Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01055
Original file (PD-2014-01055.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX        CASE: PD - 2014 -01055
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE      BOARD DATE: 201 5 0513
Separation Date: 20090527


SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E-4 (Aerospace Maintenance Journeyman) medically separated for panuveitis. The eye condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Air Force Specialty (AFS) or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a duty limiting profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The “panuveitis/Behcet disease” was the only condition forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. The Informal PEB adjudicated “panuveitis, which may be a manifestation of Behcet’s disease” as unfitting, rated 20%, with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The PEB also adjudicated “recurrent oral ulcers” as a Category II condition that can be unfitting but is not currently compensable or ratable. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION : The CI writes: “Behcet’s disease is incurable, I am required to receive treatment on a regular, and it impacts my daily life . ”


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 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.

invalid font number 31502
RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20090302
 VA* - (~6 Mos. Pre-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Panuveitis, May Be Manifestation of Behcet’s Disease 6000 20% Behcet’s Disease 6399-6354 10% 20081113
Other x1 (Not in Scope)
 Other x 4 20081110
RATING: 20%
 RATING: 20%
*Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20090 7 15 (most proximate to date of separation [DOS])


ANALYSIS SUMMARY :

Panuveitis . The CI initial ly presented with symptoms of skin disease, lymphadenopathy, mouth ulcers an d painful headaches in February 2008. A few weeks later, he developed sensitivity to light and his provider noted symptoms of redness and pain in the right eye for 3 days with watery , i tchiness , and p hotophobia . The physical exam findings included decreased movement of the pupil and hyperemia of the conjunctiva . The examiner diagnosed conjunctivitis and referred the CI immediately to the o phthalmologist . The o phthalmologist also noted pain with eye movement and decreased vision. He diagnosed right eye acute anterior uveitis and ordered lab tests and eye drops. The examiner reevaluated the CI the next day and noted decreased tearing , pain and redness ; he stopped the eye drops and directed a follow-up in 2 days. Because the examiner was considering a diagnosis of sarcoidosis (inflammatory disease) , a chest X -ray was done and found normal. The next day, the examiner evaluated the CI and changed the diagnosis to anterior right eye uveitis. The o phthalmologist followed the CI closely on a weekly basis and , on 17 March 2008 , noted that the he had panuveitis of the right eye with photophobia , as the disease affected both t he anterior and posterior chambers of the right eye. The CI was started on a prednisone taper and different eye drops. When he ran out of prednisone for one week , the o phthalmologist noted that the CI’s symptoms returned. He was restarted on prednisone ; however , a week later, he still had difficulty reading. The o phthalmologist , based on the presentation of the eye disease , diagnosed Behcet’s di se ase and re started a prednisone taper and Imuran (immunosuppressive drug) . The examiner noted an improvement in the CI’s vision and opined that the panuv e itis was worse in the left eye tha n the right eye and that he still had difficulty reading. The r heumatologist concurred that the diagnosis of Behcet’s was most likely , as a workup for an underlying etiology was negative.

The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam , approximately 6 months prior to separation , documented eye sensitivity and an active disease which caused functional impairment due to the CI’s inability to see c orrectly during a flare. He was on a treatment regime that consisted of prednisone (corticosteroid) , cyclosporine and azathioprine ( both immunosuppressive drug s ) . There were physical exam findings of left eye scleral injection (redness). A second VA C&P exam done by an o phthalmologist 2 days later , documented symptoms of pain, distorted vision, redness , swelling, watering and blurred vision. There were physical exam findings of normal bilateral intraocular pressure , uncorrected right far vision 20/70 and corrected right far vision 20/25; uncorrected left far vision 20/40 and corrected far left vision 20/20; both corneas with significant inflammatory deposits , the anterior chambers of both eyes had cells and flare; and an abnormal area between the iris and lens in the right eye.

