Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00683
Original file (PD2012-00683.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                                               SEPARATION DATE:  20030530 

 
NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                                               BRANCH OF SERVICE:   ARMY 
CASE NUMBER:  PD1200683 
BOARD DATE:  20130116 
 
 
SUMMARY  OF  CASE:    Data  extracted  from  the  available  evidence  of  record  reflects  that  this 
covered  individual  (CI)  was  an  active  duty  SPC/E‐4  (31U/Signal  Support  System  Specialist), 
medically separated for back pain secondary to herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) w/o radicular 
signs.    The  CI  developed  back  pain  approximately  2  years  prior  to  separation,  subsequently 
diagnosed  to  be  secondary  to  herniated  nucleus  pulposus.    Non‐surgical  treatment  was 
recommended by neurosurgery.  The CI did not improve adequately with treatment to meet 
the  physical  requirements  of  his  Military  Occupational  Specialty  or  satisfy  physical  fitness 
standards.  He was issued a permanent L3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB).    The  MEB  forwarded  no  other  conditions  for  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB) 
adjudication.    The  PEB  adjudicated  the  lumbar  condition  as  unfitting,  rated  10%,  with 
application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).  The  CI made no 
appeals, and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating.   
 
 
CI  CONTENTION:    “The  medical  condition  that  rendered  me  unfit  for  continued  service  was 
rated at 10% by the physical evaluation board.  The VA also initially rated my condition at 10%. 
My  VA  disability  rating  was  appealed  numerous  times  throughout  the  years  following  my 
discharge.  Approximately 4‐5 years ago, my VA disability rating appeal went before an Appeals 
Judge at my regional VA office.  The appeal was for the medical condition that rendered me unit 
for  continued  duty.    To  by  understanding,  we  (DAV  representative  and  myself)  appealed  the 
VA's initial disability rating from 2003.  After successfully appealing the VA's initial decision, the 
condition that rendered me unfit for duty was changed from 10% to 40%.  Because my initial 
rating was successfully appealed, I believe my DoD rating was inaccurate and unfair.”   
 
 
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, back pain secondary to L5‐S1 HNP, without radicular signs, will be 
reviewed.  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 IPEB – Dated 20030408 
Code 
Condition 
5293‐5299‐
Back  Pain  secondary  to 
5295 
HNP w/o radicular signs 
↓No Addi(cid:415)onal MEB/PEB Entries↓ 
Combined:  10% 

Rating
10% 

                                                                                                                 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW 

VA (2 Mos. Pre‐Separation and 7.5 Mos. Post‐Separation) 
Effective Date 20030531
Condition
DDD Lumbar
DDD Thoracic
Stress FX R Tibia
0% X 3 / Not Service‐Connected x 0
Combined:  10%*

Rating 
10%* 
0% 
0%* 

Code
5292
5291
5262

Exam
20030401
20030401
20040119

* DDD lumbar increased to 40% effective 20080123 (Combined 60%); Stress FX R Tibia increased to 10% effective 20031124 
(combined 20%).  [Depression added at 10% effective 20061026; Radiculopathy RLE added at 10% effective 20070412] 
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.   
 
