Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00205
Original file (PD 2014 00205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX         CASE: PD-2014-00205
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE     BOARD DATE: 20140812
SEPARATION DATE: 20071029


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty A1C/E-3 (3P03/Security Forces) medically separated for asthma. The asthma 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). “Asthma” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “asthma” as unfitting, rated 10%, citing application of Department of Defense and VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “I am not requesting a change in rating. I currently do not know what my rating is.”


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; and, 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 20070830 VA - (3 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Asthma 6602 10% Asthma 6602 30% 20080207
Other x 0 (Not in Scope) Other x 0 (Not in Scope)
Rating: 10% Rating: 30%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 80627 ( most proximate to date of separation [ DOS ] ).


ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Asthma Condition. On 23 May 2007, the CI had a positive methacholine challenge test that revealed a 25% decrease in FEV1 which definitively established the diagnosis of asthma. A chest X-ray was normal. His symptoms of shortness of breath (SOB) and wheezing worsened with running or exercise. Initially treated with an “as needed” rescue medication of Proventil (inhalational bronchodilator [Albuterol]), Flovent (inhalational steroid), was added on 5 June 2007. The treatment record contained a paucity of source documents with only two clinical encounters with radiology and labs tests.

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. There was no history of hospital admissions or use of systemic steroids. His listed respiratory medication was Albuterol and the examiner explicitly noted, “Besides the albuterol inhaler, I don’t feel there are any other medical interventions that would alleviate his symptoms.” His diagnosis was asthma.

The commander’s letter reflected that the CI’s medical condition did not impact his ability to complete any assigned tasks nor had he lost workdays because of it.

A medication profile indicated both Albuterol and Flovent were last filled at a military treatment facility in May and June 2007, respectively; approximately 5 months prior to separation. Specifically, the Flovent was filled 8 days prior to the NARSUM where the examiner opined the need for only a bronchodilator. As prescribed, the dosage of Flovent would be available as a single month supply and absent evidence of a refill the medication would be consumed by early July 2007, 4 months prior to separation. The case file also contained a personal letter from the CI (dated 13 July 2007) whereby he stated, “…currently I am on two inhalers the first to ease the long term effects and taken on a daily basis, the other for periodic use.”

At the VA Compensation and Pension evaluation (3 months after separation), the CI summarized his past onset of symptoms and treatment history using “inhalers.” He reported having “good control of his symptoms with daily use of inhaler” and reported his last asthmatic episode was 4 months prior. The PE was brief and unremarkable. A repeat PFT was normal and indicated his medication use as Albuterol. His diagnosis remained unchanged. The VA listed the previously mentioned two prescription medications under the heading of “other comments,” but did not clearly delineate if the medication was current treatment or referencing prior use.

The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB coded the asthma condition utilizing the unequivocal asthma VASRD code of 6602; citing continued symptoms with exertion. The VA coded the same, rated at 30% citing the use of daily inhalers for asthma control. VASRD §4.97 defines both PFT-derived criteria and clinical treatment criteria for rating under 6602. The evidenced PFT’s did not support a VASRD compensable rating. The non-PFT derived criteria under 6602 are: “intermittent inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy” for 10%; “daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy, or; non-daily inhalational anti-inflammatory medication” for 30%; and, “intermittent courses of systemic corticosteroids” for 60%. The record did not reflect the CI being placed on corticosteroids; therefore, Board members deliberated if the CI’s asthma condition supported either the 10% or 30% criteria level as described above. Clearly, the record and medication profile supported the intermittent use of inhalation bronchodilator therapy thus supporting 10%. However, the variations and unclear documentation of inhalational steroids near the time of separation left the Board with a questionable basis for arguing that the inhaled steroid was either not prescribed or not being utilized at that time.

Board members considered and debated over the documented inconsistencies of medication use and its prescribed timing in this case. Additionally, secondary to the inconsistent documentation, members also considered the probative value between the MEB and VA examination and concluded that the MEB examination being more clinically in-depth and free of unclear documentation is assigned a higher probative value as a basis for its recommendation.

Clearly, the NARSUM (with physician comment) and the VA PFT indicated the sole use of the bronchodilator medication. Board members acknowledged the CI’s own words as authored in his personal letter that “…currently, I am on two inhalers…,” but the date of that letter corresponded to a week after the need for a refill of the inhaled steroid when extrapolated from the initial (and only) prescription being filled on 05 June 2007. Members conceded that near the time of the written letter, the CI most likely was on both the bronchodilator and steroid medication, but the steroid use was (if taken as prescribed) very near empty and thus without refill, would not be using at the time of separation. After considerable deliberation, the Board consensus was that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that the CI required treatment with inhalational anti-inflammatory medication in order to maintain good asthma control; and, therefore concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication 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 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 20140101, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record






                 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
Physical Disability Board of Review

 SAF/MRB
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXX:

         Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Title 10 U.S.C. §  1554a), PDBR Case Number PD-2014-00205.

         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,






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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00801

    Original file (PD2012 00801.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SEPARATION DATE: 20040223 The examiner stated, “[the condition] has had no effect on his current occupation as a full-time student.”The pulmonary function test (PFT) evaluations in evidence which the Board weighed in arriving at its rating recommendation, with documentation of additional ratable criteria, are summarized below. 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.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00717

    Original file (PD-2012-00717.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PFT parameters probative to the Board’s permanent rating recommendation, however, support only a 10% rating. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: Asthma UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE 6602 COMBINED RATING TDRL PERMANENT 30% 30% 10% 10% 3 PD1200717 The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20120519, w/atchs. Service Treatment Record.

  • 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 | CY2013 | PD2013 00352

    Original file (PD2013 00352.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SEPARATION DATE: 20050114 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 noted that the NARSUM and multiple entries found in the service treatment record, months prior to separation, documented that daily use of inhaled anti-inflammatory medication (Advair, Azmacort or Flovent)and daily inhalational...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02634

    Original file (PD-2013-02634.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. RATING COMPARISON : IPEB – Dated 20050808VA* - based on Service Treatment Records(STR)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Asthma66020%Asthma660210%STR**Other MEB/PEB Conditions x 5 (Not In Scope)Other x 1 RATING:...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2013 | PD 2013 00908

    Original file (PD 2013 00908.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SEPARATION DATE: 20040312 Asthma Condition . The diagnosis in his finding of unfitness for Asthma,VASRD Code 6602, was rated at 30% rather than 10%.