Soldier sues Army secretary over retirement - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

Soldier sues Army secretary over retirement

An Army officer filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the Army on Oct. 31 stating his military disability case was handled illegally.

Military Times first wrote about Capt. James Wollman’s case in June 2006, after the military found his ankylosing spondylitis was a pre-existing condition, even though it was not diagnosed until after he joined the military and served a combat tour in Iraq, and there was no proof — or reason to believe — the disease had surfaced before he joined.

His pre-commissioning physically specifically assessed him for the disease, which is disqualifying for military service, and found no evidence of it at the time, and he was cleared for active duty. Ankylosing spondylitis is a disease of the immune system that causes severe back problems.

In fact, the division surgeon for the 1st Armored Division wrote a letter to the Physical Evaluation Board stating that she believed several mistakes had been made and that his disease was not a pre-existing condition.

Wollman filed the lawsuit after several years of enduring a labyrinthine review process studded with roadblocks.

The military initially ruled his condition to be pre-existing when he went through the disability retirement process in 2005. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency agreed with the findings.

Wollman then took his case to the Army Disability Review Board because he said his disability is service-connected and was also aggravated by his time in the military.

The review board agreed with the original findings of the Physical Evaluation Board, but would not provide any rationale for that decision or address issued raised by Wollman, according to the lawsuit.

Wollman took his case to the Army Review Boards Agency to see if the Army Discharge Review Board would look at it, arguing that the law states any discharge that doesn’t stem from punitive action falls under its jurisdiction. He sought to have his medical discharge changed from noncompensable to conpensable.

The Army Discharge Review Board agreed to look at his case, but he soon received a letter from the director of the board stating his request was disapproved because the board does not grant medical discharges. It informed him he should go to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The lawsuit states he should be able to go before the Discharge Review Board.

As Wollman worked his way through the system, Congress enacted a law requiring military boards to state in an “orderly and itemized fashion with specific attention to each issue” why they made decisions about each medical issue in a person’s Physical Evaluation Board.

That was ordered to begin Feb. 14, 2007, and the Physical Disability Agency therefore said it did not have to give details of their findings in Wollman’s case because his original Physical Evaluation Board decision was issued before that date.

However, Defense Department regulations already required that Discharge Review Boards provide a basis for their decisions. Wollman is seeking access to that board in pursuit of an explanation for the ruling in his case.

This is important for service members because, when they appeal their cases, they need to know the details of why it was turned down in the first place. The courts have ruled that these boards must provide sufficient rationale and address issues raised so that meaningful judicial review can be provided when such cases come through the legal system.

The law also states that the secretary of each service will ensure service members receive copies of all correspondence, including summaries of verbal conversations, that have to do with their medical retirement cases with the Army Review Boards Agency.

But when Wollman requested the Discharge Review Board look at his case, he did not receive copies of any other correspondence about his case when he asked for it.

Wollman’s pro bono lawyers, Steven L. Herrick of the Washington, D.C., office of Tully Rinckey PLLC and Maureen E. Carr of Reese Broome PC of Vienna, Va., are seeking review of his case by the Discharge Review Board, the reasoning behind his Physical Evaluation Board findings, correspondence about his case, and legal fees and monetary relief.