Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01341
Original file (PD-2013-01341.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  CASE: PD-2013-01341
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army          BOARD DATE: 20141119
SEPARATION DATE: 20041104


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SGT/E-5 (88M/Motor Transport Operator) medically separated for optic neuropathy condition. The 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 E3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The optic neuropathy condition, characterized as “optic neuropathy, left eye” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “optic neuropathy” as unfitting rated at 10% citing criteria of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “I Received the Injuries In Combat.”


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 optic neuropathy 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 Board for Correction of Military Records.


 RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20040825
 VA - (2 Mos. Pre-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Optic Neuropathy 6026-6079 10% Post-Operative Residuals, Corneal Transplant, Left Eye, With Conduction Disturbance 6026-6070 30% 20040915
Other x 0 (Not in Scope)
 Other x 3
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 40%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 20041130 (most proximate to date of separation )


ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Optic Neuropathy Condition. Due to a perforated corneal ulcer, the CI underwent a corneal transplant of the left eye in January 1998; that post-operatively the CI’s best corrected visual acuity was 20/20 for the right eye and a 20/30 for the left eye.

During deployment to Iraq, the CI presented to the optometrist on 25 July 2003, with a complaint of a having the sensation of a foreign body in his left eye for a duration of 2 hours. During examination the CI’s left eye visual acuity was limited to only hand motion, however the stated that his visual impairment was unchanged from his initial cornea surgery in 1998. The optometrist noted that this degree of reported visual impairment did not meet criteria for his MOS and was [bemused] that the CI was apparently never considered for an MEB. The CI was medically evacuated for further evaluation and MEB processing.

During an ophthalmology examination obtained on 21 October 2003, the CI stated the he had a 4 months history of “vision loss” in the left eye, having “light perception only” and indicated that he could see “images” post cornea surgery “up until July 03”. The examiner noted that despite the subjective complaint of significant vision loss, his stereoscopic vision was intact.
At the ophthalmology examination performed on 30 October 2003, the CI was unable to count fingers at ten inches in front of his left eye and at following ophthalmology examination dated 3 November 2003; the examiner opined that current objective eye findings, non-physiologic vision loss could be a factor. An ophthalmology consultation dated 10 December 2003, noted the CI’s subjective complaint of inability to see from the left eye and also that “exams indicate vision of 20/70 or 20/80 to left (L) eye, but only when CI is unaware that he’s being tested for (L) vision”. For the MEB examination (DD Form 2808) dated 16 December 2003, corrected visual acuity of the left eye was noted to be 20/200; the right eye was 20/20. However, on the Report of Medical Assessment the CI stated that he had “no lateral vision in left eye”.

An initial MEB ophthalmology addendum summary dated 9 February 2004 (9 months prior to separation), re-iterated the reported vision loss while deployed was unexplained. The examiner noted that corrected visual acuity measured in the left eye in October 2003 was 20/70 and that visual field testing at that time revealed loss of vision in the entire left visual field. The addendum examiner’s conclusion was that non-physiologic visual loss was suggested by the testing. On 3 March 2004, the CI could count fingers at ten inches in front of his left eye. The following day he could count fingers at six inches. A medical memorandum to the MEB dated 8 April 2004, states that “likely dust/sand irritation to left eye” occurred while deployed and that the cause of vision loss was unexplainable. It also notes an October 2003 entry showing corrected left eye visual acuity of 20/70. Electrophysiologic testing (visual evoked potentials) on 12 July 2004 showed evidence of optic neuropathy in the left eye.

At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) evaluation on 27 September 2004 (a month prior to separation), the CI reported that his left eye “became very infected” while in Iraq and since that time he only had light perception. Examination showed corrected right eye visual acuity of 20/20 and left eye visual acuity of light perception only. On 28 October 2004, the VA eye clinic attempted visual field testing, but the results were deemed “not reliable”. During a follow-up VA ophthalmology evaluation dated 25 April 2005, the examiner also noted left visual acuity of light perception only and visual field testing “looks normal but 20% false positives”. The examiner concluded that the etiology of vision loss was “uncertain”.

The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB assigned a 10% rating for visual acuity loss under a combination 6026-6079 code (optic neuritis; impaired visual acuity). Based on best corrected vision of 20/15 in the right eye and 20/70 in the left eye, the PEB use of the 6079 code was appropriate, as was the 10% rating. The VA assigned a 30% rating under a 6026-6070 code. Based on best corrected vision of 20/20 in the right eye and light perception only in the left noted by the VA examiner, the VA’s determination was also correct.

