RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00971 

COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement with 
a 40 percent disability rating. 

 

2. He receive back retirement pay from his date of separation to 
the present less any severance pay received. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

On 17 April 1997, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) 
found him unfit for duty with a compensable rating of 20 percent 
for his condition of Seronegative Spondlyoartropathy, Non-erosive 
with Psoriatic Arthritis, on Steroids and Immunosuppressive Drug 
under VASARD Code 5009-5002. Subsequent to his separation the 
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) rated his condition of the 
same Psoriatic Arthritis at 40 percent with service connection 
with an effective date of 9 June 1997 (his date of separation). 
The FPEB rating of 20 percent was grounded in, “One or two 
exacerbations a year in a well-established diagnosis.” The DVA 
rating of 40 percent was grounded in, “Symptom combinations 
productive of definite impairment of health objectively supported 
by examination findings; or, incapacitating exacerbations 
occurring three or more times a year. What distinguishes the 
40 percent from 20 percent involves two different standards: 1) 
three or more exacerbations must occur per year and those 
exacerbations must be incapacitating; or, 2) definite health 
impairment supported by objective findings. If either standard 
is met, the proper disability rating is 40 percent, not 
20 percent. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a statement from 
his counsel; the FPEB findings and recommendations; his 
concurrence with the FPEB findings and recommendations; the 
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) findings and 
recommendations; Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Report; four 
Medical Board Evaluations; memorandum to the FPEB; his DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; DVA 
findings and rating decision; VASARD excerpt; and two letters of 
support. 

 

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


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 
4 December 1991 and was honorably discharged on 9 June 1997. The 
narrative reason for discharge is annotated as disability, 
severance pay. The discharge was authorized under Air Force 
Instruction 36-3212, with a 20 percent disability rating for 
Seronegative Spondyloarthropathy, Non-erosive with Psoriatic 
Arthritis, on Steroids and Immunosuppressive Drug. He served 
five years, six months, and six days on active duty. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force and the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibits C and 
D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states that on 18 March 1997, 
the IPEB recommended the applicant be discharged with severance 
pay with a disability rating of 20 percent for his condition of 
Seronegative Spondyloarthropathy, Non-erosive with Psoriatic 
Arthritis, on Steroids and Immunosuppressive Drug. On 26 March 
1997, the applicant non-concurred with the IPEB findings and 
requested a formal hearing with counsel. On 17 April 1997, the 
FPEB reviewed the case and concurred with the IPEB findings and 
recommendations. 

 

DPSD states the Department of Defense (DoD) and DVA disability 
evaluation systems operate under separate laws. Moreover, the 
DVA rates service connected disabilities in an on-going fashion. 
By contrast, the service Physical Evaluation Boards rate only the 
unfitting condition as it exists at the time of the board. As 
such the fact the DVA subsequently rated the applicant’s 
condition differently than the Air Force is not remarkable, 
uncommon, nor in any way provides evidence that the Air Force 
rating was incorrect or unjust. In fact, the preponderance of 
evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process or with the rating applied at the time of the 
board’s evaluations. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical 
Consultant states that in order to evaluate the applicant’s 
contention that a 40 percent disability rating should have been 
assigned at the time of separation, it is imperative to consider 
both a time factor and functional capability at the time of 


separation. Throughout his period of service, medical records 
document numerous outpatient visits to civilian and military 
primary care and specialty physicians for treatment of his 
condition. Indeed, the record reflects periods of increased 
symptoms relating to the Psoriatic Arthritis from January 1995 
through August 1996. During this period, records document 
alternating periods of symptom flare-ups and acute exacerbations 
which required regular visits to both civilian and military 
rheumatologists. A review of progress notes and profile 
documentation revealed the applicant experienced some duty 
limitations and physical restrictions resulting from the effects 
of the Psoriatic Arthritis, most significantly during the period 
prior to August 1996. The quest to identify the most efficacious 
medical therapy was evident throughout this period in an effort 
to control symptomatic flare-ups and manage pain. By April 1997, 
a FPEB was convened and the president’s summary remarks regarding 
the applicant’s functional status, at or around the time of 
separation, indicated testimony and medical evidence confirmed 
the findings and recommendations of the IPEB. The FPEB indicated 
that since moving the applicant to a competitive/authorized 
TRICARE (sedentary) job in August 1996, he only missed one day of 
work and performed his duties in an excellent fashion as evidence 
by his February 1997 Officer Evaluation Report. At that time, 
the applicant reported non-incapacitating exacerbations 
approximately once per month requiring only supplemental over-
the-counter medication (Tylenol) for resolution. As a result, 
the FPEB found the applicant was unfit for duty based on 
testimony, and that his functional impairment was best described 
as mild, and that he is fully compensated at the minimum rating 
of 20 percent under the VASRD code 5009-5002. 

 

The BCMR Consultant indicates that at the time of the applicant’s 
separation from active duty, his symptoms and functional capacity 
had significantly improved since his diagnosis in 1995 due to job 
reassignment and his medication regime. In addition, he had been 
completely taken off of any immunosuppressive therapy. It is the 
BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that the applicant’s request to 
change his disability rating to 40 percent at the time of his 
separation is not warranted. 

 

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE AND BCMR MEDCIAL EVALUATIONS: 

 

Applicant’s counsel responds that the medical advisor failed 
totally to address the question of the applicant’s health 
impairment supported by the objective findings. This is also a 
standard which can yield 40 percent disability under VASRD 5002. 
They have demonstrated the applicant suffered from ongoing 
exacerbations up to the date of his separation, as well as 
definite health impairment. The applicant appreciates the 


opportunity to respond to the advisory opinions and hopes the 
Board will find to reverse the decision of the FPEB and recommend 
he be disability retired. 

 

The counsel’s complete rebuttal, with attachment is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 and do not find that it supports a determination that 
his disability was improperly rated at the time of his discharge 
with severance pay. We note the contentions of the applicant and 
his counsel that he should have received a medical retirement 
with a 40 percent disability rating; however, as indicated by the 
BCMR Medical Consultant, the medical record support that the 
applicant was appropriately rated at the time of his discharge. 
By the applicant’s admission, on or about the time of his 
separation from service, his exacerbations were not 
incapacitating and he responded adequately to over-the-counter 
drugs. This is further evidenced by the applicant’s own 
concurrence with the FPEB’s findings. In view of the above and 
absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to 
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or 
appropriate standards were not applied, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 issues 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-2011-00971 in Executive Sessions on 4 January 2012 and 
17 January 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Vice Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00971: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 10 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dtd 22 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 30 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 3 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dtd 29 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Counsel, dtd 2 Jan 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair