RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02365 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His compensable disability rating of 10 percent for Crohn’s 
Disease be increased to 30 percent to qualify for a medical 
retirement. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) disability rating is unjust 
for multiple reasons. All of his medical records were not 
included in his MEB and only the information from his base 
physician was reviewed. The Crohn’s disease specialist’s notes 
should have been added. He requested the information be included 
in the MEB process, but was informed the information would not be 
included. He was hospitalized twice during the MEB process and 
that information was not included for review. 

 

His medical records from St Mary’s hospital indicate Crohn’s 
disease infected his organs. Although infections are not normal 
symptoms of Crohn’s, it proves the unique severity of the 
disease. He was removed from Cimzia injections, a medication 
used for moderate to severe Crohn’s disease; however, he has not 
entered remission. 

 

He feels his disability rating is low based on the severity of 
Crohn’s disease and how the autoimmune process affected him. He 
received high doses of prednisone which has multiple negative 
long term effects. He would like a specialist to review his 
records to reevaluate his disability rating. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 1 Aug 00, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
According to DPSD’s letter, dated 3 July 2012, on 11 Jan 11, the 
applicant’s case was reviewed by an Informal Physical Evaluation 
Board (IPEB) for Crohn’s disease. The IPEB recommended his 
discharge with severance pay and a 10 percent disability rating 


under other than Chapter 61, that the conditions existed prior to 
service. 

 

On 7 Feb 11, the applicant non-concurred with the IPEB findings 
and requested a formal hearing with counsel. On 9 Mar 11, the 
Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the applicant’s 
case and recommended he be discharged with severance pay and a 
10 percent disability rating. 

 

On 19 Jan 12, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) concurred with the findings and recommendations of the 
IPEB and FPEB and directed the applicant be discharged with 
severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. 

 

On 27 Apr 12, the applicant was honorably discharged for 
disability, severance pay, non combat. He served 11 years, 
8 months and 27 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. 

 

DPSD states the USAF disability boards must rate disabilities 
based on the member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in 
essence, a snapshot of their condition at that time. While the 
member’s contention that his Crohn’s disease was well-controlled 
by his medication, he felt that his overall condition was not 
well described by the rating schedule. He wanted his fatigue, 
malnutrition, hemorrhoids, depression and immunosuppression 
considered when his disability was rated. SAFPC appreciated the 
combined effects of the conditions, but could not rate them 
separately because there was no medical documentation that the 
conditions were separately unfitting. 

 

A review of the applicant’s Veterans Administration Schedule for 
Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 7323 revealed a rating of 10 
percent disability when the symptoms are “moderate with 
infrequent exacerbations.” This rating best described his 
symptoms under his current treatment plan. On 1 Dec 11, during 
the applicant’s visit to his primary care provider, there was no 
other mention of symptoms of Crohn’s Disease. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In a three-page response, the applicant reiterates much of his 
earlier contentions. He also notes the VASRD code 7323 indicates 
that to receive a 30 percent disability rating an individual 
would need to have moderately severe disease with frequent 


exacerbations while a 10 percent rating consists of a moderate 
disease with infrequent exacerbations. 

 

He notes the entire four months prior to his last medical 
appointment was spent visiting emergency rooms, multiple doctors 
or specialist, the intensive care unit, on quarters or hospital 
admission due to the exacerbations of Crohn’s disease. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states the Department Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) rated 
his Crohn’s disease at 30 percent. The DVA did not rate his 
autoimmune disorder which is a part of Crohn’s. He submits a 
copy of this DVA Rating decision for review. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant contends that his disability rating is unjust and that 
all the medical records were not included in the MEB process. 
However, after a careful review of the evidence of record, we do 
not find that the evidence supports his contentions. Therefore, 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility 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. While the applicant argues that all of his 
medical documentation was not considered by the MEB, he has not 
provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim. The 
evidence reflects the MEB considered his fatigue, malnutrition, 
hemorrhoids, depression and immunosuppression when rating his 
disabilities; stating they could not be rated separately as there 
was no medical documentation that these diseases were separately 
unfitting. Therefore, only his Crohn’s disease was rated 
unfitting (10 percent) and we agree that this rating best 
describes the applicant’s condition at the time of his 
separation. In further support of his request, the applicant 
provides a copy of his DVA rating decision and notes the DVA 


rated his disease at 30 percent using the same guidelines and 
information as the Air Force. The applicant must realize that 
while the Air Force is required to rate disabilities in 
accordance with the DVA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the DVA 
operates under a totally separate system with a different 
statutory basis. In this respect, the DVA rates for any and all 
service-connected conditions, to the degree they interfere with 
future employability, without consideration of fitness. Whereas, 
the Air Force, upon a finding of unfitness, rates a member's 
disability based on the degree of severity at the time of 
separation. In view of the above, we find that the applicant's 
case was properly evaluated and that he received full and fair 
consideration under the applicable directives. Absent persuasive 
evidence that the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, 
appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate 
standards were not applied, we find no basis upon which to 
favorably consider 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 this application in 
Executive Session on 20 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-02365: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 3 Jul 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair