RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00522
			COUNSEL: NONE
				HEARING DESIRED: NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The zero (0) percent disability rating he received for Deep 
Venous Thrombosis (DVT) be increased to 40 percent.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his medical board, he received a rating of 
0 percent for DVT.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
subsequently increased the rating for DVT to 40 percent.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DVA Rating Decision.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 June 1999, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

According to an AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended 
Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 12 October 
2012, the IPEB found the applicant unfit based on the diagnoses 
of right knee osteoarthritis and chondromalacia of the patella, 
low back pain from a herniated disc, left shoulder and wrist 
pain, and DVT.  The applicant was diagnosed with DVT in April 
2012 and had a thrombosis of the right popliteal vein for which 
he was being treated with Coumadin.  Accordingly, the IPEB 
recommended he be permanently retired with a combined disability 
rating of 40 percent in accordance with Department of Defense 
(DoD) guidance for applying the Veterans Administration Schedule 
for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines.  The DVT was rated 
at 0 percent.

According to a DVA Disability Evaluation System (DES) Proposed 
Rating memorandum dated 25 October 2012, the DVA determined the 
applicant’s potential entitlement to DVA disability compensation 
for DVT was 0 percent.  The DVA assigned a non-compensable 
evaluation for DVT because there were no compensable symptoms.  
A higher evaluation of 10 percent was not warranted unless there 
was intermittent edema of extremity or aching and fatigue in the 
leg after prolonged standing or walking, with symptoms relieved 
by elevation of extremity or compression hosiery.

According to an AF Form 1180, Action on Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, dated 
13 November 2012, the applicant disagreed with the findings of 
the IPEB and requested a Formal PEB (FPEB).

In a letter dated 8 January 2013, the applicant stated that he 
received an explanation of the IPEB findings from his assigned 
Air Force attorney and agreed with the findings of the IPEB and 
waived his right to a FPEB hearing.

According to AFPC/DPFD’s memorandum dated 8 August 2013, the 
Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be permanently 
retired under the provisions of Title 10 United States Code 
(USC) § 1201.

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, he was honorably discharged from 
the Air Force and retired effective 29 October 2013.  His 
narrative reason for discharge is “Disability, Permanent, 
Enhanced.”  He served 14 years, 4 months and 23 days of active 
duty.

According to the DVA Rating Decision dated 4 December 2014, the 
evaluation of DVT was increased to 10 percent effective 
29 October 2013.

According to the DVA Rating Decision dated 16 January 2014, the 
evaluation of DVT, which was 10 percent disabling, was increased 
to 40 percent effective 29 October 2013.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial.  The preponderance of evidence 
reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process or at the time of separation.  Per the new 
Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) the unfit finding 
was sent to the DVA for a rating of the applicant's unfitting 
conditions.  On 24 October 2012 the DVA assigned the DVT, right 
popliteal vein a proposed rating of 0 percent noting that a 
higher evaluation was not warranted unless there was 
intermittent edema of extremity or aching and fatigue in leg 
after prolonged  standing or walking, with symptoms relieved by 
elevation of extremity or compression hosiery.  The other 
unfitting medical conditions were rated and assigned a combined 
disability rating of 40 percent.  The IPEB recommended permanent 
retirement at 40 percent.

As background, the DoD and the DVA operate under separate laws.  
Under Title 10, USC, PEBs must determine if a member's condition 
renders him or her unfit for continued military service relating 
to his or her 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 his or her military duties.  If the 
board renders a finding of unfit, the law provides appropriate 
compensation due to the premature termination of his or her 
career.  Further, it must be noted that USAF disability boards 
must rate disabilities based on the member's condition at the 
time of evaluation; in essence a snapshot of the member’s 
condition at that time.  It is the charge of the DVA to pick up 
where the Air Force must, by law, leave off.  Under Title 38, 
USC, the DVA may rate any service-connected condition based upon 
future employability or reevaluated based on changes in the 
severity of a condition.  This often results in different 
ratings by the two agencies.

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  The IDES process is a joint system 
created by Congress in which DoD and DVA work together.  The 
IPEB identifies unfitting conditions and forwards the conditions 
to the DVA for ratings.  The IPEB is mandated to rely on the DVA 
to provide the ratings for the unfitting conditions.  At the 
time of the IPEB findings, the DVA rated the applicant’s DVT at 
0 percent.

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

During his medical board he and his attorney notified the IPEB 
that he had been subscribed compression hosiery in addition to 
his blood thinning therapy in order to relieve the symptoms of 
his DVT.  The necessity of compression hosiery dictates a 
10 percent disability rating, but other complications and 
symptoms for a DVT can rate up to 100 percent.

The IPEB stated that they did not have the authority to declare 
a rating.  However, since the DVT condition was a Category I 
finding, it would merit compensation.  The IPEB needed a formal 
disability rating from the DVA.

His Air Force attorney told him that he would need to receive a 
formal rating from the DVA, which could be a lengthy process.  
His attorney advised him that he had two options.  The first 
option was to return to the Air Force until his treatment had 
been concluded and/or he received a DVA rating.  He was urged to 
take the second option, which was to retire immediately and 
submit his DVA rating for his DVT at a later date.  His attorney 
told him he had three years to submit a claim.

The DVA recently gave him a 40 percent disability rating for his 
DVT.  Therefore, he submitted the documentation to the Board 
within the three years as was the recommended course of action 
from his Air Force attorney.

He finds it deplorable that his request has not already been 
granted.  It appears DPFD and JA ignored the fact that the IPEB 
already determined his condition was deemed unfitting by the 
IPEB, his primary care physician, and the DVA.  The conditions 
existed during his IPEB; however, he had hoped that blood 
thinning therapy and the utilization of compression stockings 
would have relieved the symptoms.  Unfortunately, they have not 
and he will likely suffer from these conditions for the rest of 
his life.

The applicant’s complete response 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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case to include his response to the Air Force advisory 
evaluations; however, the applicant’s case has undergone an 
exhaustive review by DPFD and we do not find the evidence 
presented sufficient to overcome its assessment of the case.  
While the applicant asserts that the DVA recently gave him a 40 
percent disability rating for his DVT, as noted by the OPR, the 
Military Disability Evaluation System only offers compensation 
for the medical conditions that are 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 may later progress in severity and alter the 
individual's lifestyle and future employability.  Therefore, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden 
of proof that he has been the victim of an error or 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.



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 Sessions on 9 December 2014, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2014-00522:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 January 2014, w/atch.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 10 April 2014.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 5 May 2014.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 2014.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.