Low Back Pain Condition:  The CI developed low back pain 2 years prior to the MEB without 
specific  injury.    Magnetic  resonance  imaging  demonstrated  a  moderate  to  severe  disc 
protrusion  at  L5‐S1  without  neural  compression,  and  degenerative  changes  at  other  levels.  
There  were  no  radicular  signs  or  symptoms.    Neurosurgical  consultation  recommended  non‐
surgical  treatment.    The  neurosurgery  examination  11  February  2003,  4  months  before 
separation, recorded flexion of 80 degrees with normal extension (30 degrees), lateral flexion 
(30 degrees), and rotation (40 degrees).  At the time of the MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), 
28  February  2003,  there  was  tenderness  to  palpation  at  L4‐L5  bilaterally.    Range‐of‐motion 
(ROM)  was  normal,  flexion  greater  than  90  degrees  with  pain  over  90  degrees.    Straight  leg 
raising was negative for nerve root irritation and strength was normal with intact reflexes.  At 
the time of the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination on 1 April, 2003, 2 months 
before  separation,  the  examiner  measured  lumbar  and  thoracic  ROM  separately  showing  30 
degrees  of  lumbar  flexion  and  95  degrees  of  thoracic  flexion  which  is  similar  to  the  ROM 
recorded at the time of the MEB examination.  There was no muscle spasm or tenderness of 
thoracic or lumbar spines, and the CI's posture and gait were normal.  Although SLR was said to 
be positive, the examiner concluded there was no radiculopathy present.   
 
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 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:  5292  limitation  of  lumbar  spine  motion;  5293 
intervertebral disc syndrome; and 5295 Lumbosacral strain).  The PEB  rated the condition 10% 
citing characteristic pain on motion consistent with rating using the lumbar strain code 5295 
(PEB coded the condition 5293‐5299‐5295, intervertebral syndrome – lumbar strain).  The VA 
rated 10% citing limitation of motion coded 5292.  The Board considered the rating under the 
VASRD diagnostic code 5292 in effect at the time.  The Board agreed that the ROM documented 
at the time of the neurosurgery evaluation and NARSUM supported the 10% under the VASRD 
diagnostic code 5292 in effect at the time (as well as current VASRD guidelines).  The Board 
noted the C&P examination which provided separate ROM values for the lumbar and thoracic 
spines.    When  combined,  these  values  closely  approximate  the  examinations  prior  to 
separation  and  as  well  as  C&P  examination  3  years  later  in  February  2006.    Examinations 
recorded the presence of painful motion.  The Board next considered whether a higher rating 
was warranted under the guidelines for intervertebral syndrome, code 5293.  At  the time of 
separation,  the  5293  rating  guidelines  were  based  on  incapacitating  episodes.    The  CI  had 
intervertebral  disc  disease  without  radicular  symptoms  or  objective  neurologic  findings.  

   2                                                           PD1200683 
 

Review  of  service  treatment  records  did  not  show  any  incapacitating  episodes  to  warrant  a 
minimum rating under this code.  The Board also considered the rating under the code, 5295, 
lumbosacral strain.  All members agreed there was characteristic pain on motion supporting the 
10% rating adjudicated by the PEB.  Board members agreed, the evidence did not support the 
40% rating under this code.  There was no loss of lateral spine motion (both measured at 40 
degrees on a C&P examination) to support the 20% rating.  The Board noted at the time of the 
C&P examination spasm was absent and gait was normal.  The Board concluded the 10% rating 
was appropriate for characteristic pain on motion.  There was no associated radiculopathy for 
separate peripheral nerve rating.  After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and 
mindful of VASRD §4.3 (Resolution of reasonable doubt), the Board concluded that there was 
insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the 5295 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 back pain secondary to HNP w/o radicular signs 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,  unanimously  recommends  that  there  be  no 
recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows:   
 

UNFITTING CONDITION 
Back Pain Secondary to HNP w/o Radicular Signs

VASRD CODE 
5293‐5299‐5295 
COMBINED 

RATING
10%
10%

 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
Exhibit A.  DD Form 294, dated 20120608, w/atchs 
Exhibit B.  Service Treatment Record 
Exhibit C.  Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SFMR‐RB 
 

 

 

 

           XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DAF 
           President 
           Physical Disability Board of Review 
 
 

 
 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency  

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

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20130001404 (PD201200683) 

 
 

 

   3                                                           PD1200683 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     XXXXXXXXXXXX 

     Deputy Assistant Secretary 
         (Army Review Boards) 

 

 

 
CF:  

(  ) DoD PDBR 

(  ) DVA 

   4                                                           PD1200683 
 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01587

