VA* (10 Mos. Post-Separation) | |||||||
Code | Rating | Condition | Code | Rating | Exam | ||
Major Depressive Disorder | 9434 | 10% | Major Depressive Disorder | 9434 | 50% | 20100525 | |
Chronic Right Hip Pain… | 5099-5003 | 10% | Right Trochanteric Bursitis | 5251 | 10% | 20100525 | |
Urge I ncontinence | Not unfitting | Urge I ncontinence | 7599-7542 | 10% | 20100525 | ||
Type II DM, D iet Controlled | Not unfitting | Diabetes Mellitus | 7913 | 10% | 20100525 | ||
GERD | Not unfitting | GERD | 7399 7346 | 10% | 20100525 | ||
Other x 12 (Not in Scope) | 20100525 | ||||||
Combined: 70% |
Right Hip ROM | MEB ~8+ Mo. Pre-Sep | VA C&P ~10 Mo. Post-Sep |
Flexion (125⁰ Normal) | 50⁰ | 90⁰ |
Extension (20⁰) | 5⁰ | 10⁰ |
External Rotation (45⁰) | -- | 20⁰ |
Abduction (45⁰) | 15⁰ | 20⁰ |
Adduction (45⁰) | -- | 10⁰ |
§4.71a Rating | 10% (Extension) | 10% (Painful Motion) |
UNFITTING CONDITION | VASRD CODE | RATING |
Major Depressive Disorder | 9434 | 30% |
Chronic Pain Due to Trochanteric Bursitis, Right Hip | 5099-5003 | 10% |
Urge Incontinence | Not Unfitting | |
Type II Diabetes Mellitus | Not Unfitting | |
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disorder | Not Unfitting | |
COMBINED | 40% |
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01610
I have contacted Evans Army Medical Facility to have my records forwarded to the Physical Disability Board of Review. While ROM limitations may have progressed over the 3-month time period, there is no evidence in the record from which to conclude that the severity near service separation approached that portrayed by the VA measurements.Board members agreed that the MEB examination revealed non-compensable limitation of motion, but evidence of degenerative arthritis was present to justify...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01738
The Board deliberated and concluded that the CI’s condition had improved after separation; however, the Board’s recommendation is based on the CI’s psychological status at the time of separation. After due deliberation, the Board determined that based on the evidence and IAW VASRD §4.130 at the time of separation, the most appropriate disability rating recommendation was 30%. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX President Physical Disability Board of Review
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02128
On exam there was TTP of the neck with negative testing for nervecompression (Spurling’s), with normal ROM and normal bilateral UE examination.At the MEB examination on 21 October 2004, 6 months prior to separation, the CI reported chronic neck pain without radicular symptoms. The NARSUM notes the CI had a history of hip pain (trochanteric bursitis), with normal bilateral hip X-rays.Notes in the STR indicated that in April 2000 the CI reported 5 weeks of right hip pain. At the MEB...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00954
The PEB adjudicated “chronic pelvic pain syndrome associated with chronic interstitial cystitis and pain disorder as unfitting, rated 30% with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and placed the CI on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).The PEB also adjudicated the migraine headaches as a Category II condition (one that can be unfitting but is not currently compensable or ratable). The Board then reviewed the medical records in evidence. BOARD FINDINGS :...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01975
The MDD was rated at 10%. RATING COMPARISON : Final Service PEB - 20060426 VA ( STR Used) - Effective 20040501On TDRL - 20040501 CodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam ConditionTDRL Sep.Major Depressive Disorder943430%10%Major Depressive Disorder943430%STROther x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 9STR Rating: 30% → 10% Combined: 40% *Reflects VA rating exam proximate to TDRL placement; no VA rating evidence proximate to permanent separation ANALYSIS SUMMARY :IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01050
SEPARATION DATE: 20090626 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. 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01604
The Board therefore will consider only the VASRD §4.130 impairment present at separation for a single rating recommendation. 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, PEB reliance on DoDI 1332.39 for rating MDD was operant in this case and the condition was...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01653
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2013-01653 BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army BOARD DATE: 20140805 With the combination of therapy and medication (Celexa and Serzone), the CI reported improved symptoms, including denial of suicidal ideation and the psychiatrist noted that his MDD was in “partial remission.” The commander’s memorandum to the MEB (submitted after his hospitalization) reported that the CI’s work performance had always been...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01456
Accordingly, the Board does not recommend a separate disability rating for each leg. There were no MH records. 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...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01212
The rating for the unfitting MH condition isaddressed below. 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 MDD condition and IAW VASRD...