“Fit But Unsuitable”: Shameless and Shameful

By Col. Steve Strobridge, USAF-Ret, Director of Government Relations for the Military Officers Association (MOAA) [Article used with permission of MOAA]

Children’s sayings about “sticks and stones” notwithstanding, words can be powerful and extremely hurtful — especially in the hands of bureaucrats who manage to twist them in self-contradictory ways.

One would think that when a physical evaluation board (PEB) examines a servicemember’s medical condition and deems him or her “fit for duty,” the meaning of that term would be self-evident. Wrong.

One also would think that, several years in the wake of media exposure of grievous treatment of wounded warriors and low-balled disability ratings that resulted in separation of severely injured servicemembers with no retirement or medical benefits, that wouldn’t be happening anymore. Wrong.

All too often, MOAA learns of cases in which soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines with significant, service-connected medical conditions are evaluated by PEBs and found fit for duty — only to be administratively separated or barred from reenlistment as “unsuitable” for continued service based on the same medical condition.

According to DoD regulations, there are certain specified medical conditions that warrant separation for unsuitability — enuresis, incapacitating fear of flying, personality or adjustment disorders, substance-abuse disorders, etcetera.

But the services have expanded use of this provision far beyond what’s authorized in DoD regulations, separating servicemembers for far more serious medical conditions that are compensable under VA disability ratings, which the services are supposed to be using to assess disability versus fitness for duty.

In many cases, a servicemember’s administrative separation is based on his or her limited deployability as a result of the medical condition. In other cases, the separation documents simply assert the medical condition renders the servicemember “unsuitable” for service — even though the PEB evaluated the same condition (including deployability limitations) and found that servicemember fit for duty.

In many instances, a separated servicemember has been awarded a very high disability rating by the VA for the same condition immediately after separation.

MOAA strongly believes this process is a gross miscarriage of justice. If a person has a seriously disabling medical condition (warranting a 30-percent or higher disability rating under VA rules), then the person should be medically retired. If a PEB evaluates a condition (including deployability limits) and finds it doesn’t render the person unfit for duty, then he or she shouldn’t be subject to administrative separation for the same medical condition.

MOAA highlighted this practice to the House and Senate Armed Services committees and urged them to take action to stop it. Subsequently, the House committee demanded a DoD report on the issue, asserting it is “fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with the disability evaluation system reforms that have been enacted in recent years.”

The Senate committee went further, putting a provision in its version of the FY 2011 Defense Authorization Act that would bar the services from administratively separating servicemembers for medical conditions other than those explicitly authorized by DoD regulations.

It’s long past time to end this grossly unfair practice that blatantly abrogates the military’s proper responsibility to those whose service cost them their health.

“Fit but unsuitable” discharges are shameless and shameful.

They’re oxymoronic.