Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00659
Original file (PD2013 00659.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME : XXXXXXXXXX        CASE: PD1300659
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE      BOARD DATE: 201 4 0206
Separation Date: 20030108


SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an activated Air Force Reserve TSGT/E-6 (3N0X1 / Public Affairs [ formerly 2A672 / Aerospace Ground Equipment ] ) medically separated for right patellar chondromalacia with patellar tilt. The CI enlisted into the Air Force, serving on active duty from 1988-1991, then in the Air Force Reserves from 1991-2001, and was activated from October 2001 until May 2002. She had a history of chronic bilateral knee pain, the right much greater than the left; first injured while participating in a training program . At that time, she was diagnosed with patellofemoral pain. Initially, she received physical therapy (PT) and injections to her knees which relieved her left knee pain somewhat, but not her right knee pain and she subsequently underwent a right knee arthroscopy with lateral release in April 2002 . Despite continu ed improvement, it was determined that her condition hampered her ability to do her job and she was issued a temporary L4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The right knee condition, characterized as “ right patellar chondromalacia with patellar tilt” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. In December 2002, the PEB adjudicated “right patellar chondromalacia with patellar tilt,” as unfitting, rated 10% but determined this condition existed prior to service ( EPTS ) and categorized it as “Category II, Conditions that can be unfitting but are not currently compensable or ratable . ” The CI appealed to the Board for Correction of Military Record s ( BCMR ) which corrected the PEB ’s finding and awarded her a 10% rating for t he right knee condition in November 2004.


CI CONTENTION : “The injury that ended my career was not fixed and continues to get worse. I am still unable to run or stand, squat, kneel, bend, or walk for prolonged periods. I have difficulty with stairs and hills. The injury has severely limited what I am able to do on a daily basis and in regard to the type work I can perform. The pain is constant, with it getting worse with activity. I do not believe it should have ever been 10%. I was also granted a 0% rating for hearing loss. I appealed the 0% rating with reports from two independent civilian audiologists (Kansas and Colorado) who said moderate hearing loss with the need for bilateral hearing aids. The VA sent me to their doctor in Colorado, who said the loss was mild. I worked on the flight line for the better part of 14 years and lost quite a bit of hearing, despite wearing hearing protection. I worked on support equipment and supported B52, A10, Fl6, T37, T38, KC10, and KC135 aircraft. I was constantly exposed to extremely loud noise for 8 to 12 hours per day. I do not hear a lot of things and have extreme difficulty understanding people. I avoid social situations because I cannot hear and am uncomfortable. My family and coworkers get upset because they have to constantly repeat themselves or because I do not respond when spoken to. I cannot hear tornado sirens and other day-to-day sounds. The hearing loss directly impacts my life. I do not believe I should have been rated at 0% when I have such difficulty hearing.”


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 right knee condition is addressed below. The requested hearing loss condition was not identified by the MEB or PEB, and thus is not within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. 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 BCMR.


 RATING COMPARISON :

Service AFBCMR– Dated 20021211
 VA - 3 Mos. Post-Separation
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Right Patellar Chondromalacia with Patellar Tilt 5003-5299 10 Chondromalacia of the Right Knee, Postoperative Arthroscopic Surgery with Lateral Release 5099-5014 NSC (Not Service Connected)* STR
No Additional MEB/PEB Entries
 Other x5 20030416
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 10%*
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20030715 (most proximate to date of separation [DOS])
* VARD dated 20060307 granted service connection and rat ed it 10% effective 20020518


ANALYSIS SUMMARY : The Board acknowledges the sentiment expressed in the CI’s application, i.e., that the gravity of her condition and predictable consequences which merit consideration for a higher separation rating. The Board utilizes the Department of Veterans Affairs evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations; and, DoDI 6040.44 defines a 12 - month interval for special consideration to post-separation evidence. The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6044.40, however, resides in evaluating the fairness of Disability Evaluation System fitness determinations and rating decisions for disability at the time of separation. Post-separation evidence therefore is probative only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the disability and fitness implications at the time of separation.

