Major Jill Metzger's Disability Retirement and relevance to Courts-Martail Jurisdiction

The imminent change of Major Jill Metzger’s active duty status to discharged into temporary disability retired status as reported by the Stars & Stripes and Air Force Times in articles published between July 4, 2007 and July 13, 2007 is lacking official press release confirmation.

The discharge decision to place Major Metzger into Temporary Disability Retirement while claims of her missing status resulted from kidnapping is being investigated is a puzzling mystery as this places Major Jill Metzger into further legal risk of criminal offense of fraudulently obtaining her discharge. Simply any administrative discharge to include disability approval prior to completion of investigation places Major Jill Metzger indefinitely under the policing authority jurisdiction of courts-martial as stipulated in U.S. Code Title 10 Chapter 47 § 803. Art. 3. Jurisdiction to try certain personnel and U.S. Code Title 10, Chapter 47 § 843. Art. 43. Statute of limitations.

This creates considerable challenge to any claim the putting of Major Jill Metzger on the Temporary Disabled Retired List (TDRL) serves purpose to keep her available should the investigation find her missing status was not a kidnapping but rather a misadventure resulting from significant misconduct and moral or professional dereliction.

Although Major Jill Metzger became accounted for the moment she called the U.S. Embassy in Kyrgyzstan, her status of involuntary absence or unauthorized absence is still undetermined. The lack of evidence indicating an involuntary absence is making great difficulty in declaring she was captured, detained, or missing for any reason beyond her own choice to become missing. While the apparent outcome is USAF Major Jill Metzger being given a disability retirement for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) without a line of duty determination as required by US Code Title 10, Chapter 61, the same news articles disclosing her imminent disability retirement also disclose she is still running competitively and working on a master’s degree. Having established disability retirement the proportion or degree of disability rating does not seem in agreement with impairment, limitation, or restriction the disability is imposing on her quality of life, ability to participate in recreation, or ability to pursue advanced academic degrees.

A primary reason for the disability retirement seems to be resulting from compassion, sympathy, or perhaps pity that Major Jill Metzger be able to get on with her life, but these emotional feelings are very misplaced considering she is indefinitely under risk of court-martial jurisdiction no matter what administrative or disability discharge she obtained while investigations continue into her missing status. If investigations ever conclude with discovery, findings, or conclusions her absence was voluntary and included significant misconduct and moral or professional dereliction her discharge will have been fraudulently obtained.

If a fraudulent discharge was approved, those authorizing Major Jill Metzger’s fraudulent discharge didn’t do so in ignorance (being incompetent) or out of ignorance (unaware of rules and laws applying to the situation and circumstances). Nor can they claim the punishable offenses were dismissed because they acted before investigation was completed and before charges were preferred. Consequently, what is the relation between the investigation and the medical retirement? Sympathy, compassion, and pity are not the medical condition eligibility qualifiers for disability rating needed for a disability retirement. The qualifiers regardless of medical condition, injury, or disease are the degree in which a medical condition, injury, disease limits the military member from performing military duties. With Major Jill Metzger still participating in competitive running and participating in academic studies needed to get a Masters Degree it leaves me uncomprehending and utterly confused how and why a disability retirement was approved unless command influence had self-protective safeguarding need for it to happen.