Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00463
Original file (PD 2014 00463.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX      CASE: PD -20 1 4 - 00 463
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE      BOARD DATE: 2014 1105
Separation Date: 20061017


SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty A1C/E-3 (3P031/Security Forces) medically separated for chronic low back pain (LBP). The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Air Force Specialty (AFS) or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a temporary U4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB forwarded “chronic low back pain with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evidence of disc protrusion” and “left knee pain” to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123 and AFI 41-115. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The PEB adjudicated “chronic LBP with disc bulge at L4-5” as unfitting, rated at 20%, with application of the V eterans A ffairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The left knee condition was not considered by the PEB. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION : “When I was initially given my rating I was young and very uneducated in terms of what options were available to me and the military personnel who was assisting with my Board determination advised me that it was best to take the determination that I was given even though I disagreed because the board could come back with a decision of denial for my whole claim and give me a 0% decision.”


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 low back condition is addressed below. The Board will also consider the CI’s implied contention for his left knee condition, referred by the MEB to the PEB, but not addressed by the PEB. 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 (BCMR). The Board acknowledges the CI’s assertions that he made his disability acceptance against his better judgment, based on advice he received from military personnel working with the Disability Evaluation System (DES). It is noted for the record that the Board has no jurisdiction to investigate or render opinions in reference to such allegations; and, redress in excess of the Board’s scope of recommendations (as noted above) must be addressed by the BCMR and/or the United States judiciary system.

invalid font number 31502


RATING COMPARISON :
invalid font number 31502
Service IPEB – Dated 20060824
 VA - (3 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Chronic Low Back Pain (LBP) 5243 20% Lumbar Disc Disease 5243 20% 20070118
Radiculopathy, Left Lower Extremity Associated with Lumbar Disc Disease 8520 10% 20070118
Other x0
 Other x5 20070118
Combined: 20%
 Combined: 40%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20070323 (most proxi mate to date of separation )


ANALYSIS SUMMARY : The 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. However the Department of Veteran s Affairs , operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, United States Code), is empowered to compensate service connected conditions and to periodically re-evaluate said conditions for the purpose of adjusting the V eteran’s disability rating should the degree of impairment vary over time.

Chronic LBP Condition . There were two range - of - motion (ROM) evaluations in evidence, with documentation of additional ratable criteria, which the Board weighed in arriving at its rating recommendation as summarized in the chart below.

Thoracolumbar ROM (Degrees) PT ~ 3. 5 Mo s . Pre-Sep MEB ~ 3 . 5 Mo s . Pre-Sep C&P ~ 3 Mo s . Post-Sep
Flexion (90 Normal) 20 ROM’s by civilian PT for MEB on 20060627 ; Lumbar spine ROMs only, not Thoracolumbar 45
Combined (240) 180
Comment Pos. painful motion; Pos. straight leg raise (SLR) left Antalgic gait; Pos. tenderness to palpation (TTP ); Pos. SLR ; Normal strength/reflexes/sensation Pos. painful motion & TTP ; Pos. SLR left; D ecreased sens ation ; Normal reflexes/strength
§4.71a Rating 40% Unable to determine 20% (VA 2 0 % )
invalid font number 31502
The CI had developed an insidious onset of LBP during b asic t raining in September 2004. The CI was seen in the emergency room for complaints of LBP and physical exam findings of increased pain with walking and tenderness to palpation ( TTP ) in the L4-S1 area. He followed with f amily p ractice for the LBP and was put on a temporary p rofile for LBP with a 2 - day duration. In 2005, the CI continued to report LBP and was referred to p hysical therapy for evaluation and treatment. The p ain m anagement s pecialist noted some intermittent tingling in the posterior thigh , calf and foot alo n g the plantar aspect as well as a sense of weakness. He failed an intramuscular injection for pain and treatment with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug failed. He rated his pain at 8/ 10 and stated that the pain was worsened with walking, bending or standing and was mildly relieved with a hot bath or lying down. There were physical exam findings of TTP throughout the lumbar paravertebral area, limited TTP to upper aspect of the sacroiliac joints and bilateral SLR’s caused a thigh pull sensation and additionally on the left there was discomfort on SLR which extended into the calf. The exa miner further noted lumbar spinal X -ray images were negative except for a degree of straightening of the lumbar lordosis. He was given an epidural steroid injection (ESI) at this visit. He was seen in follow-up by p ain m anagement o n 19 July 2005 and reported that he had some modest pain reduction following the ESI, but had no subsequent benefit. There were physical exam findings of significant restriction with lumbar flexion, extension and lateral flexion due to magnification of LBP and Yeoman’s testing and TTP over the sacroiliac area caused diffuse lumbar guarding with diffuse pain. The examiner ordered an MRI to rule out disc disease . The MRI of the lumbar spine demonstrated a broad left L4-5 paracentral and foraminal disc protrusion with compression of the L5 nerve root. A repeat MRI study on 15 September 2005 showed no change in results. Throughout 2006, the CI continued to follow with f amily m edicine and PT for chronic LBP with fair results. The PT evaluation on 27 June 2006 was completed to provide ROM measurements for the MEB exam. The PT documented bilateral diffuse LBP and bilateral lower extremity pain that radiated down the posterior thigh, calf into the foot and toes. The pain was rated at 9 out of 10. The PT physical exam findings are summarized in the chart above.

