RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW 

 

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY 

CASE NUMBER: PD1200763 SEPARATION DATE: 20030703 

BOARD DATE: 20130213 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this 
covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4 (52D10/Power Generation Mechanic), 
medically separated for chronic low back pain (LBP). The CI’s back condition did not improve 
adequately with treatment to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational 
Specialty (MOS) or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a permanent L3 profile and 
referred for a Medical Evaluation Board. The MEB forwarded no other conditions for Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudication. The PEB adjudicated the chronic LBP condition as 
unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities 
(VASRD). The CI made no appeals, and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating. 

 

 

CI CONTENTION: “I have constant lower back pain that I have to deal with. Can’t take meds 
until I get off because they make me sleepy, and I can’t sleep on the job.” 

 

 

SCOPE OF REVIEW: The Board wishes to clarify that the scope of its review as defined in DoDI 
6040.44 (4.a) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically 
unfitting for continued military service; and, when requested by the CI, those condition(s) 
“identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.” Any conditions or contention not 
requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain 
eligible for future consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 

 

 

RATING COMPARISON: 

 

Service PEB – Dated 20030328 

VA (~9 Mos. Post-Separation) – All Effective Date 20030704 

Condition 

Code 

Rating 

Condition 

Code 

Rating 

Exam 

Chronic Low Back Pain 

5299-5295 

10% 

Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain 

5237 

10%* 

20040324 

.No Additional MEB/PEB Entries. 

Not Service-Connected x 2 

20040324 

Combined: 10% 

Combined: 10% 



*VA rated in accordance with updated spine guidelines that became effective after separation. 

 

 

ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The Disability Evaluation System (DES) is responsible for maintaining a fit 
and vital fighting force. While the DES considers all of the member's medical conditions, 
compensation can only be offered for those medical conditions that cut short a member’s 
career, and then only to the degree of severity present at the time of final disposition. The DES 
has neither the role nor the authority to compensate members for anticipated future severity 
or potential complications of conditions resulting in medical separation nor for conditions 
determined to be service-connected by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) but not 
determined to be unfitting by the PEB. However the DVA, operating under a different set of 
laws (Title 38, United States Code), is empowered to compensate all service-connected 


conditions and to periodically re-evaluate said conditions for the purpose of adjusting the 
Veteran’s disability rating should the degree of impairment vary over time. 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. 

 

Chronic Low Back Pain Condition. The CI first reported the gradual onset back pain, with 
unknown etiology, commencing after running an obstacle course in March, 2001, within the 
first year of his enlistment. Although the pain was exacerbated by a minor motor vehicle 
accident in November 2001, but there was no indication that the condition was ever more than 
musculoskeletal back pain. Radiographs were normal. There was one reference to transient 
involvement in the left L5 nerve root on orthopedic examination 18 October 2001; however, all 
subsequent examinations demonstrated no evidence of this finding and a magnetic resonance 
imaging (MRI) was reported to be negative. Subsequent medical records noted occasional 
observations of antalgic gait and limitation of motion due to pain. The MEB narrative summary 
(NARSUM), dictated 6 December 20002, documents his complaint of lumbosacral pain, 
exacerbated by activities, without symptoms suggestive of radicular involvement, and not 
responding to conservative therapy. At that time, physical examination revealed paralumbar 
tenderness to palpation, and “functional” range-of-motion (ROM) with pain induced by lumbar 
extension only. Straight leg raising (SLR) was negative for radicular symptoms, and lower 
extremity strength and reflexes were normal. A clinic encounter on 2 January 2003 
documented “decreased” flexion and extension due to pain. Gait was normal, SLR was 
negative, and strength and reflexes were normal. A physical therapy examination performed 
on 18 February 2003 recorded goniometric ROM after five repetitions as flexion 50 degrees, 
extension 25 degrees, lateral bending 25 degrees bilaterally, and rotation 30 degrees bilaterally. 
A 30 May 2003 clinic visit documented increased LBP without radiation due to recent heavy 
lifting. ROM was recorded as normal, and gait as slightly ataxic. Signs of radiculopathy were 
absent. A 25 June 2003 clinic encounter recorded decreased extension due to pain without 
mention of decreased flexion. A 1 July 2003 clinic encounter for a hand injury noted the CI was 
involved in a fight 3 weeks previously. No mention of back pain is made in this clinic encounter. 
On 24 March 2004, he underwent a VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 9 
months after separation. ROM was flexion 80 degrees, extension 20 degrees, lateral bending 
20 degrees bilaterally, and rotation 20 degrees bilaterally. There were no signs of 
radiculopathy. The general medical C&P examination, on the same date, documented normal 
gait and posture with normal neurologic examination. 

