Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00159
Original file (PD2013 00159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx       CASE: PD1300159
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE     BOARD DATE: 20130813
SEPARATION DATE: 20051018


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty A1C/E-3 (2T051/Traffic Management Journeyman) medically separated for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Her illness began in November 2004 when she experienced postpartum cardiomyopathy. In March 2005, she was evaluated for symptoms consistent with SLE, including arthritis/arthralgias in multiple joints, malar rash, pleuritic chest pain and anemia. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of her Air Force Specialty or satisfy physical fitness standards. She was issued a temporary P4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The SLE condition, characterized as “Systemic lupus erythematosus with multiple organ involvement: hypertension, lupus nephritis (Class II), tenosynovitis, subcutaneous nodules, malar rash, arthralgias and anemia” and “Post partum cardiomyopathy NYHA Class I,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as medically unacceptable IAW AFI 48-123. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The PEB adjudicated “Systemic Lupus Erythematosus with Class II Nephritis and Stage I Chronic Kidney Disease, asymptomatic with normal renal function studies” as unfitting, rated 10%, referencing the Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.39 and Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The remaining conditions (post-partum c ardiomyopathy and hypertension) were determined to be C ategory II, which can be unfitting , but are currently not compensable or ratable. The CI made no appeals, and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “I feel that the rating for the conditions which rendered me unfit should be changed because my health has continued to decline since I was released from the military. My military doctor, Dr. B--, told me (not in these exact words) that my illness (lupus) is not going to get better, only worse and for that release the military was not going to allow me to continue my service. So I feel that, if my disabilities are that risky to the point where the military finds me unfit to perform my military duties, then the military should find me fit to be medically retire, at the least. My military career is over and I will never again have the opportunity to attempt to complete at least 20 years of service and retire as a regular service member would. I had to accept the fact that I would be released newly married with a newborn, declining health and unemployed in a matter of 7 months from the date I was diagnosed to the date I signed my discharge papers and surrendered my military ID. Soon after I separated, I tried to join the Army Reserves and was turned down because of my separation code. The recruiter told me that, unless my disabilities no longer exist, then I couldn't join any branch. I wasn't ready to leave the military. I honestly wanted to retire or at least complete my first period of service and reenlist for another period of service. I've even tried to convince my husband to go on active duty just so I could be in that military environment once more. I now work with a lot of retired military people and find myself wondering how my life would of been if I only had the opportunity to stay in longer. Military diversity was such a wonderful experience.”


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 SLE condition is addressed below. The post partum cardiomyopathy, hypertension, and any remaining conditions rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) at separation are not within the Board’s purview. The Board acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the significant impairment with which her service-connected condition continues to burden her; but, must emphasize that the 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 DVA, operating under a different set of laws. 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 20050830
 VA - (10 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
SLE w/ Class II Nephritis and Stage I Chronic Kidney Disease
 6350 10% Lupus Nephritis 7541 30% 20060821
Postpartum Cardiomyopathy
 CAT II Cardiomyopathy 7020 0% 20060821
Hypertension
 CAT II No VA Entry
No Additional MEB/PEB Entries
 Other x 1 20060821
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 30%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 61017 (most proximate to date of separation [ DOS ] ).


ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Condition. The CI developed hypertension and preeclampsia during her second trimester of pregnancy in 2004. Twelve days after delivery in November 2004, she developed congestive cardiac failure due to post partum cardiomyopathy. After several months her symptoms improved with treatment and subsequent echocardiograms showed improving heart function. In March 2005 the CI developed signs and symptoms consistent with SLE that included arthritis and arthralgias in multiple joints, rash, pleuritic chest pain, anemia, and fatigue. Laboratory testing revealed results consistent with the diagnosis. In May 2005, she developed lupus kidney disease verified by subsequent kidney biopsy in July 2005. She responded well to medication such that by the time of the 22 June 2005 rheumatology MEB narrative summary, and 7 July 2005 nephrology consult she was asymptomatic and the physical examinations were normal except for elevated blood pressure. A 26 July 2005 nephrology follow-up noted the type of lupus nephritis shown on biopsy did not require specific therapy at that time. The physical examination was normal. At a follow up rheumatology appointment at the time of separation from service in October 2005, the CI was asymptomatic and physical examination was normal, including blood pressure. The rheumatologist concluded the CI was in clinical remission. Laboratory testing obtained at that time was noted for normal kidney function and a normal level of urine protein excretion. At a VA nephrology visit, 6 months after separation, kidney function was normal with no evidence of recurrence of nephritis. At the VA Compensation and Pension examination on 21 August 2006, performed 10 months after separation, the CI remained asymptomatic. She was employed and loaded trucks for UPS. The physical examination was normal including blood pressure. There was no evidence of skin lesions, cardiac signs, swelling or arthritis. The doctor reported the postpartum cardiomyopathy, lupus, lupus nephritis, and lupus related arthropathy were in remission. Echocardiogram performed on 21 August 2006 demonstrated normal cardiac function. VA treatment records indicate the CI did well until March 2007, 2 years after separation, when she experienced a flare of her lupus and lupus nephritis. She responded well to medication treatment with resolution of symptoms.
The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the condition 10% for exacerbations once or twice per year or symptomatic during the past 2 years and coded it 6350 for SLE with Class II nephritis and Stage I chronic kidney disease. The VA rated the condition 30% for albumin constant or recurring with hyaline and granular casts or red blood cells and coded it 7541 for lupus nephritis. Following initial treatment for SLE beginning in June 2005, the CI had no further disease exacerbations until 2 years after separation. All Board members agreed the 10% rating under VASRD diagnostic code 6350 was supported. There was no evidence to support a higher rating under this code. Although the VA adjudicated a 30% rating for lupus kidney disease, there was no active kidney disease at the time of separation or for 2 years after separation. The Board therefore did not conclude there was evidence to support a rating under VASRD diagnostic code for lupus nephritis at the time of separation. There were no other residuals of SLE up which to base consideration for other ratings. The post partum cardiomyopathy was not attributed to SLE and demonstrated full recovery. 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 SLE with Class II nephritis and Stage I chronic kidney disease, asymptomatic with normal renal function tests condition at the time of separation.


