Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01834
Original file (PD-2014-01834.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX       CASE: PD-2014-01834
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE     BOARD DATE: 20150521
SEPARATION DATE: 20050105


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an activated Air National Guard E-5 (Security Forces Journeyman) medically separated for diabetes. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Air Force Specialty. He was issued a temporary P4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The “Type II Diabetes Mellitus” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. The MEB also identified and forwarded two other conditions (hypertension and hyperlipidemia) for PEB adjudication. The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated the diabetes condition as unfitting, rated 20%, c iting application of the Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.39 and Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The remaining conditions were determined to be C ategory II, a condition that can be unfitting but is not currently compensable or ratable and the remaining hyperlipidemia condition was determined to be C ategory III, a condition that is not separately unfitting and not compensable or ratable. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “Please Consider all Conditions.”


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.


RATING COMPARISON :
IPEB – Dated 20041007
 VA* - (~6 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Diabetes Mellitus Type ll 7913 20% Diabetes Mellitus Type II 7913 20% 20050629
Hypertension Cat II Diabetic Nephropathy with HTN and Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease 7913-7541 30%
Hyperlipidemia Cat III No VA Placement
Other x0
 Other x3
RATING: 20%
 RATING: 70%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 50927 (most proximate to date of separation )


ANALYSIS SUMMARY: IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. The Board reviews medical records and other available evidence to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, using the VASRD standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separation; and, to review those fitness determinations within its scope (as elaborated above) consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation.

Diabetes Mellitus Type II. The CI was found to have diabetes mellitus (DM) during a routine pre-deployment exam in March 2002. He was initially treated with a two medication combination that was ultimately changed to a different single anti-diabetic medication that seemed to work better. Over a 2-year period, his diabetic control waxed and waned. In April 2004 he had an exercise tolerance test that was normal as the CI had “excellent exercise tolerance” and reached >100% of his maximum heart rate. He was given a profile that allowed him to exercise at his own pace and distance. The narrative summary prepared almost 4 months prior to separation noted a diagnosis of Type II DM uncontrolled with oral medications. At the time, the CI was in the Georgia ANG and there was no recent test for long term blood sugar control in the record present for review and there was no evidence of neuropathy. At the VA Compensation and Pension exam performed 6 months after separation, the CI reported symptoms of neuropathy and other potential complications of DM. There were no episodes of ketoacidosis noted and no lost time from work caused by his DM. The pertinent physical exam findings were normal neurologic and vascular exams. His blood sugar was elevated, his echocardiogram was essentially normal, and his urinalysis showed protein and sugar. He was diagnosed with Type II DM.

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB adjudicated the Type II DM by applying VASRD code 7913 (Diabetes mellitus) and rated it 20% consistent with “requiring insulin and restricted diet, or; oral hypoglycemic agent and restricted diet.” The VA applied the same coding and rating scheme. The Board reviewed the VASRD requirements for the next higher 40% rating level in considering its rating recommendation. That 40% level also requires a “regulation of activities” in addition to the requirements of the 20% level. The evidence present for review does not support that the CI’s activity was regulated, as he was given a profile for exercise at his own distance and pace. Considering the totality of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), Board members agreed that a disability rating of 20% for the DM Type II uncontrolled on oral medications condition was appropriately recommended in this case.

Contended Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia Conditions. The Board’s main charge is to assess the fairness of the PEB’s determination that the contended hypertension and hyperlipidemia conditions were not unfitting. The Board’s threshold for countering fitness determinations requires a preponderance of evidence, but remains adherent to the DoDI 6040.44 “fair and equitable” standard. The contended conditions were not profiled or implicated in the commander’s statement and were not judged to fail retention standards. All were reviewed and considered by the Board. There was no performance based evidence from the record that any of these conditions significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the contended hypertension and hyperlipidemia conditions and so no additional disability ratings are recommended.


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 DoDI 1332.39 for rating DM was operant in this case and the condition was adjudicated independently of that instruction by this Board. In the matter of the DM Type II uncontrolled on oral medications condition and IAW VASRD §4.119, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. In the matter of the contended hypertension and hyperlipidemia conditions, the Board unanimously recommends no change from the PEB determinations as not unfitting. 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 20140428, 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 (Section 1554, 10 USC), PDBR Case Number PD-2014-01834 .

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 | PD2012-00642

    Original file (PD2012-00642.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW SEPARATION DATE: 20020731 NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY CASE NUMBER: PD1200642 BOARD DATE: 20121025 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4, (31U, Communications Specialist) medically separated for Type II diabetes mellitus (DM). Pre-Separation) – Effective Date 20020801 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam Condition Diabetes...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01778

    Original file (PD-2014-01778.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20051012 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. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01466

    Original file (PD 2014 01466.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20090426 The CI was still taking oral medications only (no injected insulin) and had undergone surgery in March 2008 (Abdominoplasty) with continued high blood sugar levels (glucose 262 with normal 74-106) and high Glycosolated hemoglobin levels (A1C 9.5 with normal 4.2-7.0). I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02130

    Original file (PD-2014-02130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was issued a P4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The CI non-concurred but later concurred with the PEB findings and recommendations and was medically separated. Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Diabetes Mellitus Type I 791320%Diabetes Mellitus791320%20031212Diabetic Retinopathy w/ Lattice Degeneration600710%20031221Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, LLE8599-852010%20031212Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, RLE8599-852010%20031212Other x 0...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00676

    Original file (PD2009-00676.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Independently rating the CI’s DM at separation, considering the evidence in the military and pre-separation VA records, absent any non-compliance deduction, and considering “complications that would not be compensable if separately evaluated” (by the military) the CI would best fit the 60% 7913 criteria of “Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00736

    Original file (PD2012-00736.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I have to take shots 4 times a day, strenuous activities cause me to have periods of hypoglycemia at work and during various activities outside of work. The PEB rated the CI’s Type 1 DM, requiring Insulin and restricted diet coded 7913 DM at 20%. The CI contended that he requires regulation of activity in order to control his DM.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00974

    Original file (PD 2012 00974.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board evaluates DVA evidence in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness and rating determinations at the time of separation. 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 Diabetes Mellitus 7913 20% COMBINED 20% The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 294,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00446

    Original file (PD2012-00446.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the DM, Type 2 condition as unfitting, rated 20%, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board’s role is confined to the review of medical records and all evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, compared to VASRD standards, based on severity at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01207

    Original file (PD2012 01207.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated “diabetes mellitus type 1”as unfitting, rated 20%, with likely application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The remaining conditions were determined to be not unfitting.The CI did not agree with the PEB findings but did request a formal hearing or submit an appeal, so his case was sent to the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA). This condition was indeed “not unfitting” at the time of separation.The Board therefore concluded that this condition...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01897

    Original file (PD-2014-01897.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. 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...