The MEB n arrative s ummary (NARSUM) exam , approximately 5 months prior to separation , documented that the CI had recurrent panuveitis which required prednisone 40mg daily. He was unable to perform routine , thorough inspections on the aircraft or wheels because his vision was constantly fluctuating. The physical exam was deferred as he was followed closely by Ophthalmology and Rheumatology. The commander’s statement documented that the CI’s medical condition had caused a significant decline in his capabilities and performance which caused unpredictable flare-ups that varied in severity and duration. He further noted that the CI had episodes when his eyesight was very limited and restricted him from performing assigned computer or office duties. His duty schedule was modified and he missed approximately five days in the prior 90 days due to his condition.

The Board direct ed attenti on to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence . The PEB coded the p anuveitis condition as 6000 (c horoidopathy, including uveitis, ir itis, cyclitis , and choroiditis ) and rated at 20% , consistent with “w ith incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 2 weeks, but less than 4 weeks, during the past 12 months . ” The VA coded the Behcet’s Disease as 6399 analogous to 6354 (chronic fatigue s yndrome ) and rated at 10% for symptoms “w hich wax and wane but result in periods of incapacitation of at least one but less than two weeks total duration per year, or; symptoms controlled by continuous medication . ” There is ample evidence that the CI had recurrent panuveitis that responded poorly to a combination of medications. The commander documented that the CI missed 5 days of work in the prior 90 days; however , there is no documentation that the CI actually had periods of incapacitation as defined by the VASRD. Rating under code 6000 can also be based on the visual impairment due to the particular condition; however, the CI’s visual impairment documented in the evidence is non-compensable under VASRD § 4.84a rating guid e lines. The Board by precedent will not revoke or lower a disability rating granted to a CI by the PEB. 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 panuveitis 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 panuveitis condition and IAW VASRD §4. 75 , 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 20 140218 , w/atchs
Exhib it B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans ’ Affairs Treatment Record




XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
Physical Disability Board of Review
invalid font number 31502


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 (Section 1554, 10 USC), PDBR Case Number PD-2014-01055 .

 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

cc:
SAF/MRBR

Similar Decisions

  • 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01042

    Original file (PD2011-01042.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the visual field deficit right eye condition as unfitting, rated 30%, and placed the CI on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). At the time the CI was placed on the TDRL, the PEB rated the visual field deficit condition at 30% under a combination VASRD code reflecting that an impairment of visual field (code 6080) was possibly due to TB (6010). In the matter of the right eye visual field condition, the Board unanimously recommends a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02797

    Original file (PD-2013-02797.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The MEB forwarded “low back and cervical pain with evidence of cervical and lumbar disk disease…” to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as not meeting retention standards IAW AR 40-501. 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 eye condition was reviewed...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02232

    Original file (PD-2013-02232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB characterized the CI’s skin condition as “solar urticaria” (a condition in which exposure to the sun [or ultraviolet radiation] induces urticaria or hives)and forwarded this to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for consideration. 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01476

    Original file (PD-2012-01476.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the chronic right anterior knee pain, rated as slight condition as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. The CI was seen by orthopedics for the constant right knee pain with running in September 1993. 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 Chronic Right...

  • 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 | CY2013 | PD 2013 01089

    Original file (PD 2013 01089.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI appealed to the Formal PEB (FPEB) which overturned the IPEB and adjudicated the “eosinophilic fasciitis associated with morphea and sclerodermoid changes and generalized morphea” as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the VASRD, and the “IgM nephropathy” as a Category II condition.The CI non-concurred with the FPEBs findings and petitioned the Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMR) who overturned the FPEB and placed the CI on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL),...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00966

    Original file (PD2011-00966.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    (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 condition Peripheral Sensory Neuropathy is a rated condition and meets the criteria prescribed in DoDI 6040.44 for Board purview. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00455

    Original file (PD2011-00455.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    (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 all cases. Under VASRD §4.124a, for code 8045 effective the CI’s date of separation: RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00664

    Original file (PD2011-00664.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the idiopathic monocular exercise-induced vision/visual field loss condition as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In July 2007, the CI noted transient inferior visual field loss during exertion and sometimes complete loss of vision in his right eye, much more than the left eye. Service Treatment Record