Reforms due for disability ratings

Published 2:23 pm Saturday, October 13, 2007

Congressional action to end the military services’ authority to assign disability ratings and put the Department of Veterans Affairs in charge can’t come too soon for retired Army Lt. Col. Michael Parker.

Parker, 45, has complained for a couple of years to lawmakers and to the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission about lax Defense Department oversight of the disability rating process and unfair disability decisions across the services.

He wasn’t alone. Veteran service groups and plenty of individual veterans had beefs, too. The Government Accountability Office released a critical report on military disability systems in 2006. Momentum for reform got a huge lift last February when the Washington Post exposed bureaucratic neglect of patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

But Parker showed special doggedness. He attended most meetings of the benefits commission, testified several times and created slide shows of facts and data on the issues for commissioners and journalists. Informing his arguments were his own experiences with the Army’s disability process and his volunteer work helping other members, even members of other services, through their own maze. With each one, Parker said, he found fresh evidence that laws and regulations are ignored in holding back benefits.

This month, Parker felt satisfaction when the commission released its report. Among its 113 recommendations are three calling for immediate action to correct disability evaluations and one long-term fix for all evaluations to the VA. Defense officials or the services should:

Reassess past disability ratings set at less than 30 percent for service members separated as unfit to determine if the rating was fair, given disturbing inconsistencies found across services ratings and between ratings awarded by Defense Department and those routinely raised later by the VA.

Adopt a consistent and uniform policy for rating disabilities by requiring the services to adhere to the VA rating schedule.

Reconsider a policy that allows discharge of an individual without any disability compensation, as late as eight years into their active duty careers, if found unfit based on medical conditions that likely existed before they entered service. Parker said the services have shifted the burden of proof that a condition didn’t exist prior to service onto some members.

The long-term recommendation is to give VA sole responsibility for rating disabilities. The services would continue to determine fitness for duty but would get out of the disability rating business.

To Parker, the most compelling recommendation is to have the services reassess rating decisions for tens of thousands of members who were denied disability retirement and separated with less than a 30 percent rating, going back at least to the year 2000.

“They are basically saying that those decisions are not to be trusted and DoD needs to make sure they were complying with all the regulations and policies,” said Parker.

Parker, who suffers from a disease called reactive arthritis, likely triggered by contaminated drinking water, went through a medical evaluation board and, not long before he retired with 21 years served, a physical evaluation board. He was found fit. He later learned that an Air Force member who required the same immune-suppressive drug was deemed unfit and separated because the drug made him unfit for the rigors of service.

Studies and research done for the commission reinforced Parker’s belief that Defense officials for years should have been monitoring how disability ratings are set by the services but instead “were absent without leave,” he said.

The commission uncovered a March 1985 legal opinion from the Defense Department general counsel that allowed the services, without notifying Congress, to begin to hold down disability ratings. The intent, it appears, was to save on retirement and medical costs.

By focusing on “unfitting” conditions, the services are allowed to use VA rating criteria selectively and develop their own criteria for determining that a service member’s condition existed before he or she entered service.

Parker has seen it all. He faults Defense for letting it happen.

“It wasn’t until the Walter Reed stories broke that DoD started trying to take the reins back, to get control,” Parker said. A lot of commissions, committees, panels and auditors are saying: too little, too late.

To comment, e-mail milupdate@aol.com, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111 or go to: www.militaryupdate.com.