Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01940
Original file (PD-2013-01940.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX       CASE: PD-2013-01940
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE     BOARD DATE: 20140603
SEPARATION DATE: 20050705


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SrA/E-4 (4N0/Medical Services) medically separated for asthma. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Air Force Specialty or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a P4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The mild persistent asthma condition was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The PEB adjudicated “asthma” as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Department of Defense guidelines and VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “I have allergy induced asthma and am unable to exert myself and lift objects. I can not work in a physically demanding career to include healthcare as it sometimes requires lifting and moving patients. I did not have any problems until my asthma began upon entering the military.” [sic]


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 rating for the unfitting asthma condition is addressed below; no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.


RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20050511
 VA - (1 Mo. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Asthma 6602 10% Asthma 6602 30% 20050803
MEB or PEB entries not in scope x 0
 Other x 1
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 30%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 51103 ( most proximate to date of separation [ DOS ] ).


ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The Board acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the significant impairment with which his service-connected condition continues to burden him; but, must emphasize that the military Disability Evaluation System has neither the role nor the authority to compensate members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions resulting in medical separation. That role and authority is granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws.

Asthma Condition. The CI was initially seen by an allergist on 13 September 2004 for evaluation of night-time shortness of breath and chest tightness for a “couple of years.” Evaluation led to a diagnosis of mild persistent asthma. A daily inhaled steroid (Flovent) was started on 27 September 2004. At an allergy/immunology follow-up evaluation on 23 March 2005 (4 months prior to separation) the CI denied coughing at night or shortness of breath with exercise. He reported using Flovent since September with good results. He had required a rescue inhaled bronchodilator (Albuterol) only once per month. He never required Albuterol at work. The examiner concluded that the CI was “doing well with daily Flovent use.” The plan was to continue using Flovent twice per day.

The narrative summary on 30 March 2005 (4 months prior to separation) reported that the CI had not required systemic steroids or emergency treatment. He denied nighttime cough or difficulty with exercise. The use of daily Flovent and occasional Albuterol was re-iterated. Pulmonary function testing showed an FEV1 of 81% of predicted and an FEV1/FVC of 94%. A dental medical history on 3 June 2005 (one month prior to separation) indicated that Flovent was a medication the CI was “presently taking.” At the VA Compensation and Pension exam performed a month after separation, the CI reported he was using Flovent and an inhaled bronchodilator. He stated he was “frequently awake at night gasping for air.” He denied exertion-induced shortness of breath. The examiner concluded that his asthma was well-controlled with current medications.

The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the asthma condition at 10%, coded 6602, while the VA assigned a 30% rating under the same code. The pulmonary function testing in evidence did not justify a compensable rating. Although a 10% rating is warranted under this code for intermittent use of inhaled bronchodilator therapy (a requirement met in this case), a 30% rating stipulates “daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy, or; inhalational anti-inflammatory medication.” Board members agreed that the requirement for and use of inhaled anti-inflammatory medication (Flovent) in this case clearly met the VASRD §4.97 threshold for a 30% rating. There was no evidence of frequent visits for care of exacerbations or of systemic steroid use; therefore, the next higher 60% rating was not justified. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 30% for the asthma 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 Department of Defense guidelines for rating asthma was operant in this case and the condition was adjudicated independently of that instruction by the Board. In the matter of the asthma condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 30%, coded 6602 IAW VASRD §4.97. There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration.


RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation:

UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING
Asthma 6602 30%
COMBINED 30%



The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20131027, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record









                 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
Physical Disability Board of Review


 SAF/MRB
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX :
         Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Title 10 U.S.C. § 1554a), PDBR Case Number PD-2013-01940.
         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 Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Accordingly, the Board recommended your separation be re-characterized to reflect disability retirement, rather than separation with severance pay.
         I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board. I concur with that finding, accept their recommendation and determined that your records should be corrected accordingly. The office responsible for making the correction will inform you when your records have been changed.
         As a result of the aforementioned correction, you are entitled by law to elect coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Upon receipt of this letter, you must contact the Air Force Personnel Center at (210) 565-2273 to make arrangements to obtain an SBP briefing prior to rendering an election. If a valid election is not received within 30 days from the date of this letter, you will not be enrolled in the SBP program unless at the time of your separation, you were married or had an eligible dependent child, in such a case, failure to render an election will result in automatic enrollment.

Sincerely,





XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attachment:
Record of Proceedings

cc:
SAF/MRBR
DFAS-IN

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01963

    Original file (PD-2013-01963.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 VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board next considered that at the time of separation, although the CI’s asthma was relatively well controlled,treatment notes in the STR, the MEB and C&P exams consistently documented use of the anti-inflammatory inhaler and oral bronchodilator medications, with...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00205

    Original file (PD 2014 00205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20071029 The narrative summary (NARSUM) performed on 13 June 2007 (4 months prior to separation), the CI reported “consistently feels SOB with exertion.” His physical examination (PE) was normal and the corresponding pulmonary function test (PFT)was 96% and 93% predicted for FEV1 and FVC respectively. Additionally, secondary to the inconsistent documentation, members also considered the probative value between the MEB and VA examination and concluded that the MEB...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01707

    Original file (PD-2013-01707.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2013-01707BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCEBOARD DATE: 20141107 The MEB physical exam noted a normal respiratory rate at rest and a normal lung examination.The MEB narrative summary (NARSUM)(5 months prior to separation) noted a diagnosis of “mild persistent asthma, with exercise induced component.” The MEB dated 5 August 2005 (performed 4 months prior to separation) recommended a return to duty. The IPEB (7...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01508

    Original file (PD-2014-01508.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Separation Date: 20081230 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The examiner documented that the CI was actively taking all prescribed medications.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01265

    Original file (PD-2013-01265.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20040730 The examiner noted the CI had difficulty breathing (especially with running) despite Albuterol inhaler use. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, and that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement effective the date of medical separation:

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02236

    Original file (PD-2013-02236.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In December 2004 theMEB found the asthma condition had stabilized sufficiently and the PEB adjudicated “exertion asthma” unfitting, rated at 10% disability and the CI was removed from the TDRL on 30 December 2004. The Board deliberated if the TDRL NARSUM current medications’listing oral Singulair was supported by the record and if it met the VASRD 6602 30% rating criteria for daily oral bronchodilator therapy.The Board discussed the evidence of record concerning Singulair use.Singulair was...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00859

    Original file (PD 2012 00859.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB forwarded the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) reactive disease as medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501, and no other conditions for PEB adjudication. The other requested conditions, “lumbrosacral” strain, chondromalacia patella right, hearing loss, and tinnitus are not within the Board’s purview. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01076

    Original file (PD-2012-01076.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB forwarded no other conditions for Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudication. The MEB physical exam noted clear lungs and the medications and PFTs are summarized above. Allergy/Immunology clinic follow‐up the month after the MEB continued the diagnosis and is summarized above.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02407

    Original file (PD-2013-02407.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20050608 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Accordingly, the Board recommended your separation be re-characterized to reflect disability retirement, rather than separation with severance pay.I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00234

    Original file (PD2013 00234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB also identified and forwarded one other condition (shrapnel wound to the right upper arm, which met retention standards) to the PEB.The PEBadjudicated “asthma…” rated at 30%and placed the CI on the Temporary Retired Disability List (TDRL) in order for the condition to be stabilized by treatment.The remaining condition was determined to be not unfitting.The CI made no appeals and was placed on the TDRL in November, 2004, where he continued to receive medical treatment. The Board’s...