    Original file (PD 2012 01587.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD1201587 BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY BOARD DATE: 20130411 SEPARATION DATE: 20020903 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4(74B/COMPUTER SPECIALIST) medically separated for a lumbar spine condition due to lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00996

    Original file (PD2011-00996.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pain was exacerbated by “driving and lifting over 25 pounds.” The VA exam noted a normal gait; and “only mild paraspinal tenderness” with “no associated muscle spasm.” Conversely the ROM measurements recorded by the VA examiner were a flexion of 25⁰, extension 20⁰, right flexion 20⁰ and left flexion 15⁰ (no rotational measurements). The VA rating decision for the 40% rating invoked ‘severe’ limitation of ROM under code 5292, which was supported by the marked ROM impairment documented on the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00117

    Original file (PD2013 00117.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Spine surgery evaluation concluded there was no indication for surgery.The MEB physical examination on29January 2002 (DD Form 2808) recorded “ROM 45 degrees anterior flexion” but did not specify whether this was lumbar spine or trunk motion.The orthopedic MEB narrative summary addendum examination on30March 2002, recorded back flexion with fingers reaching to mid shin (approximately 70 degrees), similar to the physical therapy examination the year previously.There was tenderness to palpation...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01457

    Original file (PD2012 01457.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI requested a reconsideration of the IPEB findings after which the IPEB found the CI unfit for his low back condition, rated 10%. Subsequent multiple VA physical therapy records ranging to the end of 2002,within the 12-month window specified in DoDI 6040.44 regarding VA evaluations for Board consideration, did not demonstrate any deterioration in the CI’s condition, although the Board noted that the CI continued to have ongoing low back pain that was being treated with non-steroidal...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01336

    Original file (PD-2012-01336.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pre -Separation) – All Effective Date 20030416 Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam Back Pain & Loss of Motion 5293-5299- 5292 20% S/p Laminectomy L4-5, L5-S1 5293-5292 40% 20030205 .No Additional MEB/PEB Entries. At the MEB exam, the NARSUM, 24 October 2002, noted “gradual improvement of pain,” but with “persistent difficulties with bending, stooping, lifting and running.” The MEB physical exam noted that the “general physical examination is within normal limits.” The NARSUM...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00533

    Original file (PD2012-00533.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 20% for the chronic LBP condition coded 5292-5293 which includes limited motion, pain and sensory loss in the right lower extremity. Both MEB exams indicated pain with motion and the right hip X-ray demonstrated degenerative arthritis. 5 PD1200533 RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00708

    Original file (PD2012-00708.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB rated the condition 10% based on pain on forward motion under the 5295 code for lumbosacral strain. The VA reported 90 degrees of lumbar forward flexion and ROMs were consistent with near-normal ROMs from the AMA guidelines in effect at the time, and the Board adjudged these as slight limitation (IAW 5292, Spine, limitation of lumbar motion). Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DAF Director Physical Disability...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00746

    Original file (PD2012-00746.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Low Back Condition. The PEB and VA chose different coding options for the low back condition, but used the 2002 Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) for rating the spine, which were in effect at the time of separation. The VA’s original rating decision coded 5293-5241 analogous to the new §4.71 VASRD code 5241 (Spinal fusion) utilizing the old spine code 5293 (Intervertebral disc syndrome) for a 20% rating for moderate limitation of motion of the lumbar spine.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01757

    Original file (PD 2012 01757.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The 2003 Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) coding and rating standards for the spine, which were in effect at the time of the CI’s separation, were updated on 23 September 2002 for code 5293 (incapacitating episodes) and then changed to the current §4.71a rating standards on 26 September 2003. There was limited and painful motion of the lumbar spine as well as tenderness and spasms present. The original VARD indicated that the VA’s rating was based...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00853

    Original file (PD2011-00853.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6044.40, however, resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness determinations and rating decisions for disability 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 in 2004. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence,...