ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01111 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 20 percent disability rating for medical separation due to diabetes mellitus be changed to a 40 percent disability rating and he be given a medical retirement. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 November 2011, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request that his 20 percent disability rating for medical separation due to diabetes mellitus be changed to a 40 percent disability rating and he be given a medical retirement. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit G. In an application dated 1 January 2014, the applicant seeks reconsideration of his earlier request. He states that he believes his disability rating was made incorrectly based on previously omitted and relevant information. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends approval supplanting the applicant’s discharge with severance pay with a medical retirement, effective his established date of release from active military service. The Medical Consultant is aware of historical rating disparities between Military Departments and the Department of Veterans Affairs [for the same condition, in the same individual] that resulted in passing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. As a result, Military Departments were restricted to using only the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), or mutually agreed upon VA/DoD policies that would warrant a greater benefit when making disability rating determinations. In the case, the Air Force Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) and subsequent appellate levels utilized the VASRD, but, in the opinion of this reviewer, did not consider all of the evidence available for this current review. The Medical Consultant, as a former Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicator, notes the differentiation in rating criteria between a 20 percent disability rating and a 40 percent rating for Diabetes has consistently caused angst. Nevertheless, in attempting to follow the law, whether a Military adjudicator or a Veterans Affairs adjudicator, paper reviews cannot reliably, nor is intended to, distinguish a fraudulent effort on the part of an appellant who, once familiar with the distinguishing rating characteristics between separation and a retirement, seeks the higher disability rating. Thus, while one might suspect this may have been the case, noting the inquiry on 23 November 2009, the preponderance of evidence does not demonstrate an attempt by the applicant to commit fraud or to exaggerate his clinical status. Indeed, it is the documented assessments and recommendations of the applicant's endocrinologist, as well as the fitness profiles, which clearly demonstrate restriction of activities were imposed for the specific clinical purpose of limiting or preventing unexpected acute complications. Additionally, the fact that the previous boards characterized the applicant's medical condition as in “poor” control might have warranted consideration for placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) until such a time that his level of stability or control was reliably achieved. Therefore, he finds sufficient evidence of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit I. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 12 November 2014, a copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit J). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, we agree with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that the Air Force IPEB and subsequent appellate levels utilized the VASRD, but, did not consider all of the evidence available for this current review. The assessments and recommendations of the applicant’s endocrinologist, as well as the fitness profiles, clearly demonstrate restriction of activities were imposed for the specific clinical purpose of limiting or preventing unexpected acute complications. We further note, the fact that the previous boards characterized the applicant’s medical condition as in “poor” control might have warranted consideration for placement on the TDRL until his level of stability or control was reliably achieved. Therefore, we believe that a change in his records is warranted to reflect a 40% disability rating and medical retirement at the time of final disposition of his case. Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a. On 27 September 2010, he was found unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade, or rating by reason of physical disability, incurred while he was entitled to receive basic pay; that the diagnosis in his case was Diabetes mellitus, VASRD code 7913, rated at 40%; that the degree of impairment was permanent; that the disability was not due to intentional misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; and that the disability was not received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war. b. On 28 September 2010, he was retired by reason of physical disability under the provisions of AFI 36-3212. c. His election of the Survivor Benefit Plan option will be corrected in accordance with his expressed preferences and/or as otherwise provided for by law or the Code of Federal Regulations. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01111 in Executive Session on 27 April 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit H. DD Form 149, dated 6 June 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit I. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 March 2008.. Exhibit J. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 November 2014.