Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02064
Original file (PD-2013-02064.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    CASE: PD-2013-02064
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army  BOARD DATE: 20150203
SEPARATION DATE: 20061204


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E-5 (Petroleum Supply Specialist) medically separated for asthma. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of her Military Occupational Specialty or satisfy physical fitness standards. She was issued a permanent P3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The condition characterized as “asthma, moderate persistent” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. No other condition was submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “asthma with a history of shortness of breath” as unfitting, rated 0%. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: The CI elaborated no specific contention in her application.


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 when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the PEB, but determined to be not unfitting. Any conditions outside the Board’s defined scope of review and any contention not requested in this application may remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records. Furthermore, the Board’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections, where appropriate. 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. The Board has neither the role nor the authority to compensate for post-separation progression or complications of service-connected conditions. That role and authority is granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws. The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of the disability at the time of separation.


 RATING COMPARISON :

IPEB – Dated 20060929
 VA* - (~6 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Asthma 6602 0% Asthma 6602 60% 20070604
Other x 0 (Not In Scope)
 Other x 8 (Not In Scope)
RATING: 0%
 RATING: 60%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 70621 (most proximate to date of separation ( DOS ) ) .


ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Asthma Condition. The treatment record initially reflected that the CI developed shortness of breath (SOB) and chest tightness while running in early 2000. The CI had no past history of asthma or allergic reactions. At the time of her first Internal Medicine examination, her symptoms had resolved and her lungs were objectively clear. A preceding methacholine challenge test (asthma definitive test) was consistent with asthma. Lung X-rays were normal. Initially, the CI was prescribed Albuterol (bronchodilator) rescue inhaler for symptomatic SOB and Flovent (inhalational steroid; fluticasone) in December 2001. A month later, Singulair (oral indirect-acting bronchodilator) was added to her medication regimen. A clinical encounter dated 1 August 2005 indicated that her asthma symptoms were increasing on medications of Advair (a daily inhalational steroid/long-acting bronchodilator combination) and Albuteral. A pulmonary function test (PFT) performed on 4 May 2006 (7 months prior to separation) noted a mild restrictive lung pattern. She was permanently profiled in June 2006 and referred for an MEB with the diagnosis of asthma. Her physical restrictions addressed only running for she was allowed to perform sit-ups, push-ups, and unlimited walking, biking, and swimming.

At the MEB narrative summary of 7 July 2006 (5 months prior to separation), the CI’s present condition was described as an inability to perform outdoor activity, heavy strenuous exercise, or wear nuclear, biological, chemical protective equipment due to asthma exacerbations. Her physical examination (PE) was normal. The examiner noted the diagnosis as moderate persistent asthma and her current medications remained daily use of Advair and Albuterol.

At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination of 4 June 2007 (6 months after separation), the CI’s medication remained unchanged. She endorsed asthma attacks occurring “every couple of months” and improved with inhaled medication. The VA PE remained normal. The PFT results as referenced above, with §4.97-ratable treatment criteria, are summarized in the chart below.
DOS 20061204


Pulmonary Function Pulm /MEB ~ 7 Mo. p re-Sep (20060504) C&P ~ 6 Mo. p ost-Sep (20070604)
FEV1 (% Predicted) 70 % 55 %
FEV1/FVC 90 % 116 %
Med ication s Advair; Albuterol Advair; Albuterol
§4.97 Rating 3 0% 30%-60%

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendations based on the above evidence. The unequivocal VASRD code for rating asthma is 6602. VASRD §4.97 defines both PFT-derived criteria and clinical treatment criteria for rating under 6602. The non-PFT derived criteria are: “intermittent inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy” for 10%; “daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy, or; inhalational anti-inflammatory medication” for 30%; and, “intermittent (at least three per year) courses of systemic (oral or parenteral) corticosteroids” for 60%. Having clear evidence of using inhaled anti-inflammatory medication on both prior to and after examinations easily met the 30% impairment level. In considering PFT-derived criteria, Board members acknowledged that the VA C&P exam also met the 60% impairment level with an FEV-1 of 55%. This single (55%) entry remained the primary point of discussion in this case.

