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.