Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00699
Original file (PD-2012-00699.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
SEPARATION DATE:  20030703 

 
NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXX                                                                      BRANCH OF SERVICE:   ARMY 
CASE NUMBER:  PD1200699 
BOARD DATE:  20130103 
 
 
SUMMARY  OF  CASE:    Data  extracted  from  the  available  evidence  of  record  reflects  that  this 
covered  individual  (CI)  was  an  active  duty  SPC/E‐4  (91G/Patient  Administration  Specialist), 
medically separated for cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD).  His cervical DDD condition 
could  not  be  adequately  rehabilitated  to  meet  the  physical  requirements  of  his  Military 
Occupational Specialty (MOS) or satisfy physical fitness standards.  He was issued a permanent 
U3  profile  (131111)  and  referred  for  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB).    Disc  herniation 
condition, identified in the rating chart below, was also identified and forwarded by the MEB.  
The  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB)  adjudicated  the  cervical  DDD  condition  as  unfitting, 
subsuming the disc herniation condition while also noting the existing prior to service (EPTS) 
component, but finding the EPTS impact to be undeterminable, and rated the cervical DDD 10% 
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  was  going  to  retire  from  the  military  until  I  was  released.  I  can’t  do 
everything I could prior to going into the military.”   
 
 
SCOPE OF REVIEW:  The Board wishes to clarify that the scope of its review as defined in DoDI 
6040.44, Enclosure 3, paragraph 5.e.(2) is limited to those conditions which were determined 
by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the 
CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.”  The ratings 
for the unfitting condition, cervical DDD, will be reviewed.  This condition will include the other 
conditions  titled  disc  herniation  and  C6  decompression  fracture,  C5‐7  disc  protrusion  &  C5‐6 
anterolisthesis  w/DDD.    The  remaining  condition  rated  by  the  VA  at  separation  (plantar 
calcaneal spur, right foot) is not within the Board’s purview.  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:   
 

VA (16 Mos. Post‐Separation) – All Effective Date 20040818
Exam

Condition

Rating 

Code 

Service IPEB – Dated 20030506 

Condition 

Cervical Degenerative Disc 
Disease 
Disc Herniation 

5293 5299 

Code 

Rating
10% 
5295 
Subsumed under DX 1

C6 Compression fracture, C5‐7 
disc protrusion & C5‐6 
anterolisthesis w/ DDD
Plantar Calcaneal Spur, R Foot 

5243 

5284‐
5015 

10% 

20040918 

0% 

20040918 

Not Service‐Connected x 3 

20040918 

Combined:  10% 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW 

↓No Addi(cid:415)onal MEB/PEB Entries↓ 

Combined:  10% 

*VARD 20041221 rated bone fragment, left elbow, left knee pain and right knee pain as Not Service Connected. 
 
 
 
 

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:   
 
Cervical  Degenerative  Disc  Disease  Condition.    There  were  three  range‐of‐motion  (ROM) 
evaluations  in  evidence,  one  of  which  was  goniometric,  with  documentation  of  additional 
ratable  criteria,  which  the  Board  weighed  in  arriving  at  its  rating  recommendation;  as 
summarized in the chart below.   
 
 

Ortho ~30 Mo. Pre‐Sep

(20010110)

MEB ~4 Mo. Pre‐Sep

(20030423)

VA C&P ~7 Mo. Post‐Sep

(20040918) 

Cervical ROM 

(Degrees) 

Flexion (45 Normal) 

Extension (45) 
R Lat Flex (45) 
L Lat Flex (45) 
R Rotation (80) 
L Rotation (80) 
COMBINED (340) 

Comment 

FAROM
FAROM
FAROM
FAROM
FAROM
FAROM

 

FAROM
FAROM
FAROM
FAROM
FAROM
FAROM

35 w/ mild discomfort

40 

35 
35 
70 
70 
285 

10% 

FAROM = full active 
range of motion. 
Neck supple; without 
TTP (tender to 
palpation) 

Minimally tender to 
palpation along the 
spinous processes of 
lower C‐ spine. Heel and 
toe walk without 
difficulty.

10%

No neck tenderness.  Mild 
stiffness and mild pain on 
range of motion testing. 
 

§4.71a Rating 

10%

  His  upper  extremity  exam  was  normal  (strength,  sensation). 

 
The CI sustained a compression fracture to his cervical spine (C‐spine) in high school.  He had no 
complaints  or  abnormal  findings  related  to  his  condition  at  the  Military  Entrance  Processing 
Station  (MEPS)  physical  in  July  1995  and  he  entered  active  duty  on  22  August  1996.    He 
developed  chronic  neck  pain  following  a  neck  injury  incurred  in  2000  when  he  fell  out  of  a 
military truck.  He was diagnosed with cervical disc disease and decided to not undergo offered 
surgical  intervention.      The  MEB  narrative  summary  (NARSUM)  exam  performed  on  23  April 
2003  notes  that  the  CI  reported  neck  pain  and  subjective  tingling.    There  was  minimal 
tenderness in the neck, but otherwise no physical abnormalities.  He had full active and passive 
ROM.  Neurologic examination was normal including strength and reflexes, and normal gait.  At 
the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam after separation on 18 September 2004, the CI 
reported neck pain and pins and needle sensation in both hands with heavy work.  He had 40 
degrees of forward flexion and about 35 degrees of extension with mild discomfort in his lower 
cervical  spine. 
  X‐rays 
demonstrated stigmata from the pre‐service C6 compression fracture, as well as DDD.  The C&P 
examiner noted that "To address the DeLuca provisions, there was mild stiffness and mild pain 
on range of motion with testing today." 
 
