RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03351
INDEX CODE: 108.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 Apr 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge with severance pay rated at 10 percent be changed to reflect
he was medically retired with a rating of 30 percent.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Pulmonary Function Report taken on 26 Sep 03 reflects a Forced
Expiratory Volume (FEV1) Score of 60-pre and 53-post. According to AFI 36-
3212, FEV Tables, these pre and post scores reflect entitlement to a 30
percent rating.
In support of his request, applicant provided his Pulmonary Function Report
and Analysis. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 14
Jan 98. He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 14 Jan 01.
Applicant served as Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Journeyman.
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened on 18 Jun 03 and referred his
case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with diagnoses of
moderate persistent asthma, allergic rhinitis, and mild noise-induced
sensorineural hearing loss. On 8 Jul 03, the IPEB found him unfit for
further military service based on a diagnosis of asthma and recommended he
be discharged with severance pay with a compensable rating of 10 percent.
The applicant did not agree with the findings and recommended disposition
of the IPEB and requested he be returned to duty. On 8 Sep 03, the Air
Force Formal PEB recommended he be discharged from the Air Force based on a
diagnosis of asthma with a combined disability rating of 10 percent. The
applicant was discharged on 23 Jan 04. He served 6 years and 10 days on
active duty
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant
states the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)
provides guidance regarding the rating of asthma based on consideration of
results of pulmonary function testing and the intensity of medical
treatment. The rating guidelines allow for consideration of FEV1 and
FEV1/FVC ratio. Results of his testing show single values that could
support the zero, 10, or 30 percent rating depending on which number was
selected. All but 1 of 10 of his values fall into the normal range and if
used would have resulted in a zero percent rating. All but 2 of 10 of his
values fall into the 10 percent rating and two results during a single days
testing fall into the 30 percent guidance. If rated solely on therapy, a
10 or 30 percent rating may be indicated.
The various criteria are listed within guidance for each rating level using
the conjunction "or" which does not require rating officials to grant the
higher rating. Rating guidance in DoD Instruction 1332.39 states "When the
circumstances of a case are such that two percentage evaluations shall be
applied, the higher percentage will be applied only if the Service member's
disability more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating.
Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned." Rating guidance contained
in the VASRD states "Where there is a question as to which of two
evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the
disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that
rating. Otherwise the lower rating will be assigned." Using this guidance
the PEBs take into account the results of pulmonary function testing,
patterns of medication use, and evidence of occupational impairment when
arriving at a rating, not solely on one factor. Evidence in his records
support minimal occupational impairment from asthma. The preponderance of
the evidence supports the findings and recommendations of the PEBs and
shows consideration of pulmonary function testing, treatment and
occupational impact in arriving at their decision.
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 the applicant on 4 Oct
05 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 timely filed.
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, evidence
has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant's
disability processing and the rating he was assigned at final disposition
were contrary to the governing Air Force instruction and the law. We agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2004-
03351 in Executive Session on 16 Nov 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Sep 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 05.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01141
The IPEB diagnosed the applicant with asthma with a disability rating of 10 percent. On 8 Nov 02, the FPEB determined that testimony and medical evidence confirmed the findings of the IPEB and maintained the same recommendation that the applicant be discharged with severance pay with a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. On 17 Dec 02, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) directed that the applicant be separated from active service for physical disability with a...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00147
The aforementioned conditions were included in my VA Disability claim and the VA determined and awarded the following within 12 months of separation: - Asthma was Service Connected Disability with 30% Rating; - Lower Back was Service Connected Disability with 10% Rating; - Hypertension was Service Connected Disability with 0% Rating; & - Pseudofolliculitis barbae was Service Connected Disability with 0% Rating. After careful consideration of your application and treatment records, the...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02004
This VA examination was used by the PEB for its final disability determination in lieu of a separate military examination.The Board directed its attention to its rating recommendation for TDRLplacement based on the above evidence. The Board noted that the FEV1/FVC ratio of 73% supported a 10% rating under code 6602. In the matter of the asthma condition at TDRL removal, the Board unanimously recommends a permanent disability rating of 10%, coded 6602 IAW VASRD §4.97.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01655
The CI was then medically separated. In reference to medications, the examiner simply stated “Now for asthma, she uses inhalers.” The VA PFT evidence cited an FEV1 of 103% predicted, and did not document an FVC. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02369
SEPARATION DATE: 20051011 Asthma Condition . BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.In the matter of the asthma condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 30%, coded 6602 IAW VASRD §4.100.In the matter of the contended allergic rhinitis, migraine...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02043
At the MEB examination on 1 October 2003, the CI reported asthma, shortness of breath, bronchitis, wheezing and indicated he used an albuterol inhaler as needed. Pulmonary function studies, including FVC, FEV1-84%, FEV1/FVCratio-86%, were within normal limits. The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The CI was diagnosed with exercise induced asthma and at the time of separation used an inhalational bronchodilator.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00898
VASRD §4.97 rating criteria for asthma are based on the number and severity of clinical exacerbations; the type and the frequency of medications used to treat the condition; and PFT values for FEV1 and FEV1/FVC ratio. It is noted that the VA subsumed any asthma rating in the overall OSA rating, although the VA rating decision stated “the examiner did not note any compensable level of disability due to your mild persistent asthma.” After considerable deliberation, members agreed [member...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02407
SEPARATION DATE: 20050608 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Accordingly, the Board recommended your separation be re-characterized to reflect disability retirement, rather than separation with severance pay.I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01534
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Restrictive Lung Disease Condition . The CI was diagnosed with restrictive lung disease of unclear etiology and the pulmonary specialist also noted possible chronic obstructive lung disease associated with smoking.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01552
The service treatment record (STR) initially reflected that the CI wasbeing worked-up for a respiratory condition noting the first of many spirometry/pulmonary function tests (PFTs) dated 28 August 2002. The CI was never placed on oral corticosteroids; therefore, Board members deliberated if the CI’s condition supported the 30% criteria level.Clearly, the final pulmonology report noted no use of medication for the previous “several months.”Additionally, the post-separation VA examination...