By Kelly Kennedy
kellykennedy@militarytimes.com
When retired Army Sgt. 1st Class Michael Rindorf heard about the new Physical Disability Board of Review, he thought his problems were over.
Diagnosed by the Veterans Affairs Department with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and given a disability rating of 30 per¬cent, he figured the Pentagon’s new board, which began its work in January 2009, would look at his separate military medical retirement rating of 10 percent and realize it had been a mistake.
“The intent of the new board met exactly what I was going through,” Rindorf said.
The PDBR was created by Congress in the wake of criticism that the services were applying signifi¬cantly different standards to med¬ical retirement ratings.
A Military Times analysis of Pentagon data showed, for example, that Air Force officers consistently got the highest disability ratings, while enlisted Marines and soldiers tended to get much lower ratings. VA also gave higher ratings than the Defense Department for the same injuries, even though they used the same ratings schedule.
Later reports showed that even though the military is required by law to grant people discharged for PTSD a disability rating of at least 50 percent, as well as time on the temporary disability retirement list to try to recover, most troops were not given that option.
Rindorf had been in the Army since 1991, but while in Iraq in 2004, he had identified and recovered the remains of a close friend killed in a rocket attack. He also held responsibility for 48 military police officers in his platoon who were under constant mortar attack. Almost immediately, he began having problems sleeping. Soon after, memory issues and angry behavior surfaced.
In 2006, his heart stopped beating because of a sinus condition, and Army doctors fitted him with a pacemaker. As he went through a medical evaluation board, the Army found that he was unfit for service not only because of his heart condition, but also because of PTSD and a depressive disorder.
But his separate Army physical evaluation board ruled that only the heart condition was reason for separation — and rated him at 10 percent and booted him out with only separation pay.
VA initially rated him at 10 percent for his PTSD, but then changed the rating to 30 percent, retroactive to his disability retirement date. Later, VA increased his rating to 70 percent, saying that his condition had not stabilized.
Rindorf figured the new PDRB also would boost his rating to at least 30 percent, the threshold for permanent disability retirement benefits.
Instead, a letter signed by board president Air Force Col. Michael LoGrande informed him that the board had retroactively placed him on the temporary disability retirement list and given him a rating of 60 percent based on his most recent VA examination.
That is not normally cause for alarm; usually, placement on the temporary list means six months of care with full examination at the end of that period, the possibility of returning to service if the member has recovered, the beginning of a new medical board process and the ability to appeal the findings board if the member disagrees with the rating.
Rindorf ’s retroactive temporary retirement placement, however, was entirely administrative. In the same letter, he learned that the board had in fact raised his per-manent rating — to only 20 percent, still not enough to qualify for lifetime disability retirement and medical care for him and his family — and had determined he was now “stable” even though VA said he was not.
The new board does not allow veterans any option for further appeal, so Rindorf will not be able to go through the review process again. “I don’t have the right to it,” he said.
“To me, that’s extremely rogue,” said retired Army Col. Mike Parker, who spends much of his time advocating for disability rights. “They should kick him back to the [temporary disability retirement list] system. The [new board] takes that all away — you can see how this train just went off the track.” Retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, deputy director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America, agreed.
“I would say he wasn’t provided due process,” Hayden said.
Board officials did not respond to a request for an interview by press time.
Bart Stichman, co-executive director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program, said Rinsdorf’s case is troubling.
But he also said he has reviewed 15 cases as part of a lawsuit against the Defense Department for service members who were diagnosed with PTSD but did not get the automatic 50 percent rating due them by law, and all received at least a 30 percent rating, qualifying them for disability retirement benefits.
Parker and Hayden raised other concerns about the board. For example, of the 282 cases that have gone through the review process, 61 percent have had their ratings increased, according to an Air Force press release — but it took an average of eight months to process those cases.
“It is taking a long time to adjudicate a case,” Hayden said. “I think it’s the amount of resources DoD is putting toward it.” Moreover, more than 70,000 vet¬erans are eligible to have their ratings reviewed, but only 804 people have applied so far. Hayden said he is working on a letter to be signed by 34 advocacy groups urg¬ing the Pentagon to do more to locate those 70,000 people to inform them about the new board.
