Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01310
Original file (PD2012 01310.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX         CASE: PD1201310
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army  BOARD DATE: 20140327
SEPARATION DATE: 20030820


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4 (14S10/Avenger Crewmember) medically separated for an allergic rhinitis condition. The CI incurred a long history of severe refractory allergies despite treatment with multiple courses of topical and systemic allergy medications, steroids and immunotherapy. His condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a permanent P3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Severe allergies, upper airway resistant syndrome and refractory allergic rhinitis were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as not meeting medical standards IAW AR 40-501. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “allergic rhinitis, without polyps or obstruction” as unfitting, rated 0%, with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “I am requesting the board review of the rating I was awarded when I separated from the USA and consider me for military disability retirement for the following reasons: I feel the Medical Evaluation Board should have also evaluated the degree of my disability from my bilateral knee strain with arthritis and sleep apnea. From the time the Medical Evaluation Board conducted their exam on 4/8/2003 to the time they rendered their decision on 6/16/2003 there were additional medical conditions identified on a physical exam on 5/22/203 that were no [sic] considered. I am submitting copies of all the examinations and reports for your review.”


SCOPE OF REVIEW: The Board’s scope of review is defined in DoDI 6040.44, Enclosure 3, paragraph 5.e.(2). It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified, but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB when specifically requested by the CI. The ratings for the unfitting allergic rhinitis (severe allergies, upper airway resistant syndrome and refractory allergic) condition are addressed below. The knee condition, as per the contention, was not identified by the MEB or PEB; and, thus are not within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. This and any other condition or contention not requested in this application, remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.












RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20030617
 VA* (11.7 Mo. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Allergic Rhinitis, with Polyps or Obstruction
(Includes: Severe Allergies, Upper Airway Resistant Syndrome and Refractory Allergic Rhinitis)		 6522 0% Chronic Rhinitis Upper Airway Resistant Syndrome 6599-6522 0% 20040804
No Additional MEB/PEB Entries
 Other x 4 20040804
Combined: 0%
 Combined: 20%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 20040929 (most proximate to date of separation ( DOS ) )


ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The Board acknowledges the CI’s contention that suggests ratings should have been conferred for other conditions documented at the time of separation. The Board wishes to clarify that it is subject to the same laws for service disability entitlements as those under which the Disability Evaluation System (DES) operates. While the DES considers all of the member's medical conditions, compensation can only be offered for those medical conditions that cut short a member’s career and then only to the degree of severity present at the time of final disposition. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, United States Code), is empowered to compensate all service-connected conditions and to periodically reevaluate said conditions for the purpose of adjusting the Veteran’s disability rating should the degree of impairment vary over time.

The PEB bundled the three conditions from the MEB and rated as a single entity. The Board agreed that the allergic rhinitis condition and the severe allergy conditions are part and parcel and will be discussed together. The Board agreed that the upper airway resistant syndrome (UARS), a sleep breathing disorder closely related to obstructive sleep apnea, was an unrelated condition and will be discussed separately. The Board’s initial charge in this case is directed at determining if the PEB’s approach of combining conditions under a single rating was justified in lieu of separate ratings. The Board must apply separate codes and ratings in its recommendations if compensable ratings for each condition are achieved IAW applicable VASRD sections. If the Board judges that separate ratings are warranted in such cases, it must satisfy the reasonable requirement that each ‘unbundled’ condition was unfitting in and of itself or at least an indispensable element of a combined effect rating.

Allergic Rhinitis, without Polyps or Obstruction. The CI had a long history of allergies to environmental antigens which were difficult to control with varying combinations of antihistamine, nasal and oral steroids medications. Symptoms included watery eyes, nasal congestion, dry cough and sneezing and infrequent episodes of facial swelling. Included in treatments was surgical removal of tissue in the nose to improve breathing. Apparent good relief was ultimately obtained with “immunotherapy” (desensitizing allergy shots) given daily or weekly by the allergy clinic. The CI was doing well on this regimen and was deployed in 2003. In theater the CI was unable to receive the allergy shots and developed increasing episodes of severe allergic reactions, manifest by neck and facial swelling with tongue itching requiring emergent treatment with anti-anaphylactic medication (Epinephrine and Benadryl). He was returned from theater and his condition stabilized with resumption of immunotherapy without recorded subsequent reactions. At the MEB narrative summary (NARSUM) exam on 28 April 2003, approximately 4 months before separation, the CI was breathing comfortably without swelling and in no apparent distress. Exam of the oral pharynx revealed evidence of chronic reaction without masses. Nasal mucosa had diffuse edema and erythema, but was patent (without polyp presence or obstruction). The CI was continuing the immunosuppressive treatments at this time. The recorded medication at that time was Allegra, Flonase and Singular.
 At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) r espiratory exam on 8 Aug ust 2004, approximately 12 months after separation, the CI reported that he had no dyspnea on rest or exertion. He noted being on no medical treatment and offered that he “ didn’t have time to stay home and see a doctor as he had to work . ” On physical examination, minimal nasal obstruction of 10% to 20 % was present especially on the left . Sinusitis and evidence of infection were not present . Pulmonary exam was unremarkable. Pulmonary function tests ( PFT s ) obtained at this time were normal.
The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. Both the PEB and VA rated the allergy condition, allergic rhinitis, code 6522, 0%, IAW §4.97 and §4.31. A higher rating of 10% under this code requires a greater than 50% reduction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one. The highest rating of 30% requires the presence of nasal polyps. None of these is supported by the record in evidence. The Board agreed that, at the time of separation the allergy condition was stabilized on treatment with normal PFT and found no other appropriate codes for consideration. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the allergic rhinitis, without polyps or obstruction condition.