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  2003  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 in 2004.  The Board 
must  correlate  the  above  clinical  data  with  the  2003  rating  schedule  (applicable  diagnostic 
codes include: 5290 limitation of motion of cervical spine; 5293 intervertebral disc syndrome; 
and  5295  Lumbosacral  strain;  and  by  analogy  5295  lumbosacral  strain).    The  PEB  rated  the 
condition  10%  citing  neck  pain  without  radiculopathy,  analogous  to  5295  lumbosacral  strain 
with characteristic pain on motion.  The VA rated 10% citing limitation of motion coded 5243 
using VASRD rules in effect in 2004, but were not in effect at time of separation.  Under the 
VASRD rules in effect at time of separation, with minimal tenderness, normal ROM of cervical 
spine, no radiculopathy, and no incapacitating episodes, the Board concluded that the CI would 
be rated as 10% under 5290 or 5293.  If comparing the CI's physical findings to 5295 by analogy, 

   2                                                           PD1200699 
 

the  Board  noted  that  he  would  rate  10%  due  to  characteristic  pain  on  motion.    The  cervical 
spine  disc  herniation  is  part  of  the  overall  DDD  condition  and  is  subsumed  under the  rating.  
Separate  ratings  based  on  the  same  impairment  or  disability  is  prohibited  under  §4.14 
(avoidance  of  pyramiding).    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 cervical DDD 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 cervical DDD 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:   
 

VASRD CODE 
5293‐5299‐5295 
COMBINED 

RATING

10%
10%

Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease

UNFITTING CONDITION

 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
Exhibit A.  DD Form 294, dated 20120611, w/atchs 
Exhibit B.  Service Treatment Record 
Exhibit C.  Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

           XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DAF 
           President 
           Physical Disability Board of Review 

SFMR‐RB 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency  

(TAPD‐ZB / XXXXXXXX), 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA  22202‐3557 

SUBJECT:  Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20130000836 (PD201200699) 

 

 
 

 

 
 

   3                                                           PD1200699 
 

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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     XXXXXXXXXXXXX 

     Deputy Assistant Secretary 
         (Army Review Boards) 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
CF:  

(  ) DoD PDBR 

(  ) DVA 

 

 

 

   4                                                           PD1200699 
 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00696

    Original file (PD-2013-00696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The chronic neck and lumbar pain conditions, characterized as “cervical spine pain and lumbar spine pain” and “mild degenerative disk disease (DDD), cervical spine,” were the only conditions forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic neck pain,” and “chronic lumbar pain”as unfitting, rated 10% and 10% respectively, with likely application ofthe Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals and was...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01518

    Original file (PD2012 01518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active dutyAC2/E-5 (6902/Air Traffic Controller),medically separated for multilevel degenerative disk disease (DDD), lumbar and herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP), C5-C6, left. Since no evidence of functional impairment exists in this case, the Board cannot support a recommendation for additional rating based on peripheral nerve impairment at the time of separation from...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01864

    Original file (PD2012 01864.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The ratings for the unfitting chronic neck and lower back condition(s)is addressed below; and, no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. The record in evidence reasonably support that both conditions were unfitting and should be rated separately. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows:

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-03788

    Original file (PD-2014-03788.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The narrative summary (NARSUM), dated 31 May 2002 (3 months prior to separation), documented persistent left-sided neck and LUE pain (rated 8/10, “moderate and constant”); there was no mention of sensory symptoms, but “some clumsiness in the [LUE].” As with the VA exam, no physical limitations or functional consequences were elaborated. The evidence likewise supported a conclusion that the ROM limitation was fairly characterized as moderate, and the intermittently normal ROM (as documented...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01954

    Original file (PD 2012 01954.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Post-Separation) Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam HNP, C6/C7 5243 10% HNP, C6/C7 5237 10% 20040209 Chronic Low Back Pain 5237 10% Lumbar Disc Disease at L3-L4 5242 10% 20040209 No Additional MEB/PEB Entries Other x 2 20040918 Combined: 20% Combined: 20% ANALYSIS SUMMARY: Cervical and Lumbar Spine Condition: The CI had an insidious onset of neck and LBP with radiation to the left arm and left hip, respectively. The examiner diagnosed severe cervical thoracic pain with...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01750

    Original file (PD2012 01750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The VA assigned a40% rating for the back condition rated 5292-5293 citing severe limitation of motion of the lumbar spine. The discussed the C&P examination report that the CI held on a chair and compared that examination with prior examinations and concluded the examination confirmed characteristic pain on motion but did not evidence muscle spasm.The Board also considered if additional disability rating was justified for peripheral nerve impairment due to radiculopathy.Although there was...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00937

    Original file (PD 2013 00937.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s role is thus confined to the review of medical records and all evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, compared to VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separation; and, to review those fitness determinations within its scope (as elaborated above) consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation. Neck Pain Condition . The single voter for dissent did not elect to submit a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01301

    Original file (PD-2014-01301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination. DoD Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01988

    Original file (PD-2014-01988.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The exam noted full neck range-of-motion (ROM) with pain and normal strength, sensation, and reflexes of the bilateral UE. At a PT visit the CI reported the LBP radiated to the right posterior mid-thigh and at a primary care visit on 23 June 2009 he reported numbness...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01637

    Original file (PD 2012 01637.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The InformalPEBadjudicated “C4-5 herniated nucleus pulposus and C6-C7 bulge with early myelopathy, status post foraminotomy, Aug 2000,” as unfitting, rated at 10%,with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI non-concurred with the IPEB findings/recommendations, and requested Formal PEB (FPEB), who re-adjudicated the CI’s neck condition increasing the rating from 10% to 20%.The CI non-concurred with the FPEB findings/recommendations further appealed to the Air...