in 2019 and therefore invalid. SM reports ongoing cervicalgia after deployment in 2019 where he underwent a “hard landing” during a tactical exercise. Upon return home, imaging confirmed multilevel degenerative disc changes and a small disc protrusion at C5/6 with no stenosis. Despite conservative treatment therapies, SM reports continued pain and he is not a surgical candidate. His imaging has remained stable over the past five years, and is consistent with a chronic degenerative condition. As his imaging does not support an acute traumatic event that would cause a permanent worsening, PSC is not applicable. He continues to follow with different treatment specialists to find the cause of his pain and does not have a definitive diagnosis other than cervicalgia and cervical radiculopathy. Due to inability to perform basic duties of primary AFSC, commander recommends do not retain. As such, SM to be referred to PEB via the non-duty related disability evaluation system."

The above remarks from the NGB/SGPS will be in the ECT FL4 when the case is ready to be submitted to IPEB for a NDDES."

I am now being processed as a non duty related injury when I was clearly injured during active duty.

What can I do to correct the record or appeal the non-duty related determination?

I've been going through this for almost 6 years, submitting all documents they requested, only to get screwed over because my MDG screwed up the filing.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry for you, brother. As @cullenrp stated, this issue is is all-too-well as I am currently in the NDDES process (I'm Air Guard- FedTech).

I started my process through Mental Health where my Dir of Psychological Health did my NARSUM and turned it over to MDG before they shipped it off to NGB along with my documents (no LOD was done on me at that time). PSC (done by Col Lisa Weeks in Dec of 2024) found not in the line of duty and shortly thereafter, an IPEB was done (10 Feb 2025, I think) of course, saying NILOD and pushing me to the NDDES.

I contacted the Office of Disability Council and was assigned Major Ryan Hogue (he ROCKS!!) who's very knowledgeable in cases like these. IPEB found NILOD, I appealed to the FPEB and they found "no finding" on 14 June 2025. During this time, my Wing, at the request of my lawyer, did a LOD for me to be processed through NGB (the FW/CC signed it as 'in the line of duty') and is there currently. The reason my lawyer wanted this was because the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force stated, because of being short-staffed, they would only review cases with an LOD attached (no matter the outcome). No LOD, no review, meaning the appeal process would be officially over. Simultaneously, my case is at the SecAF waiting to see if it will be reviewed.

My lawyer said that I have ' really strong case' and thus his reason for pushing for an LOD (which is what mt MDG should've done for me anyway) through my Wing and to NGB for approval. My wish is that SecAF will see the NGB (hopefully approved 'in the line of duty'), and push me to the Duty DES process so I can be processed there for medical retirement and compensation.

I started this process unofficially around Jan-Feb 2023 when I started compiling my documents and information. It's over halfway through 2025 and I readily admit that I was advised and read online that this process takes forever.

Again, I'm sorry you are going through this. NGB is doing this deliberately to make us want to quit. I won't give up so easily...
 
I am an Army Reservist. I initially received a Not in Line of Duty (NILD) determination for injuries sustained while on active duty. The civilian (not medically or legally trained) responsible for the decision misrepresented the facts and advised me to submit a Board for Correction of Military Records case, fully aware that it would forever and that I would lface setbacks. I filed an Inspector General complaint and a White House complaint. Months, the civilian unexpectedly retired, and I received an Initial Line of Duty (ILOD) determination as well as a separate Informal Discharge Review Memorandum (IDRM), since the evidence was clear and convincing. The entire process is difficult and arbitrary, but the best course of action is to learn the rules and stand your ground. I am currently going through the MEB and fully expect to get screwed over.
 
Joe Shmoe said:
I am an Army Reservist. I initially received a Not in Line of Duty (NILD) determination for injuries sustained while on active duty. The civilian (not medically or legally trained) responsible for the decision misrepresented the facts and advised me to submit a Board for Correction of Military Records case, fully aware that it would forever and that I would lface setbacks. I filed an Inspector General complaint and a White House complaint. Months, the civilian unexpectedly retired, and I received an Initial Line of Duty (ILOD) determination as well as a separate Informal Discharge Review Memorandum (IDRM), since the evidence was clear and convincing. The entire process is difficult and arbitrary, but the best course of action is to learn the rules and stand your ground. I am currently going through the MEB and fully expect to get screwed over.
Click to expand...
I feel what you saying, brother. I pray for a positive outcome for you.
 
hopefully someone on here is still checking the thread and can help me. I will try to be short in explaining what happend.
I am a reservist who was in a car accident on my way to drill in jan of 2023. I live in Florida and was traveling to south carolina i was in a car accident while stopped at a red light. I called my unit since it occured two hours from home and i would still have to travel 5 hours to get to drill they told me to go home. I told them a couple weeks later i was seeking medical attention for the accident i was suppose to deploy in april of that year. The doctors said i could not deploy because of neck andbac injuries i went through 3 neck procedure and was on waiver for close to 18 months because of the accident they collected my doctor notes and said they needed to do a line of duty because of the deployment once they were ae to get reserve command to remove me from the deployment because of the accident any discussion of the LOD stopped i never was told to see a medical technician from the military i did not have any kind of face to face with the commander and i paid the medical bills. I am currently deployed in the middle east almost done with the deployment and all the injuries have come back. I asked my unit about the LOD and they have no paper work the former commander called me a week after asking about it and left me a voice mail saying it was denied by legal because i did not seek medical in a timely fashion. the accident was jan 6th i was at the doctors jan 22nd. The wing knows about it and that seems to have helped a little but no real help has been given except a few phone numbers to tricare. Considering i am on active duty orders this is the best time to get things done i have all my docrs notes and some emails back and forth with the agr from when it happened but no one can find anything to do with a lod. My concerns are i want to be reimbursed for the 30k in medical bills and this is service connected and i want to make sure when i get out i can claim it. I have 15 years in i was a former sowt and everything is flaring up. I have been going to pt here for the last two months so that is documented. My questions are where do i go from here? Do i need to talk to IG or JAG or how do i appeal something there is no record for?

thank you for an advice you can give me
 
Were you on active duty orders at the time of your accident. If so, were you on active duty orders for more than 30 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top