Upper Airway Resistance Syndrome (UARS). According to the NARSUM, the CI was diagnosed with mild sleep apnea in July 2002, subsequently identified as UARS. The CI apparently underwent treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) although the details are not in the record. Subsequently, the CI underwent uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, an oral procedure reserved for symptoms of sleep apnea. As noted above, the CI was subsequently deemed fit for deployment. The Board was unable to determine if the CI required CPAP at this time or whether CPAP was deployed with the CI to theater. As noted above the CI had significant allergic reactions in theater, not related to any sleep condition, and was returned CONUS. The diagnosis of UARS is presented in the NARSUM notes without discussion of the condition. At the C&P evaluation, 4 years after separation, the CI noted some daily hyper-somnolence, but was receiving no medical care. Pulmonary exam was normal. Sleep studies obtained on 22 May 2005 revealed mild sleep apnea with improvement with addition of small amounts of CPAP.

The Board undertook to determine the fitting status of the sleep condition. This condition was not profiled; was not implicated in the commander’s statement. It was mentioned only by diagnosis in the service treatment record and DES. There is no evidence of any emergency room or unscheduled clinic visits or hospitalizations for the sleep condition. It was reviewed by the action officer and considered by the Board. There was no indication from the record that this condition significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance including deployment. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board unanimously concluded that the sleep condition, when unbundled, was not unfitting, and thus, no additional disability rating can be recommended.


BOARD FINDINGS: IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication. The Board did not surmise from the record or PEB ruling in this case that any prerogatives outside the VASRD were exercised. In the matter of the allergic rhinitis, without polyps or obstruction condition, and IAW VASRD §4.97, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication.
There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration.


RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20120602, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record








                                   
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
Physical Disability Board of Review


 SAMR-RB                                                                         


MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency
(AHRC-DO), 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22202-3557


 SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX , AR20140018973 (PD201201310)

I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) recommendation and record of proceedings pertaining to the subject individual. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554a, I accept the Board’s recommendation and hereby deny the individual’s application.
This decision is final. The individual concerned, counsel (if any), and any Members of Congress who have shown interest in this application have been notified of this decision by mail.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:




Encl                                                  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                                      Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
                                                      (Review Boards)
                                                     
CF:
( ) DoD PDBR
( ) DVA

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00164

    Original file (PD2009-00164.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    A VA evaluation five months after separation is consistent with the Air Force exam and the VA also used the diagnosis 6847 OSA. A VA evaluation five months after separation was consistent with the AF evaluation. If they had determined all the conditions were unfitting, they would have rated all of them.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00213

    Original file (PD2009-00213.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Using an evaluation completed nine months after the time of separation from the Air Force, the Veterans Administration (VA) rated her disability as 6354 Chronic fatigue syndrome with upper airway resistance, angioedema, and vocal cord dysfunction at 20%. She did have one sleep study done in June 2001 that had no evidence of UARS but the literature states that patients with UARS usually have more subtle changes in breathing and do not usually have apnea. I have carefully reviewed the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00254

    Original file (PD2009-00254.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Commander’s statement and the Behavioral Health screening exam do, however, document issues with somnolence and alertness which could be an unfitting impairment. This is therefore the Board’s recommendation in regards to this condition. Other Conditions .

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01920

    Original file (PD-2013-01920.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. There is no evidence in this case that OSA was associated with any functional impairment that was not corrected by CPAP. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00122

    Original file (PD2011-00122.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    CI CONTENTION : “VA rated my case as followed: Sleep Apnea 50%; Right knee patellofemoral syndrome 10%.” He additionally lists all of his VA conditions and ratings as per the rating chart below. Physical examination findings were also normal. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00671

    Original file (PD2011-00671.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board noted that the CI was not using CPAP at the time of the separation. After careful consideration of your application and treatment records, the Physical Disability Board of Review determined that the rating assigned at the time of final disposition of your disability evaluation system processing was not appropriate under the guidelines of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The diagnosis in his finding of unfitness for Obstructive Sleep Apnea, VASRD code...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01352

    Original file (PD-2013-01352.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The right knee chondromalacia condition was listed on the permanent profile dated 3 March 2004, along with the right ankle condition. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication.As discussed above, PEB reliance on the USAPDA pain policy for rating chronic right ankle pain was operant...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00144

    Original file (PD2009-00144.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB determined he was unfit for continued military service and he was then separated with a 10% disability for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia symptoms using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Coast Guard and Department of Defense regulations. CI CONTENTION : The rating should be changed because the percent given me did not match my condition at the time and my condition now. These symptoms included weekly...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00890

    Original file (PD 2012 00890.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The VA’s analogous asthma rating of 30% was based on “daily use of Singulair and Albuterol” and a diagnosis of asthma a year prior to separation. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Vocal Cord Dysfunction 6599-6520 0% COMBINED 0% The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20120619, w/atchs Exhibit B. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02228

    Original file (PD-2014-02228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the PEB, but determined to be not unfitting. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The CI had reported left knee gives way and pain.