Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01054
Original file (PD2013 01054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX          CASE : PD13 0 1054
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army   BOARD DATE: 201 4 0325
Separation Date: 20051231


SUMMARY OF CASE : The available evidence of record indicates this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4 (92G/Food Service Specialist) medically separated for a mental health (MH) condition. The CI complained of chest pain, dizziness, sweating, nausea, vomiting and anxiety attacks. The condition could not be attributed to any organic source and could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the requirements of her Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), so she was referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The condition was characterized as “undifferentiated somatoform disorder” and forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501, with no other conditions identified by the MEB. The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated “undifferentiated somatoform disorder” as unfitting but indicated that it existed prior to service (EPTS), so the PEB gave no rating. The CI did not concur, demanded a formal hearing with personal appearance and appointed counsel, but did not submit a written appeal. The Formal PEB (FPEB) adjudicated the same unfitting condition as described by the IPEB, but indicated that there was no evidence that it was EPTS and rated the condition at 10%. The CI concurred with the results of the FPEB and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION : “Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder PTSD with somatoform disorder features is granted with an evaluation of 50 percent effective Nov 5, 2008. Pending the decision diagnosed from 01/01/2006.”


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 applicant. The ratings for conditions meeting the above criteria are addressed below. In addition, the Secretary of Defense directed a comprehensive review of Service members with certain mental health conditions referred to a disability evaluation process between 11 September 2001 and 30 April 2012 that were changed or eliminated during that process. The applicant was notified that he may meet the inclusion criteria of the Mental Health Review Terms of Reference. The mental health condition was reviewed regarding diagnosis change, fitness determination and rating in accordance with VASRD §4.129 and §4.130. Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, may be eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.

In accordance with DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. The Board’s role is thus confined to review of medical records and evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, compared to VASRD standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separation. Post-separation evidence is probative to the Board’s recommendations only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the disability at the time of separation.

invalid font number 31502
invalid font number 31502 RATING COMPARISON invalid font number 31502 :
 invalid font number 31502
Service FPEB – Dated 20051129
 VA - (3 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder 9423 10% Somatoform Disorder 9421 0% 20060324
No Additional MEB/PEB Entries
 Other x8 20060315
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 20%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20060617 .


ANALYSIS SUMMARY :

Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder . The CI developed symptoms of chest pain, sweating and shortness of breath (SOB) while she was in Iraq in 2003. The Behavioral Health examiner documented the CI had a 2- year history of unexplained SOB and chest pains; a cardiopulmonary work-up had been negative. The CI endorsed 7 out of the 13 symptoms listed for panic attacks in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ; pounding heart, sweating, SOB, chest pain, abdominal distress, feeling unsteady or light headed and hot flashes. The examiner noted that psychological test ing was marginally valid because the CI attempted to place herself in an overly positive light, minimizing faults and denying psychological problems. She exhibited reports of physical distress, low frustration tolerance and easily became irritable and frustrated. The examiner diagnosed s omatization disorder. The CI underwent a complete cardiopulmonary workup which revealed mild mitral valve prolapse (MVP) on e chocardiogram (EKG) . The CI was started on a beta blocker medication for control of cardiac symptoms. She was also evaluated with a cardiac exercise stress test that was stopped due to mild chest tightness , but t here were no EKG changes and the CI performed up to 12 metabolic equivalent of tasks ( METs ) . The MEB narrative summary exam completed a pproximately 6 months prior to separation noted the CI had experienced a b ad episode of chest pain, sweat ing and SOB one and one half months prior to this exam while she was out driving. She also report ed sweating, nausea, vomiting and anxiety attacks. The examiner noted the CI expressed concern that she had not been told what was wrong with her and because she still had chest pain. The examiner diagnosed s omatoform disorder as manifested by various somatic complaints before the age of 30 that may have required medical attention with no medical explanation; marked impairment for further military duty, and mild impairment for social and industrial adaptability and not EPTS . The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) was recorded as 75 ( no more than slight impairment in social, occupational , or school functioning ) . The c ommander’s s tatement indicated the CI’s medical condition prevented her from performing MOS duties and because she had blackouts with physical exertion, she posed harm not only to herself but to s oldiers that depended on her to be coherent. The CI was given a permanent S3 Profile for undifferentiated somatoform disorder. A Behavioral Health a ddendum completed after the IPEB referenced “anxiety” attacks that occurred about 5 to 6 times during the past 18 months . Based on an interview and a review of psychological testing , the examiner diagnosed an undifferentiated somatoform disorder . The exa miner further noted the CI had bad menstrual cramps at the age of 14, thought she had arthritis in her knees because of knee pain, and complained of lower back pain , diarrhea, nausea, menses and blackouts and therefore indicated the condition had existed prior to service . The examiner document ed marked impai rment for further military duty and mild impairment for social and industrial adaptability . The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam a ccomplished a pproximately 2 months after separation documented that whenever the CI experienced chest pain, she woul d lay down for a while and it w ould subside , and also that she had ongoing memory problems. The examiner noted the CI did not believe her symptoms were psychiatric but she accepted that diagnosis. The examiner also noted continued chest pain, difficulty sleeping, mild memory difficulties and that the diagnosis of s omatoform disorder was made by a psychiatrist. The CI’s mental status exam was normal and the examiner diagnosed a s omatoform disorder ; a GAF of 75 was assigned ( no more than slight impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning ). The CI was engaged to be married and was unemployed at that time but was planning on beginning school to become a billing clerk .

