So I'm trying to be of use and not a Debbie Downer. Frankly, back in 2010 when my husband was going through the same thing, this site was a little discouraging, only in terms of Type-1 stories that didn't end well, not because I don't appreciate it for its wealth of information). In fact, my husband stopped looking at it for that reason.
I think it is helpful for folks to post their experiences, good, bad or ugly.
If you read the facts of our case the only logical explanation of why the change would be from fit to unfit is because he hit the MEB at the exact same time the AF was ripping off the bandaid and downsizing in huge numbers. I don't say that for my husband's ego, the logic they posed was actually laughable. Since the only way to get rid of him after having found fit previously was to prove that his health had "changed" in some way, they had to find "something" that was different. They actually said his pump usage was because his health was spiraling out of control, which is absolutely false as evidenced by the doctor's noting his "excellent control," "strong motivation," and the fact that they were recommending it as a more amenable for continued military service than injections--so, if you're tracking, he was found fit with full knowledge he was going on a pump, then found unfit for using that pump. I realize deployability also plays a major factor, but he did deploy post diagnosis (you know, not to the AOR, but it was something), and also, the logic that deployment rates within his career field have decreased roughly five fold is counterintuitive to the logic presented.
This comment more goes for the below quote, but, it generally applies to all cases. You have to deal with each case on the facts present and based on making "educated guesses." This is more so when there is less than clear cut issues. Obviously, someone with a below the knee amputation will be found unfit and rated at 40% (if they want....there are several cases of amputees returning to duty....but that is the exceptional case). It can be hard to make certain guesses or the answers may be less than clear cut.
So here are the take-aways. What somebody said about there only being like one diabetic to ever get back in the system is just not correct. Obviously, my husband would be one example as he served for a decade with it. We know a (Lt Col) personnelist at Luke who has had it almost his entire career. And a (Lt Col) pilot at Nellis (squadron command, even). And a (Capt) pilot-turned-intel officer at Hickam. A (Maj) pilot at Vandenburg. I have personally spoken with these people so they aren't just hearsay stories. And a handful of others whom we don't know personally but have been in email contact with. They are out there--they probably just like to keep a low profile for fear of losing their jobs.
A few points....It is likely hyperbole about "only one" diabetic ever being returned to duty. It probably does happen in a small percentage of cases with the right fact patterns. (I have seen some extraordinary results over the last ten years of working in this area....I have seen an epileptic returned to duty, a doctor found unfit- which pretty much never happens, I have seen a Major with a colostomy bag returned to duty...but, these are "outliers" with their own specific facts and circumstances that resulted in highly unusual outcomes).
But, what made me have a bit of unease is the idea that these examples from what it sounds like years ago should be applied to thinking about a case today. There has been a huge shift in how cases are judged over the past few years. LAS used to be granted fairly liberally. Used to be, with a good set of facts and support from the chain, the AF PEB used to recommend LAS and SAFPC would as a matter of policy approve it. About 2-3 years ago, this halted. SAFPC told the PEBs to stop addressing the issue and stopped approving LAS. Now, it is a relative rarity to see LAS go through.
Still, I have no doubt that there are those who "stay below the radar" and are never put up for a full MEB. It is either that the docs ignore the issue, the DAWG never convenes, or some other "magic" happens where the case is never considered. I am also aware of "confirmation bias." That is, the bulk of cases I hear about are either on these forums OR it is through clients of mine. But, if someone has a good outcome and does not ever need help, I likely see few of those cases. So, I tend to see the "bad outcomes" and am aware that I don't have the full picture (and, by definition, no one does...if the case is never identified and the member is happy, no one complains. There is literally no way to know how "all cases" go because there are a number that are never addressed and a large number where the member does not ever complain).
Bottom line, as I suggested above, one has to make decisions and educated guesses as to how to proceed. It can be anxiety provoking and nerve wracking when the outcome is not clear. Unfortunately, that is a feature of the system.
I understand when you say your command is advocating for your return to duty. So was my husband's. The first time, he had Colonels vouching for him. The second time it was Generals. The board just sort of politely ignored anything in my husband's favor. Trust me, it's a clown show.
Very often it can be a "clown show." This is more likely the case when the issues are open to interpretation, when there are subjective issues that can be ruled either way and when they just make errors. It is not that the PEBs are seeking to do wrong by folks. The issues have to do with unclear standards in part, with the authority for judgment calls to be made and with the appeals process (for example, the "pure" VA appeals process, while far from perfect, offers much more protections to folks than appealing military decisions).
In the current drawdown climate I would, in hindsight, have had my husband fight for retirement--you sort of have to choose your avenue at the beginning of the process so you don't flip-flop.
This is a point that I referenced above. I can't say that any decision your husband made was good or bad. Just that in the current climate, things have gotten "tighter" as to retaining members under any basis.
Now my leadership understands how the only way they can help is to step in after I hopefully get a permanent retirement and vouch for Limited Assignment Status.
For "just" diabetes, the rating would have to be 40% (based on restriction of activities) in order to reach the retirement finding. Once that level is met, then I would think LAS application would be just fine. Again, though I may have just beat that dead horse, the facts of your case should drive your decisions and approach to the IDES/PEB.
