RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02215
INDEX CODE: 108.02
COUNSEL: DAV
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His disability discharge with severance pay be changed to reflect he was
permanently retired for disability reasons.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) inaccurately rated his medical
condition as 20% disabling. He meets the Veterans Affairs Schedule for
Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines for a rating of 60% and the PEB
should have rated his condition at a minimum rating of 60%.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy
of his DD Form 214, documentation associated with his disability evaluation
system processing, and documentation extracted from his medical records.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 21
Jun 95. He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 21 Jun 98.
An MEB was convened on 18 Feb 99 and referred his case to an Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of Type I Diabetes
Mellitus controlled with diet, short and long acting insulin. On 24 Feb
99, the IPEB found him unfit for further military service and recommended
he be discharged with severance pay with a compensable rating of 20%. The
applicant initially did not agree with the findings and recommended
disposition of the IPEB, but after consulting counsel elected to waive his
right to a formal hearing. On 15 Mar 99, the Air Force PEB directed the
applicant be discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 20%.
He was discharged on 27 Apr 99. He served 3 years, 10 months, and 6 days
on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant
states applicant was discharged with severance pay due to a new onset of
Type I Diabetes Mellitus requiring insulin and a restricted diet consistent
with a 20% rating. The aspects of his disease he cites as reason for a
higher rating occurred earlier in the course of treatment and not in the
optimally treated state, which final disability ratings are adjudicated.
Frequent routine diabetes follow up with diabetes care specialists is not a
direct reflection of disease severity, but a standard of care for routine
management. With current medical management, new onset of Type I Diabetes
Mellitus in the optimally treated state does not result in significant
occupational limitations outside the requirements to accommodate diet,
medication and medical visits, and would rarely warrant more than a 20%
rating. Worsening of the disease due to noncompliance with therapy is not
compensable under DoD rules. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant’s counsel on
9 Jan 04 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not
persuaded by the applicant's contentions that his disability processing and
the rating he received at final disposition of his case were in error or
unjust. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-
02215 in Executive Session on 16 Mar 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Mr. James A. Wolfe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Dec 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.
OLGA M. CRERAR
Panel Chair
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00301
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “After 6.5 years dedicated to the Service of the Air Force (4 at USAFA and 2.5 full-time active), I was determined unfit physically due to the onset of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Unfitting Condition: DM Type I Condition . Therefore, the Board determined that neither condition could be argued as unfitting at the time of separation from Service and subject to separation rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02244
IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20091009VA* - Based on Service Treatment Records (STR)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Diabetes Mellitus, Type I791320%Diabetes Mellitus, Type I791320%**STROther x 1 (Not in Scope)Other x 0STR Combined: 20%Combined: 20% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20100226 (most proximate to date of separation (DOS)). The...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01445
The CI was then medically separated with a 20% disability rating. CI CONTENTION: “The 20% rating does not fit the disability, Type I Diabetes with controlled diet, restricted activities, and insulin dependent starts at the 40% rating. 3 PD1201445 RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of his prior medical...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00398
After re-evaluation in August 2007, a third Informal PEB followed by a Formal PEB (Nov 2007) determined the CI should be separated at 20% disability for Type 1 Diabetes using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The VA also rated the CI’s diabetes at 20% after an evaluation in 2004 and documented out that regulation of activities as defined by the VASRD was not required. There is no evidence that any...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2011-04080
In view of the DVA rating decisions and the severity of her condition, the disability rating awarded by the Air Force should have been higher and she should have been retired by reason of physical disability. 60 percent – Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02326
He denied hospitalization for diabetes or diabetic complications and had a full-time job.At a C&P exam on 13 June 2007(14 months after TDRL placement) the CI reported that if “he runs or does any type of activities he will have hypoglycemia.” He therefore restricted his activities. The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.Both at the time of placement on the TDRL and at the time of permanent disability disposition and removal from the TDRL, the...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00309
The examiner did not, however, describe activity restrictions, and specifically stated, “His current fitness regimen consists of full participation in unit PT, doing calisthenics and running two miles three-times/week.” In addition, the commander’s statement related the CI was “a highly motivated top performer who has shown no ill effects from his medical condition and treatment,” and further stated “he is fully capable of performing all of his assigned duties, deploy and participate in...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00222
The Board could not consider the DM renal insufficiency separately as it was not in the PEBs final rating recommendation. The medical evidence of the anemia condition was discussed under the DM condition for possible consideration with a higher rating under the 7913 DM code. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the anemia condition and,...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01648
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXCASE:PD-2013-01648BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE BOARD DATE: 20140716 Separation Date: 20040608 I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01946
Pre-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Diabetes Mellitus, Type II791320%Diabetes Mellitus791320%20050228Other x0 (Not in Scope)Other x720050228 Combined: 20%Combined: 50%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20050728(most proximate to date of separation [DOS]) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. In this case, the CI required oral medication and insulin use along with...