Standards for Referral to DES

Forgive me if this subject has been discussed before, but I couldn’t find anything on point and I’m hoping to get some insights from anyone with knowledge on the subject.

DoDI 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System (DES), is the instruction that mandates policy/procedures for the respective branches of service to follow when administering the DES process. The DoDI, just like the great members here, speaks a lot about the “may prevent them from reasonably performing the duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating” standard. And it makes sense. A condition may affect the performance of service members’ duties differently based on those factors.

This jives with what just about everyone discusses on here – how the condition at question effects their ability to do their jobs.

However, in looking at Section 5.2, Criteria for Referral, other options are discussed. Specifically, a service member can be referred to the DES for a condition that “represents an obvious medical risk to the health of the members/people around the member” as well as a condition that “imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to maintain or protect the service member.”

Neither of these options imposes the “cannot do their job” standard, yet from what I can tell, the only people actually going through the DES process were referred because their condition prevent them from doing their jobs.

All of that in mind, I’m curious if anyone has any experience with this. Are the military branches not following the DoDI in this respect? Or is it simply so rare for a condition to meet these standards that doesn’t also affect one’s ability to do their job anyways, that it’s a moot point? Conversely, am I just not looking in the right places for posts regarding this subject?

Again, my apologies if this subject has been discussed before, and any insights/info would be greatly appreciated!
 
@IlliniArmy

I think you may be reading the quoted sections too much in a vacuum. The functional impacts of the “represents an obvious medical risk to the health of the members/people around the member” and “imposes unreasonable requirements on the military to maintain or protect the service member" wording you quote, in any professional setting, would drastically impair an individual's ability to interact effectively with co-workers - in this case, with other Service members - who are key to reasonably completing the duties of their office, grade, rank or MOS/rating. For instance, addressing the first quoted section, a Soldier - regardless of MOS - suffering from chronic MRSA infections would pose a significant medical/health risk to anyone working near them, as MRSA can potentially lead to death; you would be hard pressed to find anyone able to make a straight-faced argument that that Soldier is fit for duty. Further, addressing the second quoted section, for a Marine infantry unit to "maintain" a Marine with Chronic Kidney Disease, requiring dialysis three times a week, it would need to ensure that Marine could receive dialysis in CONUS and while deployed; that would not only be financially unreasonable, but also logically impossible.

I hope this helps.

S/f,

Joel

Disclosure: I was a Marine JAG, Active Duty and Reserve IPEB & FPEB attorney, federal government civilian FPEB & TDRL-focused attorney at the Navy PEB, and now a private attorney focused solely on IDES cases. This post is meant as procedural insight only and should not be construed as legal advice related to a specific case or a legal analysis of facts thereof.
 
Top