There are disparities between examinations in the service treatment records which had implications for the Board's rating recommendation. The Board deliberated the probative value of these conflicting evaluations and carefully reviewed the entire file for corroborating evidence from the period preceding separation. In this regard, inconsistent reports were considered. For example, the CI indicated at his first evaluation in Iraq that his visual impairment since cornea surgery in 1998 was “hand motion only,” but the STR clearly showed that best corrected visual acuity after the cornea surgery was well beyond this. It was also noted that this reportedly long-standing near-absence of vision preceding deployment was later characterized as worsened during deployment. Regarding visual testing, while the visual evoked potentials showed evidence of left optic neuropathy, the degree of visual impairment appeared to be quite variable. Visual field testing prior to separation reportedly showed loss of vision in the entire left visual field, while the CI claimed he only had difficulty in the lateral left visual field. Testing by the VA noted initial unreliable field results, but this was followed by an apparently normal visual fields. Meanwhile, visual acuity of the left eye was reported at various encounters as light perception only, hand motion only, unable to count fingers at 10 inches, able to count fingers at 10 inches, 20/70 and 20/200. The Board ultimately agreed with the PEB that the visual acuity for rating purposes was best characterized as 20/70 in the left eye and better than 20/40 in the right. Therefore, the PEB’s 10% rating was warranted. The Board also considered if rating under the 6080 code (field vision, impairment of) was appropriate, given reports of some visual field difficulties. However, actual perimetry data necessary to ascertain a rating was not in evidence and as previously elaborated the VA concluded that visual fields were normal. Therefore, this rating option was not supported. 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 left optic neuropathy 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 left eye optic neuropathy condition and IAW VASRD §4.84a, 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.


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20130929, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Treatment Record







                 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
Physical Disability Board of Review



 SAMR-RB                                                                         


MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency
(AHRC-DO), 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22202-3557


 SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20150002971 (PD201301341)

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                                                  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                                      Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
                                                      (Review Boards)
                                                     
CF:
( ) DoD PDBR
( ) DVA

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01042

    Original file (PD2011-01042.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the visual field deficit right eye condition as unfitting, rated 30%, and placed the CI on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). At the time the CI was placed on the TDRL, the PEB rated the visual field deficit condition at 30% under a combination VASRD code reflecting that an impairment of visual field (code 6080) was possibly due to TB (6010). In the matter of the right eye visual field condition, the Board unanimously recommends a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02321

    Original file (PD-2013-02321.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The eye conditions, characterized as “mild traumatic cataract,” “decreased vision,” and “cystoid macular edema” of the left eye, were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEBcombined the MEB diagnoses as a single unfitting condition, rated 10% under criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board also acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the occupational impediments due to his...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00455

    Original file (PD2011-00455.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    (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 unfitting conditions will be reviewed in all cases. Under VASRD §4.124a, for code 8045 effective the CI’s date of separation: RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01506

    Original file (PD-2013-01506.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.The Informal PEB rated the right eye injury 10% using the code 6090-6079 (diplopia-Vision in one eye 20/100 and other eye 20/40) noting aphakia, correctable with a contact lens, post-operative residual diplopia, and visual acuity 20/70 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left eye. X-rays dated 27 August 2003 for lower back pain with a normal examination and without a neurological deficit were reported to be...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00664

    Original file (PD2011-00664.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the idiopathic monocular exercise-induced vision/visual field loss condition as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). In July 2007, the CI noted transient inferior visual field loss during exertion and sometimes complete loss of vision in his right eye, much more than the left eye. Service Treatment Record

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063506C070421

    Original file (2001063506C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 January 1996, the applicant underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB). On 16 April 1996, an informal PEB found the applicant to be physically unfit due to probable acute zonal occult outer retinopathy with suspected glaucoma, strabismus, and facial neuralgia, Veterans Affairs Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 6099 (diseases of the eye, unlisted conditions), 6006 (retinitis), and 6078 (impairment of central visual acuity, vision in one eye 20/100). On 30 October 2001, a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01169

    Original file (PD2012 01169.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The keratoconus and sleep apnea conditions, characterized as “keratoconus in each eye corrected with rigid gas permeable contact lenses, EPTS (existed prior to service), not permanently aggravated by service;” and “sleep apnea requiring CPAP,”were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501 as medically unacceptable.The MEB forwarded no other conditions.The PEBadjudicated “keratoconus in each eye, corrected with rigid gas permeable contact lens, EPTS, not permanently...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01139

    Original file (PD2012 01139.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Traumatic Optic Neuropathy Condition : The PEB rated the traumatic optic neuropathy with visual limitation of 20/40,limitation of up gaze in the right eye, right orbital fracture, hypertropia and exotropia and status post multiple skull fractures, Including a right orbit and bi-basilar skull fracture as Category II conditions (“Conditions that contribute to the unfitting condition”). Right Wrist Fracture Condition : T he PEB determined that the right wrist fracture condition was related to...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00569

    Original file (PD2011-00569.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the bilateral exophthalmos condition as unfitting, rated 20% with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. Bilateral Eye Condition .

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00654

    Original file (PD-2014-00654.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    At TDRL placement, the PEB adjudicated the CI’s headache condition at 10% coded 8045-9304 (brain disease due to trauma, purely subjective).The PEB documented that the CI’s headaches required him to go home from work twice a week, but that he was still able to work 30 hours a week.The VA rated the condition of chronic headaches, coded 8100 (migraine). The FPEB, under code 6081, rated the condition at 10%, and noted the condition was stable but prevented the return to active duty.The Board...