Right Patellar Chondromalacia with Patellar Tilt Condition : The right knee injury is well documented as evidenced by the numerous records in the service treatment record . The CI sustained an injury to the right knee while training in 2001 . She failed to report her injury because she would not have been allowed to complete t he training. The knee pain worsened and she was evaluated, treated with a waiver from running and physical activities and sent home without graduating. The bil ateral knee was normal. She was seen for right knee pain in the f amily p ractice clinic and noted to have pain when she ran with physical findings of a positive McMurray ’ s sign ( suggests meniscal injury). The o rthopedist noted medial and lateral tenderness and slight medial and lateral patellar tenderness. The examiner diagnosed patellofemoral pain. A magnetic resonance imaging showed medial collateral thickening compatible with a sprain. The CI was seen in follow-up and the examining o rthopedist ordered a knee patellofemoral brace. The CI underwent a steroid injection due to worsening of pain and some tenderness in the right knee . She continued to follow -up with o rthopedics and based on a CT scan which showed patellar subluxation with borderline tilt . The orthopedist recommended and the CI underwent a right knee arthroscopy with lateral release on 11 April 2002. Thirteen days post- operativ ely, she reported the pain was decreasing ; however swelling was noted . Sh e did well until June when she reported pain unchanged with knee grind and tenderness . The c ommander issued a m emorandum on the CI’s medical status and documented that she underwent right knee surgery and although medical records were requested from the CI, she did not comply and, he was requesting them from the o rthopedist. In July , the o rthopedist noted ongoing symptoms and initiated an MEB with a 4T Profile . The MEB n arrative s ummary (NARSUM) exam accomplished approximately 4 months prior to separation noted that the CI had minimal pain with walking however there was increased pain with bending, squatting, kneeling and stair climbing. The MEB NARSUM exam findings are summarized in the chart below . The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam accomplished approximately 3 months after separation indicated that the CI still continued to have pain and problems with her right knee although she reported that it was better. The examiner noted that the CI had difficulty squatting, bending climbing stairs, going downstairs or walking up an incline caused pain and she was unable to run. She also had occasional weakness, stiffness with squatting . The VA C&P physical exam results are also summarized in the chart below . There were three range - of - motion (ROM) evaluations in evidence, with documentation of additional ratable criteria, which the Board weighed in arriving at its rating recommendation , summarized as follows :

Right Knee ROM (Degrees) PT ~ 5.5 Mo s . Pre-Sep MEB ~ 4 Mo s . Pre-Sep VA C&P ~ 3. 5 Mo s . Post-Sep
Flexion (140 Normal) “ FULL ” “ FULL ” 130
Extension (0 Normal) “ FULL ” “ FULL ” 0
Comment No swelling; No TTP Well-healed wounds; no effusion; slight patellofemoral grind; normal patellar mobility; no anterior or posterior varus/valgus laxity; neurovascularly intact 5 cm scar @ anterolateral knee; No swelling, heat, redness or locking; Normal gait, stance & coordination
invalid font number 31502
invalid font number 31502 The Board directs attenti invalid font number 31502 on to its rating recommendation invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 based on the above evidence invalid font number 31502 . invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 Initially the PEB invalid font number 31502 categorized invalid font number 31502 the right patellar chondromalacia with patellar tilt, EPTS without service aggravation as invalid font number 31502 “ invalid font number 31502 Category II invalid font number 31502 , invalid font number 31502 C invalid font number 31502 onditions that can be unfitting but are not currently compensable or ratable invalid font number 31502 , invalid font number 31502 ” invalid font number 31502 and coded the condition analogous invalid font number 31502 ly as 5299- invalid font number 31502 5003. The VA invalid font number 31502 analogously invalid font number 31502 coded the invalid font number 31502 right knee condition invalid font number 31502 as 5099 invalid font number 31502 -5 invalid font number 31502 014 invalid font number 31502 ( invalid font number 31502 o invalid font number 31502 steomalacia invalid font number 31502 ) invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 and invalid font number 31502 eventually invalid font number 31502 rated invalid font number 31502 i invalid font number 31502 t 10%. invalid font number 31502 After the CI requested a correction of her military record, o invalid font number 31502 n 19 January 2005 the BCMR corrected the record to reflect a invalid font number 31502 compensable award invalid font number 31502 of invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 10% for the right knee condition. invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 Although there w invalid font number 31502 ere non-compensable invalid font number 31502 ROM invalid font number 31502 measurements invalid font number 31502 on invalid font number 31502 all probative documents, all invalid font number 31502 documented invalid font number 31502 painful motion IAW VASRD §4.59 invalid font number 31502 . In addition, invalid font number 31502 crepitus invalid font number 31502 was noted on the NARSUM invalid font number 31502 . invalid font number 31502 There was no evidence of invalid font number 31502 instability invalid font number 31502 or invalid font number 31502 meniscal injury invalid font number 31502 to allow for application of any knee specific code. invalid font number 31502 Under code 5003, invalid font number 31502 VASRD §4.71a specifies that satisfactory evidence of pain invalid font number 31502 fu invalid font number 31502 l motion specifies a 10% rating for each major joint affected invalid font number 31502 . invalid font number 31502 After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 invalid font number 31502 r invalid font number 31502 easonable doubt, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the invalid font number 31502 BCMR’s invalid font number 31502 adjudication for the right patellar chondromalacia with patellar tilt condition. invalid font number 31502


