The Navy has a particulair procedure they use that can really screw you. You need to be aware of this potential problem. If found fit by the PEB, your command can administratively separate you, without disability benefits, because your condition prevents you from being world wide deployable or operationally suitable. My position is that this is absolutely illegal and I am working this issue in many venues to get proper exposure and remidies. Below is an article about a sailor who had this happen to him.
Mike
Fit but unfit, sailor shown the door
By William H. McMichael
bmcmichael@militarytimes.com
Six years into the second half of his Navy career, Electronics Technician 1st Class Kevin Stein developed nighttime breathing difficulties, nerve problems in both arms and several more perplexing maladies. He was put on limited duty and, in 2001, a Medical Evaluation Board found him unsuited for sea duty.
Yet a separate group, a Physical Evaluation Board, found him fit for continued military service.
Stein began a long, laborious series of exams and treatments in Portsmouth, Va., and at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. In September 2003, another PEB again found him fit for service. But a second MEB once again found him unsuitable for deployment.
By March 14, he was out the door — involuntarily separated “at the convenience of the government,” due to his condition.
Stein was given six months of Tricare medical coverage for his family, a one-time separation payment of $23,902.54 and an honorable discharge.
If he had been medically discharged with a disability rating of 30 percent or greater, or had more than 20 years of service, Stein would have gotten lifetime medical care and regular payments of a portion of his highest basic pay. Stein, however, served only 14½ years.
“I was relieved that it was finally over,” said the Hampton, Va., resident. “I could now go to the VA. But I felt that I had been wronged.”
Two months later, the Department of Veterans Affairs rated Stein 80 percent disabled.
Stein doesn’t understand how he could be fit for duty but not fit for his job.
Between Oct. 1, 2004 and July 31, 2007, the Navy administratively separated 1,466 sailors who were found “unsuitable for operational duty” or limited assignment, according to Navy spokeswoman Lt. Ligia Cohen.
It is unknown whether any had been found fit for continued naval service by a Physical Evaluation Board. The Navy does not track such separations based on PEB findings, she said.
Deemed unsuitable
Stein was one of the 451 sailors found unsuitable in fiscal 2004, and the handling of his case apparently followed Navy policy to the letter. A sailor who is found fit by a PEB but not considered to be “worldwide assignable” can be separated, according to Cohen.
But policies differ across the services, even though the Defense Department has directed that procedures for physical disability evaluation be “interpreted uniformly.”
MEBs, which are informal, are supposed to evaluate a service member’s ability to continue in a specific job. PEBs decide whether a troop is fit for continued overall service, period.
A PEB finds the member either fit or unfit for duty. If the finding is unfit, a formal PEB can place the member on the Temporary Disability Retirement List, or order a medical retirement and assign a permanent disability rating.
A PEB also can consider whether shifting to a different, perhaps less demanding job is feasible. The Navy limits this to whether the sailor is suited for certain hard-to-fill or critically short job fields. But most rates, the Navy points out, require a sailor to be assignable worldwide.
The Marine Corps follows the Navy instruction. Commanding officers also have the authority to decide that a Marine found fit by a PEB is unsuited for further service, said Corps spokeswoman Capt. Blanca Binstock.
An example, she said, would be a physical condition such as an allergy that is not defined as a disability.
In the Army, some injured troops can be evaluated in terms of ability to perform their job, and can be recommended for reclassification to a new job. But only soldiers with duty-limiting, but nondisabling, conditions can have their cases considered by a Medical Retention Board that will consider whether they are suited to stay in their current occupational specialty.
A PEB finding of “fit” means a return to duty — the soldier cannot be separated solely for the condition in question, said Lt. Col. Kevin Arata of the Army’s Human Resources Command.
Air Force MEBs consider fitness as it relates to the military environment, and airmen must be able to “reasonably fulfill” their jobs to stay on active duty.
As such, the Air Force does not return members to duty if they are found unfit to perform their primary job, said Capt. Tom Wenz, an Air Force spokesman. Air Force PEBs can recommend reclassification, but can’t order it.
This has not been an issue in recent years. From 2002 through 2007, the Air Force Disability Evaluation System returned 10,850 members to duty. During that same period, no airmen with service-connected medical issues were administratively discharged because they were unfit for their job or for deployment, Wenz said.
All the services have other exceptions, particularly for those close to retirement.
Stein’s medical problems
Stein, 37, enlisted in 1988 and served six years before taking a two-year break in service, returning in 1995. He began developing medical problems while assigned to the destroyer Arleigh Burke: carpal tunnel syndrome, sleep apnea and motor tics, or involuntary twitching.
After the 2001 MEB found him unsuited for sea duty and the PEB found him fit for military service, he continued treatment. Epilepsy and Tourette syndrome were ruled out. Eventually, the time the Navy allowed for a possible recovery ran out, and a September 2003 MEB found him unsuitable for deployment. A neurologist scheduled a second PEB and that board found, in January 2004, that Stein was again fit for duty.
Stein appealed.
“I was looking for a finding of unfit [for duty] because the military was not finding me suitable for sea,” Stein said. “I knew if they found me fit, there’d be an administrative separation.”
In February, Navy Personnel Command made a final ruling: Stein was fit for continued duty, yet “unsuitable for operational duty and ... not worldwide assignable.”
The ruling noted that Stein had received therapy and treatment as “an opportunity to correct your physical conditions,” fulfilling Navy policy. The following month, he was separated without a disability rating, and no lifetime benefits.
Yet in May, the VA determined that he had a 50 percent disability for sleep apnea, 30 percent for motor tics, a total of 40 percent for his neuropathy problems and 10 percent for a hiatal hernia. Using the VA’s formula, Stein was awarded an 80 percent disability. He is paid $1,571 per month, untaxed.
Stein wonders why the Navy didn’t think just one of those conditions — say, the motor tics — was sufficient cause for a medical disability retirement.
“Motor tics interfere with your ability to be an electronics technician,” he said. But the Navy gave him no explanation.
“ ‘You’re fit, case closed,’ ” he said.
Adding insult to injury, the Defense Department must recoup severance or separation pay when a member’s condition is not service-related and the member qualifies for VA disability. So Stein, married with one child, did not receive his initial VA checks until a year after he had left the Navy.
He called his Navy separation payment “more or less … an interest-free loan.”
Eventually, Stein landed a civilian desk job as a phone company troubleshooter. But he still is easily startled, and often experiences violent twitches. He has put off going to the VA for treatment while dealing with other family medical issues, but plans to see a neurologist soon.
“I’m sure I’m not the only one like this,” said Stein. “How many have been told, ‘You’re fit, you’re fine — but you’ve got to get out because we can’t deploy you?’ ”
He also noted that he has heard discussion about “a lot of veterans from the Iraq war who are being found unfit and being forced out.”
Stein thinks the Navy does this to save money, a charge also leveled by some other critics at disparities in the way the services handle such cases.
Navy and Pentagon officials did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
