RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW
NAME: BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY
CASE NUMBER: PD0900198 COMPONENT: ARNG
BOARD DATE: 20090625 SEPARATION DATE: 20041115
________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF CASE: This covered individual (CI) was an NCO medically separated from the Army in 2004 after 27 years of combined service (elected medical separation vs. retirement). The medical basis for the separation was cervical disc disease. Shortly after mobilization, he developed radiating neck pain associated with the requirement for Kevlar and load-bearing equipment in training. He was transferred to medical hold and did not deploy. He did not respond adequately to conservative treatment and was deemed not to be a surgical candidate on neurosurgical consultation. He was referred to the PEB, found unfit for the neck condition and separated at 10% disability. The PEB adjudication stated ‘This disability existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated by service, but is compensable in accordance with 10 USC 1207a’. There is no suggestion that there was any EPTS deduction from the rating, however. The VA (less than one month after separation) initially denied service connection, based on the PEB language, but promptly conceded it on appeal and rated the condition at 10%. The CI contends that he should have been medically retired, stressing the service-connection issue and citing back pain as well.
________________________________________________________________
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 PDBR 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. The PEB coding was appropriate, and rating was derived from the general rating formula for the spine IAW VASRD §4.71a. There were two range of motion exams in the service treatment record, either one of which would have yielded a 10% rating. As noted above, this was also congruent with the near-concurrent VA examination. The Board unanimously concluded that the PEB adjudication was fair. Consideration was given to application of an additional peripheral nerve code rating for the radicular symptoms. Consistent with the VA, it was unanimously concluded that there was no foundation for doing so. The CI’s contended back pain was not in evidence as a significant issue at the time of the MEB, nor was there any indication that it might have been unfitting if so. Back pain was noted as a service-connected condition by the VA, but rated 0%. The Board unanimously concluded that there was no justification for adding this condition to the separation rating.
________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board therefore recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s Physical Evaluation Board adjudication of 21 OCT 2004.
________________________________________________________________
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20090222, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record.
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00409
The chronic back pain and chronic neck pain conditions, characterized as “chronic neck pain and chronic back pain, with degenerative disc disease” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. In addition, the CI was notified by the Army that his case may be eligible for review of the military disability evaluation of his MH condition in accordance with Secretary of Defense directive for a comprehensive review of Service members who were referred to a disability...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 02097
The MEB also identified and forwarded a chronic neck pain condition.The Informal PEBadjudicated “chronic non-radiating low back pain” as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Contended Chronic Neck Pain and Mental Health Conditions .The Board’s main charge is to assess the fairness of the PEB’s determination that neck condition was not unfitting. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02061
I cannot run in the park with my children, I cannot stand for long periods of time due to having muscle spasms, flare-ups, and this has been depressing and difficult with my day to day activities for years. Pre-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Neck and Upper Back Pain523710%Chronic Neck and Upper Back Strain523710%20040701Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 0 Combined: 10%Combined: 10% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20040823(most proximate to date of...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01083
The goniometric evaluation of 45⁰ of thoracolumber flexion in the VA examination is consistent with a rating of 20% using the VASRD general rating formula for diseases and injuries of the spine. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence, the Board recommends a separation rating of 20% for the back pain condition, coded 5241 for spinal fusion. The Board determined therefore that the neck condition was not subject to service disability rating.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00232
The PEB found the LBP and neck pain conditions unfitting, and rated those 10% each. Pre-Sep | |Flexion (90⁰ is |90⁰ | |normal) | | |Combined (240⁰ is |225⁰ | |normal) | | |§4.71a Rating |10% | |Comments |No mention of pain | | |with ROM | The Army PEB and the VA both rated her back pain condition at 10%. The PEB rated her neck pain at 10%.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00024
SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SGT/E-5 (92G20 / Food Service Operations), medically separated for low back pain (LBP). RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01526
He was then medically separated with a 0% disability rating. As noted above, the CI was medically separated from the Army in April 2003 due to chronic neck and back pain.Twenty months later, he had a VA Compensation and Pension exam. 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.In...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01911
The VA rated under a peripheral nerve code 8520 (sciatic nerve) at 40% (moderately severe) citing pain and numbness to both extremities; in addition to lumbar disc protrusion for 10% under code 5242 (degenerative arthritis).Board members first agreed that sufficient evidence of painful motion was present to justify the rating of 10%, as well as the presence of localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or spinal contour IAW §4.59 and §4.71a.Next, members acknowledged the ROM values...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01584
RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20040826VA -(~8 Months Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Left Knee Pain with Degenerative Joint Disease5099-50030%Chondromalacia, Left Knee5099-501410%20050705Neck and Back Pain with Kyphosis and Myofascial Pain and Degenerative Changes5237---%Lumbosacral Spine Associated with Left Knee pain523710%20050705Cervical Spine Associated with Left Knee Pain523710%20050705Other x 4 (Not in Scope)Other x 1 Rating: 0%Combined:...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 02083
At the MEB exam, the CI reported daily lower back pain causing him to be depressed. The neck condition was reviewed and considered by the Board. 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...