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. As discussed above, provisions relied upon by the BCMR reliance on an EPTS/Category II determination for rating the right knee condition was operant in this case and the condition was adjudicated independently of that determination by the Board. In the matter of the r ight p atellar c hondromalacia with p atellar t ilt condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the BCMR’s 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
Right Patellar Chondromalacia with Patellar Tilt 5299-5003 1 0%
COMBINED 1 0%
invalid font number 31502

The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20 130516 , w/atchs
Exhib it B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans ’ Affairs Treatment Record





XXXXXXXXXX , DAF
 P resident
Physical Disability Board of Review

SAF/MRB
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762


Dear XXXXXXXXXX:

         Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Title 10 U.S.C. §  1554a), PDBR Case Number PD-2013-00659.

         After careful consideration of your application and treatment records, the Physical Disability Board of Review determined that the rating assigned at the time of final disposition of your disability evaluation system processing was appropriate. Accordingly, the Board recommended no re-characterization or modification of your separation.

         I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board. I concur with that finding and their conclusion that re-characterization of your separation is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that your application be denied.

                                                               Sincerely,





XXXXXXXXXX
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Record of Proceedings

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00376

    Original file (PD 2014 00376.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The rating for the unfitting right knee is addressed below; no additional conditions (the contended left knee, arthritis, nerve damage, GERD and hiatal hernia) are not within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. The examiner opined that theCI’s history of prior knee surgery was most likely exacerbated by the fall.The MEB NARSUM physical exam findings are summarized in the chart below.The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam performed on 3 August 2005,10 months after separation,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01846

    Original file (PD-2013-01846.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Bilateral Knee Pain5099-50030%Left Knee Degenerative Joint Disease5010-526010%20050430Right Knee Degenerative Joint Disease5010-526010%20050430Other x 4 (Not in Scope)Other x 320050503 Combined: 0%Combined: 30%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20050608 ( most proximate to date of separation) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6040.44, resides in evaluating the fairness of Disability Evaluation...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01198

    Original file (PD2012 01198.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    invalid font number 31502 Physical therapy measured right knee ROM at 5 to 125 degrees in early November 2001. invalid font number 31502 At that time, invalid font number 31502 the CI underwent a right knee invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 diagnostic arthroscopy, partial synovectomy invalid font number 31502 , invalid font number 31502 an invalid font number 31502 d mechanical knee chondroplasty and the MEB was placed on hold. invalid font number 31502 A C&P invalid font...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01882

    Original file (PD 2014 01882.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The right knee condition, characterized by the MEB as “tricompartmental chondromalacia of the right knee,” “lateral meniscus tear” and “left knee neuroma” (Board believes this to be an error and should have been right knee), were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. The Informal PEB adjudicated “tricompartmental chondromalacia of the right knee” as unfitting, rated at 10%, with likely application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02688

    Original file (PD-2013-02688.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Informal PEB (IPEB)adjudicated the chronic bilateral knee pain as unfitting, rated 10%, citing application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. invalid font number 31502 BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01186

    Original file (PD-2014-01186.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. The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of the disability at the time of separation. Bilateral Knee...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01856

    Original file (PD2012 01856.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is insufficient evidence to support a finding of not unfitting for either knee.Therefore, it is reasonably justified that the CI be found unfit for continued military service in her MOS due to her left and right anterior knee pain with patellar crepitus and patellar apprehension condition. However, there is no evidence of any further examination in the record. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01539

    Original file (PD2013 01539.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI non-concurred and the Reconsideration PEB only adjudicated the “posttraumatic arthritis, right ankle…” as unfitting, rated 10%, identifying all other conditions as not unfitting. Right Ankle Condition . Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01158

    Original file (PD 2014 01158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic right knee pain due to patellofemoral syndrome”as unfitting, rated 10%,referencing application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01635

    Original file (PD 2012 01635.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the any of the left knee conditions, so no additional disability ratings can be recommended.The Board next considered the CI’s right knee condition for its rating recommendation. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will...