RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW 

 

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY 

CASE NUMBER: PD1201490 SEPARATION DATE: 20030520 

BOARD DATE: 20130404 

 

 

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this 
covered individual (CI) was an active duty SSG/E-6 (19K34/M1 Armor Crewman) medically 
separated for a cervical spine condition. He experienced an acute onset of neck pain doing sit-
ups in 2000; which persisted, and was diagnosed as degenerative disc disease (DDD) without 
surgical indications. The condition did not respond adequately to conservative therapy to meet 
the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS); and, he was issued a 
permanent P3 profile and referred to a MOS/Medical Retention Board (MMRB). The MMRB, 
however, recommended a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB forwarded cervical DDD 
(as the sole condition) to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. The Informal PEB 
adjudicated the condition as unfitting, rated 10%, citing criteria of the Veterans Affairs Schedule 
for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI withdrew an initial appeal for a formal PEB, and was 
medically separated with a 10% disability rating. 

 

 

CI CONTENTION: “I believe my original MMRB was not fully aware of the pain my injury was 
causing me on a daily basis. I was not able to sleep due to the pain. I was unable to wear a 
Kevlar and I was severely depressed because of all the pain I was having. The military gave me 
only one MRI (magnetic resonance image), so the board had nothing to compare my injury to. I 
was also told by the lady handling my MRB that the military does not have a rating for my neck 
injury and therefore I would be rated according to the lowest lower back injury rating. I just 
feel the whole process was rushed because they thought I was trying to get out of the military 
so I wouldn't have to go to war, but I tried to appeal the rating and even had the post CSM 
write a letter for me on my behalf so I could stay in the military. I had 14 years of my life 
invested in protecting my country. I wanted to retire from the military that was my dream. I 
also believe I received a lower rating because I have spoken to veterans who were discharged 
with the same injury as I was and they received a higher rating than me and one veteran was 
getting MRI's every 6 months while he was in the military and I only received one. It has taken 
me over 9 years to get another MRI from the VA I even paid for a bone scan myself, so VA could 
see the extent of my injury.” 

 

 

SCOPE OF REVIEW: The Board’s scope of review is defined in DoDI 6040.44, Enclosure 3, 
paragraph 5.e.(2). It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for 
continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by 
the PEB when specifically requested by the CI. The rating for the unfitting cervical condition is 
addressed below; and, no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of 
the Board. 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 (ABCMR). 

 

 


RATING COMPARISON: 

 

Service IPEB – Dated 20021231 

VA (3 Mos. Post-Separation) 

Condition 

Code 

Rating 

Condition 

Code 

Rating 

Exam 

Chronic Neck Pain 2° to DDD 

5299-5295 

10% 

DDD, Cervical Spine 

5242-5020 

10% 

20030829 

Combined: 10% 

Combined: 10% 



Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20031022 (most proximate to date of separation (DOS)) 

 

ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The Board acknowledges the CI’s assertions that his disability disposition 
was rushed and unfair, and that he was inadequately evaluated. It is noted for the record that 
the Board has no jurisdiction to investigate or render opinions in reference to such allegations; 
and, redress in excess of the Board’s scope of recommendations (as noted above) must be 
addressed by the ABCMR and/or the United States judiciary system. 

 

Neck Condition. The record reflects persistent neck pain with repeated clinic visits following 
onset. The CI was managed with medication and physical therapy; and, remained on temporary 
profiles from 2000 until permanently profiled pre-separation. Multiple outpatient notes 
document grossly normal range-of-motion (ROM) and normal neurologic findings. Magnetic 
resonance imaging of November 2001 revealed DDD at C3/4 and C4/5, without neural 
involvement. A follow-up orthopedic consultant opined that surgery was not indicated, and 
recommended the MMRB (outcome as per summary section). The narrative summary 
(NARSUM), after referencing the initial onset with sit-ups in July 2000, documented, “he states 
that ever since then he has had constant dull pain in his neck that will occasionally become 
sharp. The pain is non-radiating. It increases with sit-ups, wearing his Kevlar, and impact 
exercises.” The physical exam made no mention of tenderness, spasm, or contour abnormality; 
and, reported the absence of neurological symptoms (detailed normal neurological exam by 
MEB orthopedic consultant). The ROM measurements recorded in the NARSUM were flexion 
50 degrees (normal 45 degrees), extension 28 degrees (normal 45 degrees), right lateral flexion 
of 33 degrees (normal 45 degrees), and left lateral flexion of 28 degrees. At the VA 
Compensation and Pension (C&P) evaluation (3 months post-separation), the examiner noted 
“dull pain all the time on the right side of the neck ... same as when he was in the service;” 
rated 4/10, with exacerbations to 7-8/10 precipitated by “just turning the head too quickly.” 
The VA physical exam stated, “There was no objective evidence of painful motion, spasms, 
weakness, or tenderness.” It recorded “full” ROM of the spine, and normal neurologic findings. 

 

The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence; noting 
that the CI was separated just after a significant change in VASRD codes and criteria for the 
spine. The older codes and criteria were applied to rating by the PEB, and the current codes 
and criteria were in effect for the VA ratings. IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s recommendation 
must be premised on the VASRD in effect; although, the evidence of course remains probative 
to the Board’s recommendation under the applicable VASRD criteria. The PEB’s 10% rating with 
analogous application of the prior code 5295 for lumbosacral strain could be questioned (as per 
comments in the application); although, no available code under the VASRD applied by the PEB 
would have achieved a higher rating. The VA’s 10% rating under the applicable VASRD was not 
rigorously supported, since the C&P evidence would not have provided a basis for a 
compensable rating. It is assumed (not clarified in the rating decision) that the compensable 
rating was achieved via VASRD §4.40 (functional loss). Members agreed, however, that the 
ROM evidence from the NARSUM would support a 10% rating under the applicable criteria; 
since, the limitations of extension and lateral flexion would provide for a 10% rating based on 
combined ROM criteria. There was no evidence of ratable peripheral nerve impairment or 
documentation of incapacitating episodes in this case which would provide for additional or 
higher 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 an 
increase in the PEB’s rating of the cervical spine condition; although, as above, the Board is 


obligated to apply coding and rating criteria from the effective VASRD. The action officer 
recommended, and the Board concurred with, the code 5242 (degenerative arthritis of the 
spine) for its clinical specificity. 

 

 

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 cervical spine condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a criteria in 
effect at separation, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 10%, coded 
5242. There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as 
follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: 

 

UNFITTING CONDITION 

VASRD CODE 

RATING 

Degenerative Disc Disease, Cervical Spine 

5242 

10% 

COMBINED 

10% 



 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20121019, w/atchs 

Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record 

Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record 

 

 

 

 

 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, DAF 

 Director of Operations 

 Physical Disability Board of Review 

 


SFMR-RB 


 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency 

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

 

 

SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation 

for xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, AR20130009626 (PD201201490) 

 

 

1. 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 to modify the individual’s disability description without modification of the 
combined rating or recharacterization of the individual’s separation. This decision is final. 

 

2. I direct that all the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected 
accordingly no later than 120 days from the date of this memorandum. 

 

3. I request that a copy of the corrections and any related correspondence be provided to the 
individual concerned, counsel (if any), any Members of Congress who have shown interest, and 
to the Army Review Boards Agency with a copy of this memorandum without enclosures. 

 

 BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: 

 

 

 

 

Encl xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 Deputy Assistant Secretary 

 (Army Review Boards)