RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03132 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The findings of the USAF Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) be 
corrected to reflect injuries he sustained while on active duty 
and the reasons for his medical retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The findings of Fibromyalgia syndrome, rated at 20 percent by 
the PEB, was not correct and the actual findings of Superficial 
Perivascular Lymphohistiocytic dermatitis as recognized by the 
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) at 60 percent is the correct 
diagnosis. In addition, the chronic arthralgias of the Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) were not addressed by the PEB and the DVA 
has rated them at 20 percent for both the cervical spine and 
lumbosacral strain with bulging L5-S1. All of his DVA findings 
and decisions were effective as of the date of retirement. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
Narrative Summary, (his edited version), undated; the Formal PEB 
(FPEB), AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of 
USAF PEB, dated 17 Dec 99, and extracts from his DVA Rating 
Decision. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, while serving in the grade of major, was 
diagnosed during an MEB with intractable debilitating facial 
pain and his case was referred to an Informal PEB (IPEB). The 
IPEB diagnosed the applicant with facial pain left sided 
etiology undetermined, with a compensable disability rating of 
10 percent. The applicant nonconcurred with this rating and his 
case was referred to the FPEB. The applicant’s case was 
forwarded to the FPEB and they concurred with the IPEB’s 
findings, with an additional finding of Fibromyalgia syndrome, 
episodic, unfitting, and recommended a compensable disability 


rating of 40 percent, with permanent disability retirement. The 
applicant concurred with the findings of the FPEB. The 
applicant’s case was forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC) and they directed the applicant be 
permanently disability retired from active service, with a 
compensable disability rating of 40 percent. 

 

The applicant was disability retired under the provisions of 
AFI 36-3212, with a compensable disability rating of 40 percent. 
He was credited with 26 years and 28 days of active service for 
retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial stating, in part, that the 
preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice 
occurred during the disability process. 

 

At the time of the applicant's DES processing, the etiology of 
recurrent painful nodules was unknown. Medical documentation 
stated he also had chronic muscle pain, felt to be related to 
his dermatological condition but with no definitive diagnosis. 
Therefore, the FPEB chose to analogize his condition to 
Fibromyalgia, the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD) code, which best fit his symptoms, at 20 
percent due to the episodic nature of his symptoms. The DVA 
paperwork submitted by the applicant shows that shortly after 
his retirement in 2000, he was initially given a 10 percent 
rating by the VA for superficial Perivascular Lymphohistiocytic 
dermatitis utilizing the code for lupus erythematosus. This 
rating was revised in 2003, increasing the DVA rating to 
60 percent effective the date of his initial rating in 2000, 
using a coding for vasculitis available due to changes in the 
VASRD effective 3 August 2002, which allowed for this increase. 
As stated above, the DES must rate disabilities based on the 
condition at the time of evaluation. The FPEB rated the 
member's condition utilizing the available VASRD code, which 
best fit his symptoms at the time. With respect to the 
applicant's concern for his cervical spine and lumbar spine 
conditions, the narrative summary notes his other medical 
conditions included herniated disk at the C5-6 level, which was 
currently not problematic. Therefore, the condition did not 
appear to be unfitting for duty at the time of the medical 
board. Further, his lumbar pain is not separately mentioned and 
would have been included in the rating under Fibromyalgia 
Syndrome. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

The applicant disagrees with the findings noted in the advisory 
opinion from AFPC/DPPD. He states, “The FPEB choose to 
analogize the condition as Fibromyalgia. The VA determined that 
Fibromyalgia was not correct and did not recognize this finding, 
effective the date of retirement.” The DVA determined the 
condition was analogous to Superficial Perivascular 
Lymphohistiocytic dermatitis – VASRD code for lupus 
erythematosus – effective the date of retirement and asks that 
the correct analogous condition be applied to his retirement as 
determined by the DVA. 

 

The FPEB’s determination of fibromyalgia at 20 percent was not 
correct and lupus erythematosus is the more analogous condition, 
with the rating of 60 percent effective the date of retirement. 
The severity of the condition did not increase with time from 10 
percent (as initially rated by the VA) to 60 percent after 
retirement; the 60 percent rating truly reflects the severity of 
the malady at retirement. The 60 percent rating for Superficial 
Perivascular Lymphohistiocytic dermatitis is the snapshot that 
correctly reflects the condition and its severity at retirement. 

 

The Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.39 permits 
analogous ratings and the recognition of a higher rating to be 
assigned. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; extracts of the DoDI 1332.39; findings from the PEBs, 
and other supporting documents. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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, the applicant’s case has undergone an 
exhaustive review by the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and we did not find the evidence provided, 
sufficient to overcome their assessment of the case. The 
applicant points to the service-connection determination and the 
disability assessment and rating he received from the DVA to 
support his claim. However, the applicant is reminded, the 
Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES) only offers 


compensation for the medical condition that is the cause for 
career termination; and then only to the degree of impairment 
present at the time of final disposition or military separation. 
Conversely, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) operates 
under a separate set of laws which takes into account the fact 
that a person can acquire physical conditions during military 
service that, although not unfitting at the time of separation, 
may later progress in severity and alter the individual's 
lifestyle and future employability. Thus, the two systems 
represent a continuum of medical care and disability 
compensation that starts with entry on to active duty and 
extends for the life of the veteran. Therefore, we agree with 
the recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain 
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. 
In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no 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(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-03132 in Executive Session on 16 June 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 26 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair