AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00183
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00185
The MEB had Left Ankle Pain as the single diagnosis and the ankle was the focus of the NARSUM. The Board unanimously voted to add abdominal wall pain (mentioned as duty limiting in the commander's memo and described in the NARSUM as following inguinal hernia repair) as a new unfitting condition and to rate it analogously to Ilio-inguinal nerve neuritis, severe. The majority of the Board opined that migraine headaches should not be added as a new unfitting condition as the Commander's memo...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00186
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00187
Shoulder Condition(s) . The CI’s history to the MEB and the VA psychiatric examiners did link the depression to her obesity, and did not note a contribution from her medical or other situational issues. In the matter of the bilateral shoulder condition, the Board voted 2:1 to recommend no recharacterization of the PEB coding or rating IAW VASRD §4.71a.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00189
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00190
The Air Force Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found him unfit for continued service and he was separated with a 20% disability rating for 7913 Diabetes mellitus type I using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force regulations. Using an evaluation done prior to separation from the Air Force, the Veterans Administration (VA) rated this disability as 7913 Diabetes mellitus type I at 40% citing a single note in the CI’s service treatment...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00191
The Navy Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) determined that each of the three psychiatric disorders was not separately unfitting, but in combination, the “Overall Effect” of PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Personality Disorder rendered the CI unfit for continued military service. The Board discussed her three primary Mental Health diagnoses, all of which were considered by the Navy IPEB to be not separately unfitting: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, and Personality Disorder not otherwise...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00192
In 2002 the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined she was unfit for continued naval service secondary to Major Depressive Disorder. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was done and in 1997 the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined she should enter the TDRL with a rating of 30%. She was on medication at every evaluation performed by the VA and the Navy except for her third TDRL evaluation.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00193
Condition 2: Left Shoulder Using an evaluation completed four months after the time of separation from Service, the Veterans Administration (VA) rated this disability as 5201-5019 Left Shoulder Partial Rotator Cuff Tear and Impingement Syndrome at 10%. The CI received the same rating percentages from the Air Force PEB and the VA for her back and left shoulder conditions.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00194
If the sensory deficit (incomplete paralysis) was considered unfitting and affected an entirely different function form the muscle disability, it would be rated separately from the muscle injury code IAW VASRD §4.55(a). While the sensory deficit and/or paresthesia is documented on multiple Navy exams, there is no evidence it interfered with his ability to perform the duties required of his rank or rating. On 23 April 2010, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00195
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00196
SUMMARY OF CASE : This covered individual (CI) was an active duty SSG medically separated from the Army in 2007 after 14 years of service. CI was referred to the PEB, found unfit, and separated at 20% disability. The Board found that the VA analogous coding of ‘Right foot status post surgery to 3rd metatarsal (5279-5280)’ at 10% better described the CI’s diagnosis and answered his petition as that coding provided the highest (amputation-level) rating available for his foot disability...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00197
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00198
He was referred to the PEB, found unfit for the neck condition and separated at 10% disability. Back pain was noted as a service-connected condition by the VA, but rated 0%. Service Treatment Record.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00201
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), determined unfit for continued military service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. The VA considered both RSD and Mood Disorder to be associated with the service-connected condition of Residual, Right Ankle Sprain and therefore applied disability ratings to both conditions. The other diagnoses rated by the...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00202
When I got assigned to the 101st Air Assault Division, I went to war in 2003 and reinjured my right knee and got some additional injuries such as Flat Foot, Fasciitis Plantar, Hypertension, Insomnia, Pain in left hand finger joint, shoulder pain joint Arthralgias, osteoartheosis involving knee and dealing with depression and dental problem. The Board evaluated the evidence for all contended conditions and VA evaluated conditions other than the right knee and could not find sufficient...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00203
During his evaluation for the Pectus Carinatum chest wall deformity, CI was found to have a “Sinus Venosus” form of ASD, as well as partially anomalous pulmonary venous connections from the upper lobe of the right lung. There is no evidence that the heart condition (after correction) interfered with performance of required military duties or was unfitting at the time of separation from service. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00205
The medical basis for the separation was moderate to severe bilateral knee pain and chronic left shoulder impingement syndrome. Despite the CI’s contention of worsening during assignment at Aberdeen PG, there is no evidence that it exceeded normal progression of the disease, or that service permanently aggravated the condition. As each knee had painful motion short of VA normal ROMs, each knee should be separately rated at 10% IAW §4.59 Painful motion.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00207
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00210
The CI was thus medically separated with a combined disability rating of 10%. The NARSUM did not formally identify any other medical conditions at separation. In the matters of the chronic adjustment disorder/borderline personality disorder and the hearing loss conditions, the Board unanimously recommends no recharacterization of the PEB adjudications as not unfitting.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00211
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00212
The DRO started: 'We have increased the evaluation of your left elbow disability to 40 percent based on your recent VA medical examination (20060201) which reported severely decreased range of motion in the joint (flexion to 10 degrees, supination to 10 degrees, pronation to 40 degrees) with evidence of painful motion but no additional limitation of function due to fatigue, weakness, lack of endurance or incoordination. As the CI was discharged in 2005 when the Army pain rule was in effect,...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00213
Using an evaluation completed nine months after the time of separation from the Air Force, the Veterans Administration (VA) rated her disability as 6354 Chronic fatigue syndrome with upper airway resistance, angioedema, and vocal cord dysfunction at 20%. She did have one sleep study done in June 2001 that had no evidence of UARS but the literature states that patients with UARS usually have more subtle changes in breathing and do not usually have apnea. I have carefully reviewed the...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00214
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF CASE : This covered individual (CI) was an Air Force Staff Sergeant Aerospace Medical Service Craftsman medically separated in 2006 after seven years of active service. The CI contended that her rating from the Air Force should be the same as the rating from the VA.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00216
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00217
Unfitting ConditionsCodeRatingDateConditionCodeRatingExamEffective Degenerative Arthritis, Right Knee w/X-Ray Evidence500310%20011206Post-Operative Degenerative Joint Disease, Right Knee, w/some Narrowing of the Lateral CompartmentDegenerative Arthritis, Left Knee50030%20011206Degenerative Joint Disease, Left Knee5010 (List All PEB Conditions) The VA C&P exam does not mention any complaint of locking. After this evaluation, the VA increased the ratings for each knee to 20%.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00218
The condition was determined to be medically unacceptable and the CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), found unfit for continued military service, and separated at 20% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. Additional 5 degrees loss ROM with repeated motion; 5/5 motor; negative straight leg raise; decrease in sensation to pinprick and light touch on left leg and great...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00219
Preceding text in the NARSUM, the VA documentation and the service treatment record (STR) all make it clear that both the myofascial condition and the cervical nerve root pathology evidenced in this case affected the right upper extremity (RUE). It should be noted that the combination of the separately listed DA Form 3947 cervical conditions into a single rating is appropriate since separate VASRD ratings are not possible. The Board therefore recommends that the cervical spine condition be...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00220
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00221
The CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), found unfit for continued military service, and separated at 10% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Air Force and Department of Defense regulations. At the time she separated from service DoDI 1332.39 was in effect and it stated that response to therapy was to be considered in all cases. c. She was not discharged on 4 August 2005 with entitlement to disability severance...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00222
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00224
The Air Force Informal and Formal PEBs and AFPC appear to have applied DoDI 1332.39 and rated the CI’s seizure disorder based on his social and industrial impairment (which they considered to be mild) and not on the frequency of seizures as directed by the VASRD The rationales for the Formal PEB and AFPC decisions stated they found evidence that the member’s neuropsychological deficits were directly related to his seizure disorder but that rating both conditions would constitute pyramiding...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00227
At the VA examination 2 months after separation, the CI was non-compliant with PTSD medications and continued with substance abuse (Alcohol, Cocaine, and Marijuana). The CI’s vertigo was noted in the NARSUM and multiple treatment notes. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior separation be recharacterized to reflect that, rather than discharge with severance pay, the CI was placed on the TDRL at 60% for a period of 6 months (PTSD at 50% IAW §4.129 and DoD direction) and...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00228
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00229
During the MEB, the CI was also evaluated for a psychiatric condition, which he dated to a 2003 deployment. Psychiatric Condition . Neither condition was service-connected by the VA.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00230
This is evidence that the CI’s back condition worsened over time but the board must rate the disability of unfitting conditions as they are at the time of separation. The CI had obstructive sleep apnea that required the use of a CPAP machine and the Commander’s letter implied that this condition had a negative impact on his daily duty performance along with his back pain. However, at the time of separation the Air Force did not separate service members simply because they were not able to deploy.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00231
