Speaking of which, the PEBLO is under the impression that the IMR is nothing more than having a doc review and either concur or non-concur with the package, nothing more. When I read the DODI, I read the part about the physician advising and counseling the service member, to mean that they will meet with me and have some type of rapport, in an effort to come to a decision of rebuttal or not.
Yes, the regulation suggest something more substantive than just a finding from the provider. VERY RARELY have I seen more than just a curt statement agreeing or disagreeing with the NARSUM and/or findings.
The PEBLO also wants the decision on the LOE right away, regardless of the decision for the IMR, I was thinking it would be contingent on the IMR, at least in part... Thoughts?
You always have the option to submit a rebuttal and/or LOE. With the IMR, it triggers the obligation from the MEB Approving/Convening Authority to respond in writing.
The IMR doc concurred with the PCM on the MEB and I really don't have anything to rebut, so, I decided to agree and let it go.
I haven't dug down to your previous posts as to what your issues are. If there is nothing to rebut in the first place, not sure why you didn't agree/sign off on the MEB (unless, you just weren't sure. This is plausible and fine, but, preferably, going into each step, you have an idea of goals and desired outcomes).
Just yesterday, in an Army case, I went through this scenario. MEB/NARSUM was incomplete. Requested IMR (which, I sent a memo explaining the concern- PEBLO got all confused, thought this was rebuttal to MEB, even though the memo was addressed to IMR physician and stated that the info provided was meant to assist with the review), got no change in recommendation from IMR physician. Submitted rebuttal asking for addition of conditions to MEB. Was curtly denied. Case went up to PEB.....and, within 3 days, the PEB returned the case to the MEB to address the additional conditions I argued for.
The point of a rebuttal is, on its face, to get a change from the MEB. However, it can also serve a very valuable purpose in alerting the PEB as to your position. In the above instance, this caused the PEB to immediately send the case back to MEB for comment/further documentation. In some cases, it would just result in PEB being alerted to your concerns and considering them. At least, if the IPEB does not agree, it sets up a more receptive environment for consideration of the issues at the FPEB. (Also, knocks down/prevents any argument that you have agreed with the findings previously and are now "changing your story").