 

The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. In 
accordance with DoDI 6040.44, the Board is required to recommend a rating IAW the VASRD in 
effect at the time of separation. The Board notes that the 2002 Veteran Administration 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards for the spine, which were in effect at the 
time of separation, were changed to the current §4.71a rating standards effective 26 
September 2003. The Board must correlate the above clinical data with the 2002 rating 
schedule, for which the applicable diagnostic codes include 5292 (limitation of lumbar spine 
motion), 5293 (intervertebral disc syndrome), and 5295 (lumbosacral strain). The PEB rated the 
low back pain condition 10% based on pain with motion under the 5295 code for lumbosacral 
strain in the VASRD guidelines in effect at the time of separation. The VA rated the condition 
10%, using code 5237 (lumbosacral strain), based on the post separation VA examination using 
the current VASRD guidelines that became effective after the CI’s separation. The Board first 
considered the rating under the code, 5295, lumbosacral strain used by the PEB. All members 
agreed the preponderance of evidence did not support a rating higher that the 10% rating 
assigned by the PEB. There was no muscle spasm, unilateral loss of side bending, or marked 


limitation of motion which would have met criteria for the next higher rating. The Board noted 
that there was no evidence of intervertebral disc syndrome nor any incapacitating episodes to 
warrant consideration under 5293, intervertebral syndrome. The Board next considered the 
rating under the VASRD diagnostic code 5292 (limitation of lumbar spine motion). The Board 
noted the physical therapy examination of February 2003 recorded a moderate limitation of 
motion supportive of a 20% rating under code 5292. However the MEB NARSUM examination 
noted “functional” motion suggesting only slight impairment in motion. A May 2003 clinic 
encounter recorded normal ROM. Following separation, the C&P examination ROM 
examination more nearly approximated the 10% rating. The Board discussed the apparent 
waxing and waning nature of the CI’s back condition and considered the overall disability 
picture as reflected in treatment records. The Board concluded that the preponderance of 
evidence more nearly approximated the 10% rating. There was no associated radiculopathy for 
separate peripheral nerve rating. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and 
mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board concluded that there was insufficient 
cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the LBP condition. 

 

 

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 outside the VASRD 
were exercised. In the matter of the chronic low back condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the 
Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. There were no other 
conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration. 

 

 

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 

Chronic Low Back Pain 

5299-5295 

10% 

COMBINED 

10% 



 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20120612, w/atchs 

Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record 

Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record 

 

 

 

 

 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, DAF 

 Acting Director, 

 Physical Disability Board of Review 

 


SFMR-RB 


 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency 

(TAPD-ZB / xxxxxxxxxxx), 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22202-3557 

 

SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation 
for xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, AR20130005536 (PD201200763) 

 

 

I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of 
Review (DoD PDBR) recommendation and record of proceedings pertaining to the 
subject individual. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554a, 
I accept the Board’s recommendation and hereby deny the individual’s application. 

This decision is final. The individual concerned, counsel (if any), and any Members of 
Congress who have shown interest in this application have been notified of this decision 
by mail. 

 

 BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: 

 

 

 

 

Encl xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 Deputy Assistant Secretary 

 (Army Review Boards)