New DODI 6130.03 (DoDMERB DQ List)

Tbpxece

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
770
TL;DR: Read DODI 6130.03 to find out DODMERB DQ conditions and their exemptions (if applicable)

I'm seeing a lot of questions on here that indicate folks don't know what is/isn't a DQ on the DoDMERB, or where to find that information.

The medical conditions requiring a DQ are spelled out in DODI 6130.03, and a new May 2018 edition is available. There ARE subtle changes from the previous version that have good or bad implications, so ensure you have the latest edition

It is worth reading and then bouncing against your medical records to see if any civilian doctors have used certain verbage that would flag a DODMERB application as having a DQ condition.

For those with no experience with military boards, such as the DODMERB, please understand these boards follow written regulations and instructions like this verbatim.

This means, for example, if you show up for a DODMERB exam with a painful ingrown toenail or ringworm, you will get a DQ until it is resolved.

The good news is that this DODI also specifies all the exceptions to the DQ conditions, which should help when going back to your civilian doctor to have something cleared up or clarified.

Read the DODI. Find the areas in there that concern you, take it to your doctor, and have them reassess you, taking care to use the exact verbage listed for any exceptions (if applicable, of course-don't lie).

Also, a lot of medical professionals are prior-service. Seek them out, as they will likely be very familiar with how critical it is for them to use the correct verbage for successful waivers.

At the end of the day, remember that your DODMERB is your responsibility The best approach is to be proactive. Read the actual regulations for yourself and ensure your medical records are not written in such a careless matter as to cause you a DQ. For whatever reason there is a tendency to overdiagnose and overmedicate these days, perhaps due to liability fears or out of an abundance of caution.

A long time ago, I was DQ'd from a Type 1 scholarship due to a careless diagnosis by a family practice doctor for a largely trivial condition. A fifteen minute reevaluation from a specialist a year later, who took the time to understand the intent of the regulatory restriction on the trivial condition, who reviewed my medical history, and who understood that certain words have meanings, and I was cleared with a more accurate diagnosis of a minor condition that was not disqualifying. I ultimately didn't even need a waiver. Again, don't lie or have your doctor lie, but definitely ensure you get a second opinion for any potential DQ condition.

Also, remember that certain military career fields like pilot carry their own extra, more restrictive medical clearances.
 
To clarify, you SHOULDN'T be surprised or comfused by a DQ if you have reviewed the DODI. It is all spelled out in plain American English. Be proactive. :)
 
Read the actual regulations for yourself and ensure your medical records are not written in such a careless matter as to cause you a DQ. For whatever reason there is a tendency to overdiagnose and overmedicate these days, perhaps due to liability fears or out of an abundance of caution.


Because, you know, the average non-medical professional person will know what is a true SOAP note, review of systems, pertinent positives/negatives, differential diagnoses, etc in a medical record to be able to catch something that is "careless."

There's a tendency to overdiagnose and overmedicate because patients will think you're a bad doctor if you don't order an MRI of chronic low back pain (no prior hx of trauma or radicular symptoms). By golly, they want that MRI because they've paid for expensive medicine insurance. And by golly, don't give me ibuprofen because Percocet has worked perfectly fine in the past.

for a largely trivial condition.

Then why did you go get seen? I'm not asking for your diagnosis- that would be TMI. If it's a trivial sign or symptom, then don't waste your time or the precious appointments that the doctor has with what you call a "trivial" condition. My take is you had a legitimate symptom and it worried you so much that you took time out of your busy day to see a doctor. You needed care at that time. The doctor did the best he could with the info provided to him and caused you no harm ("do no harm" is the mantra of medicine). You might say he "harmed" you because you went through some paperwork gymnastic for your Type 1 scholarship. I don't see that as a harm. He probably had no idea you were wanting to go into the USAF when you stepped into his exam room for your "trivial" boo boo.

Also, my oldest is wanting to become a doctor. I doubt she will be practice in a way along the lines of..."Gee, there's a chance (the less than 1% of the population) of this young boy/girl to serve our military so I'll take that into consideration when making assessment and plan to take care of him/her." Not going to happen. Doctors practice what they've been taught in 4 years of medical school and 3-6+ years of residency. They take care of the patient and not worry about whether the young kid is going to be a welder, Sailor, lawyer, etc...some day.

I don't know if you're a healthcare provider, but seems like you still got scar tissue from your experience. Your opinions are fair, but I think the blame doesn't always rest on that doctor that saw someone years and years ago. The blame should rest on "things just happen."
 
No need to be a jerk.

You entirely missed the point.

So what's the point? Doctors who know nothing about the military or know a kid's future plans are to blame for someone not getting in or having to jump through hoops to get in?

Take a look in the DODMERB forum in the Sticky Notes section titled, "Why did the military doctor do .... if it's not allowed for the Service Academies???"

Even military doctors may do stuff that others may think are "careless" in a lay person's opinion. If the doctor you had is careless (negligent) and you have a case, then go take him to court.

Just know you have 4 elements to provide in a malpractice case:
1) The doctor owed a duty to you - this is proven. The minute you walked into the doctor's office, he owed a duty to you. In some states, simply making an appointment to be seen is sufficient to establish owing a duty
2) The doctor failed to perform that duty to you - maybe he was negligent in his diagnosis. I don't know.
3) You were harmed (or damage) -you weren't harmed as far as I can tell. You're going (or are) an officer in the USAF.
4) It was the doctor's breach of duty that cause you the harm - if you weren't harmed, then you can't meet this element.

MY point is the reason why people have to jump through hoops to get medically qualified is not always (I'm going to go out on a limb and say a very small number) the fault of the healthcare received years and years ago.

I'm not a lawyer BTW... just a jerk.
 
The point is that there is a new version of DODI 6130.03.

That instruction contains the medical conditions that trigger a DQ.

DODMERB DQ's shouldn't be myterious or a surprise. My intent is to be helpful and link the source document.

My anecdote was an example of where, as a young teen, I went to be seen for something that was irritating me. I was misdiagnosed with something else. Carelessly. Not a big deal until I did the DODMERB. Got a DQ (understandably, given the word the doctor used). Went to a specialist to get a 2nd look, he quickly corrected my record with the actual diagnosis. I'm not "scarred" about a "boo boo". It was a personal anecdote meant to explain how this can play out. Had I known about this list way back when this happened, I could have gotten out in front of it from the outset rather than going through the whole DQ process. Nowhere in there do I talk about malpractice or blaming doctors.

Doctors can be careless. They can make mistakes. It's not a big deal. It's not something to be mad about, but it does happen.

Again, the intent is to read the instruction, clear away the mystery, and be proactive about fimding and addressing any potential issues rather than hoping for the best.

Seriously, dude. Lay off, please.
 
Last edited:
Here is the May 2018 edition.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/613003p.pdf?ver=2018-05-04-113917-883

Some of it is layperson-friendly, some not so much. The whatever-is-current version has been posted several times in various threads over the years, but it never hurts to re-post, as I am fond of directing people to primary sources for a bit of enlightenment. I have often posted it as a read for those with questions about ADHD, so the cut-off windows for medication are clear.

It may or may not be helpful as a reference point for discussions with healthcare providers.
 
Back
Top