The MEB n arrative s ummary (NARSUM) exam ( approximately 4 months prior to separation ) documented that he had LBP that was constant and was exacerbated by physical activity and prolonged standing with occasional pain that would shoot into his buttocks and posterior thigh. The MEB NARSUM physical exam findings are summarized in the chart above.

The c ommander’s s tatement documented that the CI was unable to perform his AFS duties because he could not wear a web belt, flak vest, helmet or any weapon all of which are minimum requirements. The CI was given a temporary U4 Profile with specific restrictions listed on the profile.

The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam ( approximately 3 months after separation ) documented chronic pain and stiffness with radiation and numbness in his left foot. The VA C&P physical exam findings are summarized in the chart above.

Board precedent is that a functional impairment tied to fitness is required to support a recommendation for addition of a peripheral nerve rating at separation. The pain component of a radiculopathy is subsumed under the general spine rating as specified in §4.71a. The sensory component in this case has no functional implications. The re was no motor impairment present . Since no evidence of functional impairment exists in this case, the Board cannot support a recommendation for additional rating based on peripheral nerve impairment.

The Board directs attenti on to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence . The PEB coded the c hronic LBP condition as 5243 (i ntervertebral disc syndrome ) and rated at 20%. The VA the condition as coded 5243 ( l umbar d isc d isease ) and rated at 1 0%. The “General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine considers the CI’s pain symptoms “with or without symptoms such as pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness or aching in the area of the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease . ” The MEB exam contained ROM measurements obtained by a civilian PT for the “Lumbar Spine,” potentially not the thoracolumbar spine ROM s required by the VASRD. The Board adjudged that the VA C&P examination was closer to separation, contained a complete set of thoracolumbar ROM’s and therefore had the higher probative value. The forward flexion of the spine was 45 degrees which aligns wit h the 20% rating criteria for “f orward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees flexion . ” 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 c hronic LBP condition.

Contended PEB Conditions. The contended condition adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB was left knee . The Board’s first charge with respect to these conditions is an assessment of the appropriateness of the PEB’s fitness adjudications. The Board’s threshold for countering fitness determinations is higher than the VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt) standard used for its rating recommendations, but remains adherent to the DoDI 6040.44 “fair and equitable” standard. The CI was initially given a t emporary L 2 Prolife which started on 25 March 2005 and ended on 25 April 2005, a second temporary L3 Profile was given on 15 June 2005 and then a third L3 p rofile was again given on 1 August 2005. The MEB NARSUM examiner documented chronic left knee pain that was medically managed. The left knee had full ROM with a positive
Mc Murray’s sign for meniscal injury ; however there was no instability noted. An MRI performed in January 2006 showed a complex tear involving the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus and a small free edge radial tear. The o rthopedic note of 4 April 2006 documented that the l eft knee was stable and to continue conservative treatment secondary to lack of significant mechanical symptoms. There was no surgical option offered. There were no new profiles for the left knee given. The c ommander’s s tatement focused solely on the chronic LBP, there was no mention of a left knee condition . The left knee condition was not judged to fail retention standards . The left knee condition was reviewed by the a ction o fficer and considered by the Board. There was no indication from the record that this condition significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the left knee contended condition and, therefore, no additional disability ratings can be recommended.