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. In the matter of the SLE with Class II nephritis and Stage I chronic kidney disease, asymptomatic with normal renal function tests condition and IAW VASRD §4.88b, 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 recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows:

UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus with Class II Neprhitis, Asymptomatic with normal renal function tests 6350 10%
COMBINED 10%


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20130406, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record





XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DAF
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-2013-00159.
         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 appropriate. Accordingly, the Board recommended no re-characterization or modification of your separation.
         I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board. I concur with that finding and their conclusion that re-characterization of your separation is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that your application be denied.
                                                               Sincerely,





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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01201

    Original file (PD-2013-01201.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI was on chronic immunosuppressive medications and had four (4) emergency department visits in the 2 years prior to separation that may be considered exacerbations of SLE (PE, dizziness, fatigue and chest wall pain). Given the CI’s kidney disease related to SLE, the VASRD note for rating under 6350, the VA’s rating at separation based on the treatment record and the totality of evidence in the case; the Board determined that the CI’s disability more nearly approximated the disability...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053972C070420

    Original file (2001053972C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 December 1998 a PEB considered the applicant’s condition as indicated by the TDRL examination and determined that she was physically unfit, recommended a 10 percent disability rating and that she be separated with severance pay. Her renal disease was in remission, however, she had received inadequate therapy due to the continued low white blood cell count which was probably secondary to some systemic activity of lupus. She stated the VA has evaluated her condition as 100 percent disabling.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02475

    Original file (PD-2013-02475.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 internal medicine evaluation on 6 January 2006, noted symptoms resolving and a normal examination with “no evidence of overt arthritis,” “no signs of SLE flare and all signs of prior flare now resolved.” There are no further service treatment record entries prior to...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02255

    Original file (PD-2014-02255.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 CI ultimately responded to a 10-day, followed by a 21-day, taper of decreasing doses of oral steroids.A subsequent dermatology consultation from March 2008 (8 months prior to separation) described the previous...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00081

    Original file (PD2012-00081.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the bilateral knee condition as unfitting, rated 10% for each knee with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). (2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.” The ratings for unfitting conditions will be reviewed in...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00494

    Original file (PD2009-00494.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    MCTD can affect multiple organ systems and the CI manifested fatigue, sclerodermatous skin changes of the face, forearms, and hands, Raynaud’s phenomenon, muscle fatigue with use, difficulty swallowing due to esophageal dysmotility with gastroesophageal reflux and esophageal stricture, and shortness of breath on exertion that was initially thought to be due to interstitial lung disease, a manifestation affecting some patients with MCTD. There are VASRD rating criteria for several of the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02163

    Original file (PD-2013-02163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB adjudicated “interstitial nephritis requiring chronic steroid treatment, recent creatinine normal”as unfitting, rated 0%, referencing the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01992

    Original file (PD-2013-01992.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Review of the available service treatment record revealed that the CI first developed joint symptoms in April 2003.She presented in September 2003 with complaints of morning stiffness and pain and swelling of her hands wrists and shoulders. This was the approach taken by the VA, who assigned separate 10% ratings under a combination 6350-5002 code (5002 – rheumatoid arthritis) for each wrist and each hand (identified as right finger joints and left finger joints, or “group of minor joints”)....

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01785

    Original file (PD 2012 01785.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Low Back Mechanical Pain Condition . The Board first considered VASRD codes 7533 (cystic diseases of the kidneys) -5295 (lumbosacral strain), using the VASRD rating in effect at the time of separation.The Board did not find evidence in the record of “muscle spasm on extreme forward bending, or any loss of lateral spine motion, unilateral, in standing position,” for a higher 20% rating in the CI’s favor. The evidence pointed to a contribution to the LBP and aggravationsof low back pain with...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00691

    Original file (PD 2012 00691.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    TDRL RATING COMPARISON: Final Service PEB - 20021105 VA (12 months prior to separation) –Effective 20020311 On TDRL - 20010512 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam Condition TDRL Sep. SLE 6350 60% 10% SLE 6350 60%* STR from 20020311 to 20021220 and Civilian records from 20030103 to 20031215 All others x 4/ Not Service Connected X 3 Combined: 60% . The Board also agreed the rating at the time of TDRL placement is consistent with a 60% rating for an unstable condition that had resulted in...