Office of the Assistant Secretary

SAF/MRB
3351 Celmers Lane
IBA NAF Washington, MD 20762-6435
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX:
Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Section 1554, 10 USC), PDBR Case Number PD-2021-00024.

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 warranted. 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 XXXXXXXXXXXX, Case Number PD-2021-00024

In accordance with Title 10 § 1554a and in compliance with DoDI 6040.44, the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) adjudicated the disa bility rating accompanying the medical separation of the covered individual from the United States Air Force. After ca refully revie wing the application and medical separa tion case file, the PDBR recommended no re-characterization of the separation or modification of the disability rating previously assigned. I recommend you accept this proposed decision.

The covered individual (CI) was an active duty 0 -4, Civil Engineer, medically separa ted from the Temporaiy Disability Retired List (TDRL) for " anorexia ne1vosa" with a disability rating of 10%. The PEB and VA both coded the eating disorder 9520 (anorexia ne1vosa). The PEB cited the DoD and VASRD guidelines. The VA based its 10% rating on the Compensation and Pension examination, citing the VASRD criteria. Panel members agreed, the 10% rating and no higher was justified for the condition at the time of TDRL removal. The CI denied a histo1y of binge eating, self-induced vomiting, and resistance  to gain  weight.  There was no evidence of binge eating followed by self-induced vomiting given the fact that lab studies only showed low glucose and decreased liver enzymes. Although the CI weighed less than 85% of expected minimum weight, evidence of self-induced weight loss with incapacitating episodes (bed rest and treatment by a physician) of more than two but less than six weeks total duration per year was not demonstrated. There was no rep011 of dehydration, or heart at Thythmias leading to urgent medical cai·e. There was no hist01y of medic al treatment during the TDRL period, and no evidence that the CI pai1icipated in any form of treatment for anorexia. There were no complaints of mood or anxiety symptoms. No rep011 of difficulty with sleep, memory, irritability, or concentration.
Therefore, panel members concluded, a higher rating was not justified. After due deliberation, considering all the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the panel concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the anorexia nervosa.