“There was really no effort that we saw from DoD to get the word out,” Hayden said. “That 60 percent overturn rate shows that, yes, there’s a problem, and here is an avenue to get it fixed.”
kellykennedy@militarytimes.com
When retired Army Sgt. 1st Class Michael Rindorf heard about the new Physical Disability Board of Review, he thought his problems were over.
Diagnosed by the Veterans Affairs Department with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and given a disability rating of 30 per¬cent, he figured the Pentagon’s new board, which began its work in January 2009, would look at his separate military medical retirement rating of 10 percent and realize it had been a mistake.
“The intent of the new board met exactly what I was going through,” Rindorf said.
The PDBR was created by Congress in the wake of criticism that the services were applying signifi¬cantly different standards to med¬ical retirement ratings.
A Military Times analysis of Pentagon data showed, for example, that Air Force officers consistently got the highest disability ratings, while enlisted Marines and soldiers tended to get much lower ratings. VA also gave higher ratings than the Defense Department for the same injuries, even though they used the same ratings schedule.
Later reports showed that even though the military is required by law to grant people discharged for PTSD a disability rating of at least 50 percent, as well as time on the temporary disability retirement list to try to recover, most troops were not given that option.
Rindorf had been in the Army since 1991, but while in Iraq in 2004, he had identified and recovered the remains of a close friend killed in a rocket attack. He also held responsibility for 48 military police officers in his platoon who were under constant mortar attack. Almost immediately, he began having problems sleeping. Soon after, memory issues and angry behavior surfaced.
In 2006, his heart stopped beating because of a sinus condition, and Army doctors fitted him with a pacemaker. As he went through a medical evaluation board, the Army found that he was unfit for service not only because of his heart condition, but also because of PTSD and a depressive disorder.
But his separate Army physical evaluation board ruled that only the heart condition was reason for separation — and rated him at 10 percent and booted him out with only separation pay.
VA initially rated him at 10 percent for his PTSD, but then changed the rating to 30 percent, retroactive to his disability retirement date. Later, VA increased his rating to 70 percent, saying that his condition had not stabilized.
Rindorf figured the new PDRB also would boost his rating to at least 30 percent, the threshold for permanent disability retirement benefits.
Instead, a letter signed by board president Air Force Col. Michael LoGrande informed him that the board had retroactively placed him on the temporary disability retirement list and given him a rating of 60 percent based on his most recent VA examination.
That is not normally cause for alarm; usually, placement on the temporary list means six months of care with full examination at the end of that period, the possibility of returning to service if the member has recovered, the beginning of a new medical board process and the ability to appeal the findings board if the member disagrees with the rating.
Rindorf ’s retroactive temporary retirement placement, however, was entirely administrative. In the same letter, he learned that the board had in fact raised his per-manent rating — to only 20 percent, still not enough to qualify for lifetime disability retirement and medical care for him and his family — and had determined he was now “stable” even though VA said he was not.
The new board does not allow veterans any option for further appeal, so Rindorf will not be able to go through the review process again. “I don’t have the right to it,” he said.
“To me, that’s extremely rogue,” said retired Army Col. Mike Parker, who spends much of his time advocating for disability rights. “They should kick him back to the [temporary disability retirement list] system. The [new board] takes that all away — you can see how this train just went off the track.” Retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, deputy director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America, agreed.
“I would say he wasn’t provided due process,” Hayden said.
Board officials did not respond to a request for an interview by press time.
Bart Stichman, co-executive director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program, said Rinsdorf’s case is troubling.
But he also said he has reviewed 15 cases as part of a lawsuit against the Defense Department for service members who were diagnosed with PTSD but did not get the automatic 50 percent rating due them by law, and all received at least a 30 percent rating, qualifying them for disability retirement benefits.
Parker and Hayden raised other concerns about the board. For example, of the 282 cases that have gone through the review process, 61 percent have had their ratings increased, according to an Air Force press release — but it took an average of eight months to process those cases.
“It is taking a long time to adjudicate a case,” Hayden said. “I think it’s the amount of resources DoD is putting toward it.” Moreover, more than 70,000 vet¬erans are eligible to have their ratings reviewed, but only 804 people have applied so far. Hayden said he is working on a letter to be signed by 34 advocacy groups urg¬ing the Pentagon to do more to locate those 70,000 people to inform them about the new board.
“There was really no effort that we saw from DoD to get the word out,” Hayden said. “That 60 percent overturn rate shows that, yes, there’s a problem, and here is an avenue to get it fixed.”
