Office of the Assistant Secretary

SAF/MRB
3351 Celmers Lane
IBA NAF Washington, MD 20762-6435

Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Section 1554, 10 USC), PDBR Case Number PD-2020-00147.
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 rating modification or re-characterization 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 modification of your disability rating or characterization of your separation is not wan anted. Accordingly, I accept the recommendation that your application be denied.

Office of the Assistant Secretary

SAF/MRBD  (PDBR)
3351 Celmers Lane
JBA NAF Washington, MD 20762-6435
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY

SUBJECT: Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation on
Case Number PD-2020-00147

In accordance with Title 10 § 1554a and in compliance with DoDI 6040.44, the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) adjudicated the disability rating accompanying the medical separation of the covered individual (CI) from the United States Air Force. After carefully reviewing the application and medical separation case file, the PDBR recollllllended no re­ characterization of the separation or modification of the disability rating previously assigned. I recollllllend you accept this proposed decision.

The CI was an active duty E6, Personnel Craftsman, medically separated for "diabetes mellitus, type 11" w ith a dis ability rating of 20%. The PEB and VA both rated the diabetes 20%, coded 7913 (diabetes mellitus), citing a requirement for  insulin or an  oral hypoglycemic  agent and restricted diet. Because there  was  no  evidence  of  medically prescribed regulation  of activities, no rating higher than a 20% rating was suppo1t ed. The 12 Febmaiy 2009 duty limiting condition repoli noted there were no  physical  limitation  of  activities,  and fuithe1more,  the service treatment record showed no episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemia requiring hospitalizations or frequent visits to a diabetic care provider (twice a month or more frequently),  or complications that could suppo1t higher ratings. After due deliberation, considering all the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the panel concluded there was insufficient cause to recollllllend a change in the PEB adjudication for the diabetes condition.