He was referred to the Air Force Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and this board determined he was unfit for continued military service. The PEB rated his disability at 30% and deducted 20% for aggravating/contributory factors of non-compliance and severe personality disorder. Using an evaluation completed prior to the time of separation from the Air Force, the Veterans Administration (VA) rated this disability as 9432 Major depression (bipolar disorder) at 50%.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00232
The medical bases for separation were right ankle pain, low back pain, and cognitive disorder due to concussion. Cognitive Disorder Rating Recommendation . The VA combined the psychiatric and TBI cognitive symptoms and based the separation rating on §4.129, with a later examination and rating per §4.130.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00233
Each was rated 0%. The Board, therefore, has no reasonable basis for recommending any additional unfitting conditions for separation rating. The Action Officer continues to support the initial recommendation preceding the Board’s deliberation, i.e., a VASRD §4.100 rating of 50% for OSA as an unfitting condition.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00234
A significant component of the Board’s decision regarding the PEB’s adjudication of this case is whether there was indeed a separately unfitting and separately ratable psychiatric condition at separation. The Board, therefore, has no reasonable basis for recommending any additional unfitting conditions for separation rating. In the matter of the pain disorder with psychological factors/major depression psychiatric condition, the Board unanimously agrees that it is properly rated as a...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00235
Other Conditions . The NARSUM did not formally identify any other medical conditions at separation, although several conditions rated by the VA at separation were elaborated on the MEB physical and are thereby eligible for Board consideration. In the matter of the right elbow condition, bilateral wrist conditions, bilateral knee conditions, tinea pedis, allergic rhinitis, reactive airway disease, major depressive disorder or any other medical conditions eligible for Board consideration;...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00237
Whether or not related to the back condition, any of these conditions would need to be in themselves unfitting for the Board to recommend them for additional rating. That rating decision stated, ‘Your service medical records do not show any treatment for or diagnosis of depression while in service.’ His physical profile was S1. There is no evidence that any of them were clinically active during the MEB and none were covered by the physical profile or Commander’s statement.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00238
Although the ROM did not support the 20% rating, the PEB utilized the code analogously and assigned 20%, likely as the minimal compensable rating for the shoulder IAW §4.59 for painful motion. The VA Rating Decision on 26 July 2006 (one month post separation) assigned a 10% rating for internal derangement with arthroscopic surgery X2, right shoulder, utilizing code 5201-5019 (arm limitation of motion of - bursitis). Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00240
Although the CI was originally placed on the TDRL for this condition, it was not found to exist at the time of his TDRL re-evaluation. Condition 3 : Other Conditions I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00241
There were no other active medical conditions of significance at that time, and no additional entries on the MEB’s DA 3947. No extremity complaints or exam abnormalities were noted on the VA pre-separation rating examination, and there were no physical findings associated with the knee complaint on the MEB physical. In the matter of the hypertension, reflux disease, PTSD, knee conditions and all of the CI’s other medical conditions; the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend any...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00242
The formal PEB found the CI unfit for his right knee condition at 10% and his left ankle condition at 10% and did not add either OSA or facial nerve conditions to the DA Form 199. Additional supporting medical evidence was requested of the CI and was not forthcoming at the time of the MTF decision to deny the appeals. Other Conditions .
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00243
The PEB found him unfit only for the cardiac condition and he was separated at 10% disability. The 15 MET stress test result obtained by the Army was not compensable under the referred codes, and the minimum rating under 7018 was justified. In the matter of the cardiac condition, chronotropic incompetence, the Board unanimously concurs with the PEB coding and rating, IAW VASRD §4.104.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00244
Left Knee Condition . It could therefore not be added as an additional knee coding as the CI’s symptoms were already considered under the painful motion rating and the lower back rating and it was determined that a second knee rating would be pyramiding. The CI contends for addition of Diabetes Mellitus as a new unfitting condition at time of separation with subsequent rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00246
The VA chose to code it as a single condition with the cushingoid steroid complications and rate it according to the 7907 Cushing’s syndrome criteria. Other Conditions . In the matter of the Cushing’s condition, the Board voted 2:1 to recommend it as an additionally unfitting condition for separation rating; coded 7907 and rated 30% IAW VASRD §4.120.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00248
The CI was being seen two to three times per month for medication management and four times a month for PTSD group therapy. When the CI was evaluated for PTSD and rated in Apr 07 the VA did not apply §4.129, but rated the exam by criteria at 30% effective the date following the CI's discharge. The VA initial PTSD evaluation exam of 20080407 (8 months post discharge) indicated mild to moderate impairment in social and occupational functioning.