The Board direct s attenti on to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence . The SRP determined no MH diagnoses were changed to the applicant's possible disadvantage in the d isability evaluation process, so t his applicant did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project. The F PEB coded the u ndifferentiated somatoform d isorder as 9423 (the code for undif ferentiated somatoform disorder) and rated 10%. The FPEB stated that there was no evidence that the condition was EPTS. The VA coded the s omatoform d isorder as 9421 , s omatization disorder and rated at 0% , specifically citing “…this condition is currently not causing impairment in a social or occupational setting.” D ocumentation throughout the service treatment record (STR) consistently diagnosed the CI with a somat oform disorder. B oth the MEB and C&P exam iners diagnosed a mild to slight impairment in social and industrial adaptability . The Board reviewed the criteria for the next higher 30% rating and determin ed the CI did not manifest criteria required for that rating. STR documentation indicates the CI also had MVP that could have been responsible for some of the symptomology. While not in the scope of this Board , the MVP was discussed due to a commonality of symptoms , and i t is medically reasonable to attribute the CI’s chest pain, SOB , dizziness and palpitations to mild MVP . The Board considered the option of basing its rating r ecommendation on those symptoms, but the res ults of her cardiac stress test ( achieving 12 METs of ex ercise) would also result in a rati ng of 10% under VASRD code 7000 ( valvular heart disease ) , which would confer no benefit to the CI. The Board recognized that there is documentation that the CI’s condition worsened remote from separation , but that was out of the Board’s scope for adjudication. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the F PEB adjudication for the u ndifferentiated somatoform d isorder .


 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 r ecord or PEB ruling that any prerogatives outside the VASRD were exercised. In the matter of the undifferentiated somatoform d isorder , and IAW VASRD §4. 130 , 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 recommends no recharacterization of the disability and separation determination .

invalid font number 31502


The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20 130723 , w/atchs
Exhib it B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans ’ Affairs Treatment Record




                          
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX , DAF
President
Physical Disability Board of Review

SFMR-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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX , AR20140011460 (PD201301054)

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                                                  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                                      Deputy Assistant Secretary
                                                      (Army Review Boards)

CF:
( ) DoD PDBR
 ( ) DVA

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02389

    Original file (PD-2013-02389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The pain management examiner reevaluated the CI on 2 April 2008 and documented that there was residual pain, however the CI was not taking any pain medication; at rest the pain was zero to two and when he was actively working, the pain was in the three to five range. Additionally, the Board concluded, although the CI had some symptoms of depression, and depression might have been the predominant presentation of his adjustment disorder, there was insufficient evidence that any mental health...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01313

    Original file (PD2012 01313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sarcoidosis 2. A 10% disability rating was assigned based on the 9434 code and a“mild social and industrial impairment.”The CI appealed and both a FPEB and USAPDA affirmed the 10% disability rating.In December 2001, the VA determined that both sarcoidosis and depression had EPTS and neither had been aggravated by service. SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130012146 (PD201201313)I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01246

    Original file (PD2013 01246.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PEB adjudicated “right, dominant, shoulder pain… ,” “right hip pain,” and “bilateral heel pain and right ankle pain” as unfitting, rated 10%, 0% and 0% (respectively), citing criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Right Shoulder Pain…5099-500310%Right Shoulder Arthritis5010-520110%20091125Right Hip Pain…5099-50030%Right Hip Bursitis5024-525210%Bilateral Heel Pain and Right Ankle Pain…52840%Stress Fracture,...

  • 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 | CY2013 | PD-2013-01533

    Original file (PD-2013-01533.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Informal PEB adjudicated “TBI with residual neck pain and headaches;” “low back pain (LBP);” and “left knee pain with degenerative joint disease (DJD),” as unfitting, rated at 10%, 10%, and 0% respectively, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board could not find evidence in the commander’s statement or elsewhere in the treatment record that documented any significant interference of the neck pain condition with the performance of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01210

    Original file (PD 2014 01210.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    invalid font number 31502 Service FPEB – Dated 20050119VA - (1Mo. Physical Disability Board of Review Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of permanent disability retirement effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00805

    Original file (PD2013 00805.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s charge with respect to the MH conditions referred for review that were determined to be not unfitting by the PEB is an assessment of the appropriateness of the PEB’s fitness adjudication. The MH condition was reviewed and considered by the Board . Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01647

    Original file (PD2012 01647.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    invalid font number 31502 Service FPEB – Dated 20030917VA (# Mo. The PEB used these rules to rate the chronic LBP condition, coded 5295 lumbosacral strain, and initially rated at 10% (with characteristic pain on motion). The Board notes that although they did not change the VASRD code, verbiage contained on the FPEB’s findings and recommendations document suggeststhe FPEB may have utilized VASRD code 5293, intervertebral disc syndrome (also in effect at the time of separation) to arrive at...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00715

    Original file (PD 2014 00715.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Low Back Pain with Radiculopathy523710%Mild Central Bulge L3-4524310%20040315Other x6 (Not in Scope)Other x7 (Not in Scope)20040315 Combined: 10%Combined: 40%*Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20040518 (most proximate to date of separation) invalid font number 31502 ANALYSIS SUMMARY : LBP with Radiculopathy Condition . RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI's...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00988

    Original file (PD2013 00988.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Right knee pain secondary to patellar tendonitis and shrapnel injury was diagnosed.The PT noted the need for ambulation with a cane and knee brace with strength limited by pain. The Board reviewed the MH conditions for “fitness” and possible rating (under VASRD 4.130) if determined to be “unfitting” for military service. Physical Disability Board of Review