In considering probative value between the two charted exams, members agreed that each exam was “near equivalent” in time reference to separation as well as exam accuracy and detail. Members therefore, carefully reviewed the entire file for corroborating evidence prior to separation. All prior PFT’s contained in the case file were older than 12 months from the date of separation and all but one maintained FEV-1 parameters indicative for either a 10% or 30% impairment rating. Members deliberated over 30% or 60% ratings associated with each exam’s measured PFT findings. Board members considered and agreed that despite the single measured FEV-1 of 55% within 6 months of separation, the totality of the evidence throughout the entire case file remained more consistent in meeting the 30% impairment criteria. 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. 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 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 re-characterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of her prior medical separation:

CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING
Asthma 6602 30%
COMBINED 30%


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20131101, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record





XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
DoD Physical Disability Board of Review
AMR-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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20150010369 (PD201302064)


1. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554(a), I approve the enclosed recommendation of the Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) pertaining to the individual named in the subject line above to recharacterize the individual’s separation as a permanent disability retirement with the combined disability rating of 30% effective the date of the individual’s original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

2. I direct that all the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected accordingly no later than 120 days from the date of this memorandum:

         a. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of permanent disability retirement effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

         b. Providing orders showing that the individual was retired with permanent disability effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

         c. Adjusting pay and allowances accordingly. Pay and allowance adjustment will account for recoupment of severance pay, and payment of permanent retired pay at 30% effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

         d. Affording the individual the opportunity to elect Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and medical TRICARE retiree options.

3. I request that a copy of the corrections and any related correspondence be provided to the individual concerned, counsel (if any), any Members of Congress who have shown interest, and to the Army Review Boards Agency with a copy of this memorandum without enclosures.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:




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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02334

    Original file (PD-2013-02334.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 theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The §4.97 criteria for a 30% rating are “FEV-1 of 56- to 70-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 56 to 70 percent, or; daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy, or; inhalational anti-inflammatory medication;” and, those for 10% are “FEV-1 of 71- to 80-percent...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01655

    Original file (PD2012 01655.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was then medically separated. In reference to medications, the examiner simply stated “Now for asthma, she uses inhalers.” The VA PFT evidence cited an FEV1 of 103% predicted, and did not document an FVC. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-03148

    Original file (PD-2014-03148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Both the Air Force PEB and the VA coded the pulmonary condition 6602 (Asthma). The PEB rated it 10%, and the VA rated it 30%. Eight months later, she was using the anti-inflammatory corticosteroid Motametasone.Following a thorough review of the evidence in the treatment record, the Board concluded that it was more likely than not that the CI was using inhalational anti-inflammatory medication at the time of separation from service.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02784

    Original file (PD-2013-02784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Asthma Condition . The CI’s lung examination was normal and she was diagnosed with exercise induced asthma that was “…refractory to multiple medical treatments including inhaled steroids, beta-agonists, and leukotriene inhibitors.” Also documented the following “For management of her exercise-induced asthma, patient should continue her inhaler therapy consisting of Albuterol before exertion and also during times of symptom exacerbation.” The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P)...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01964

    Original file (PD-2013-01964.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 theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. He requires close medical follow-up, and consideration should be given to TDRL status.”On 4 January 2004, the CI was placed on the TDRL with a rating of 60%. The CI’s asthma was not severe enough to justify a higher...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01954

    Original file (PD-2013-01954.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SEPARATION DATE: 20050331 The Board found the CI met the higher 30% evaluation due to “ inhalational anti-inflammatory medication” (Advair)use at the time of separation as specified under code 6602.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. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554(a), I approve the enclosed recommendation of the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00179

    Original file (PD 2013 00179.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.Both the FPEB and the VA rated asthma condition,under code 6620, asthma, bronchial, IAW §4.97 but at different rating levels; the FPEB rated 10%citing intermittent use of medication; and the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD 2011 01084

    Original file (PD 2011 01084.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    TDRL Rating Chart Final Service IPEB – Dated 20021001 VA – All Effective Date 20030911 Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam On TDRL – 20010813 TDRL Sep. Asthma 6602 30% 0% Asthma 6602 30%* 20031023 .No Additional MEB/PEB Entries. The PEB rated the condition as 6602 asthma, bronchial and assigned a 30% disability stating the asthma condition was only moderately controlled on multiple medications, including daily inhaled anti-inflammatory aerosols. RECOMMENDATION: The Board...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01083

    Original file (PD2012 01083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was issued a permanent P3 profile andreferred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).Asthma and mild restrictive pattern were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501.The PEB adjudicated the asthma and mild restrictive pattern as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals, and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. a month prior to the PEB,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00146

    Original file (PD2011-00146.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    As noted above, the Army PEB found him unfit, and he was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. His lung exam was normal, with no wheezes noted. The Board does not have the authority to render fitness or rating recommendations for any conditions not considered by the DES.