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 c hronic LBP condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. In the matter of the left knee contended condition, the Board unanimously recommends no change from the PEB determinations as not unfitting. There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration.


RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI's disability and separation determination.


The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20 140108 , w/atchs
Exhib it B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans ’ Affairs Treatment Record









                          
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
Physical Disability Board of Review


SAF/MRB

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXX:

Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Title 10 U.S.C. § 1554a), PDBR Case Number PD-2014-00463.

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,






XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Record of Proceedings

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01913

    Original file (PD-2013-01913.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The VARD stated that the 40% rating of the back condition was based on findings in the “service medical records which shows incapacitating episodes between 4 and 6 weeks during the past 12 months (sic).” The Board reviewed the evidence proximate to separation-the MEB and PT ROM for the MEB exams and prior to separation and after separation C&P exams. The CI reported LLE pain and at the MEB exam decreased sensation of the lateral leg and foot was noted. Providing a correction to the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00609

    Original file (PD2012 00609.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The FPEB adjudicated the previous conditions as it had before (chronic LBP and saphenous nerve palsy, left as unfitting, rating 20% and 0% respectively) and also adjudicated “Left knee pain due to retropatellar pain syndrome” as unfitting and rated at 0%. The VA coded the condition 8727 and rated 10%. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554(a), I approve the enclosed recommendation of the Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR)...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01966

    Original file (PD2012 01966.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    MINORITY OPINION This Board member recommends a 40% rating for severe limitation of motion of the lumbar spine based on the pain limited flexion of 10 degrees at the MEB NARSUM exam and pain limited flexion of 30 degrees at the VA C&P exam. The MEB NARSUM exam documented lumbar flexion that was limited to only 10 degrees by pain, which indicates a severe limitation of motion. Although the VA C&P examination was after separation, it was actually closer in time to the date of separation, and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00121

    Original file (PD2011-00121.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Low back pain (LBP), patellofemoral syndrome and left shoulder pain were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501. At his December 2008 MEB evaluation, three months prior to separation, the CI complained of left shoulder pain and “catching.” On examination, there was some crepitus, pain with motion, and TTP. The Board unanimously recommends 10% for the left shoulder pain condition.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00062

    Original file (PD-2012-00062.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Treatment records document relief of headaches with medication. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Intervertebral Disc Syndrome 5243 10% COMBINED 10% The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20120118, w/atchs Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01529

    Original file (PD2012 01529.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The brain trauma and incontinence conditionswere not identified by the MEB or PEB and thus,they are not within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board.These and any other condition or contention not requested in this application, remain eligible for future consideration by the BCMR. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00793

    Original file (PD2013 00793.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    I request the review board consider: 1) the appropriate application of the VASRD rating for VA code 5237 based on the forward flexion of thoracolumbar spine documented in the NARSUM, 2) the rating of radicular pain as contributing to the unfitting condition in accordance with AR 635-40, Section 4-19f (6) (b), and 3) review all conditions identified but determined not to be unfitting by the PEB (see page 7 of NARSUM).” There is no evidence of a separately ratable functional impairment (with...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01871

    Original file (PD-2014-01871.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The MEB also identified and forwarded two other conditions (bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and bilateral knee pain), both meeting retention standards for PEB adjudication. 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. bilateral SLR; Repetitive motion...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00543

    Original file (PD2011-00543.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The VA looked at the rating criteria from the time of separation in 2003 and noted his condition more nearly approximated that of severe (rather than moderate) limitation of motion of the low back for the entire period of the appeal, from the initial rating in 2003 through 2007. Both the NARSUM and VA C&P exams documented pain on flexion and tenderness of the spine which could be interpreted as “with characteristic pain on motion” and probable moderate degree of pain. The VASRD in place at...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01969

    Original file (PD2012 01969.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    It was also noted that the normal ROM cited by the examiner are not the VASRD standards. 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 mechanical LBP condition, coded 5243.The Board noted that the contention by the CI was vague and that the VA later determined there to be a service-connected radiculopathy. The neurological examinations, performed by the MEB examiner and...