RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01763
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her 20 percent disability rating for Complex Regional Pain 
Syndrome (CRPS) be changed to a minimum of 30 percent.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated her at 40 percent 
disabled.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides documentation 
from the DVA.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant with 13 years, 11 months and 19 days of active 
service was honorably discharged on 31 October 2011 in the grade 
of technical sergeant.

On 29 September 2009, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened 
and referred the applicant's case to an Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of complex regional 
pain syndrome.  The IPEB found her unfit for further military 
service and recommended discharge with severance pay with a 
disability rating of 20 percent for a diagnosis of complex 
regional pain syndrome.  The applicant did not agree with the 
findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a 
formal hearing.

The Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case 
and recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability 
rating of 10 percent for complex regional pain syndrome.





On 26 July 2010, the applicant requested her case be reviewed by 
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC).

On 18 August 2011, SAFPC directed that the applicant be 
discharged and receive severance pay with a disability rating of 
20 percent under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, 
Section 1203.  SAFPC noted the applicant’s medical record 
reflected insufficient evidence to find her conditions were 
separately unfitting or resulted in her inability to perform her 
duties or deploy.  The applicant contended she should be rated 
at a 40 percent disability with a code of 8799-8720.  The board 
acknowledged the applicant’s subjective symptoms of pain and 
physical exam sensory disturbances, but failed to find 
sufficient medical record evidence or objective findings of 
excruciating pain, muscle atrophy and loss of reflexes to meet 
the higher rating threshold.  According to VASRD code 8720 her 
condition most appropriately corresponded to the moderate 
incomplete paralysis rating with a disability rating of 
20 percent.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  DPFD states as background, the 
Department of Defense and the DVA disability evaluation systems 
operate under separate laws.  Under Title 10, U.S.C., Physical 
Evaluation Boards must determine if a member’s condition renders 
them unfit for continued military service relating to their 
office, grade, rank or rating.  The fact that a person may have 
a medical condition does not mean that the condition is 
unfitting for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the 
condition must be such that it alone precludes the member from 
fulfilling their military duties.  If the board renders a 
finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate compensation due 
to the premature termination of their career.  Further, it must 
be noted the USAF disability boards must rate disabilities based 
on the member’s condition at the time of evaluation; in essence 
of snapshot of their condition at that time.  It is the charge 
of the DVA to pick up where the AF must, by law, leave off.  
Under Title 38, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition 
based upon future employability or reevaluate based on changes 
in the severity of a condition.  This often results in different 
ratings by the two agencies.  The preponderance of evidence 
reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process.

The DPFD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant states the Disability Evaluation System 
(DES), operating under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), 
can only, 

by law, offer compensation for an illness, disease, or injury 
that is the cause for career termination; and then only to the 
degree of impairment present at the time of final military 
disposition, and not based upon subsequent post-service changes, 
unless in TDRL status.  Although the evidence reflects the 
applicant experienced other medical conditions that were found 
connected with her military service, e.g., migraine headaches, 
and a separate rating for pain disorder, the evidence was 
insufficient to reflect these as separate bases for career 
termination; as would be reflected in profile restrictions or 
duty limiting condition reports specifically directed at these 
additional conditions.

Addressing the applicant’s request for a 40 percent disability 
rating for CRPS, attention is directed to an extract from 
section 4.124 of 38 CFR outlining the policy for rating 
neuralgia [pain] of cranial or peripheral nerve origin, which 
reads:  “Neuralgia, cranial or peripheral characterized usually 
by a dull and intermittent pain, of typical distribution so as 
to identify the nerve, is to be rated on the same scale, with a 
maximum equal to moderate incomplete paralysis.” Thus, in this 
instance, assignment of a 20% disability rating is consistent 
with the policy outlined.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at 
Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and states the military 
is behind the curve in understanding her condition and rating it 
under the wrong category.  Her condition should have been rated 
at 40 percent.  During her FPEB her lawyer provided 
documentation stating her pain clinic provider was wrong in 
delaying her care to involve mental health for depression that 
is a result of having her condition not a separate diagnosis.  
She was considered at 40 percent by the Air Force but it was 
decided to award a 20 percent.  Clearly, it was seen initially 
that she should have been rated 40 percent.  It appears that 
since her injury did not occur in a war zone but instead in a 
teaching position, she was denied the assignment to a patient 
squadron.  The military treats this condition extremely opposite 
of the civilian sector. 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
submission, we are not persuaded the applicant’s disability 
rating should be increased.  Her contentions are duly noted; 
however, we do not find these assertions sufficient to override 
the rationale provided by the office of primary responsibility 
and the BCMR Medical Consultant.  We therefore agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of the office of primary 
responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their 
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 basis to 
recommend favorable consideration of this request.

________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-01763 in Executive Session on 7 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:














The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
number BC-2013-01763 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 April 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 21 June 2013.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
               dated 17 July 2013.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 23 July 2013.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 July 2013, w/atchs.





4


5