Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00399
Original file (PD-2014-00399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX       CASE: PD-2014-00399
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE     BOARD DATE: 20150227
SEPARATION DATE: 20050614


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E-5 (Senior Force Protector) medically separated for recurrent vasovagal syncope. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Air Force Specialty. He was issued a temporary P4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The “recurrent vasovagal syncope” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. The Informal PEB adjudicated recurrent vasovagal syncope as unfitting, rated 10%, c iting application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “Please consider all conditions”


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 when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the PEB, but determined to be not unfitting. Any conditions outside the Board’s defined scope of review and any contention not requested in this application may remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records. Furthermore, the Board’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections, where appropriate. 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 has neither the role nor the authority to compensate for post-separation progression or complications of service-connected conditions. That role and authority is granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws. 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.


 RATING COMPARISON :

IPEB – Dated 20050407
 VA* - (~3 Mos Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Recurrent Vasovagal Syncope 8210-8299 10% Recurrent Neurocardiogenic Syncope 8199-8108 10% 20050827
Other x 0 (Not In Scope)
 Other x 0
RATING: 10%
 RATING: 10%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 51005 (most proximate to date of separation ( DOS ) .
VARD 20071022 increased DC 8199-8108 to 80% effective 20050615.




ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Recurrent Vasovagal Syncope Condition. Review of the service treatment record revealed the CI first experienced an episode of syncope (loss of consciousness) in 1997 while standing guard duty. He experienced three additional syncopal episodes, and in August 2001 an evaluation surmised the cause could be due to low blood sugar levels. However, another episode of syncope lasting 2-3 minutes occurred on 31 October 2004. An extensive evaluation was negative until a tilt-table test on 15 February 2005 conclusively determined that autonomic nervous system dysfunction was present. During this provocative test there was loss of consciousness for 60 seconds, after which he remained confused and slow to answer questions for 20 minutes.

The narrative summary on 22 February 2005 noted that the most recent episode of syncope was in October 2004. The CI’s treatment consisted of increased hydration, high salt diet, wear of lower extremity compression stockings, leg exercises, and a medication (beta blocker). Physical examination was normal. At a separation examination on 2 May 2005 (a month prior to separation) the CI confirmed that there had been no further episodes of syncope. On 8 September 2005 (3 months after separation) the CI was seen for “TSA Clearance” (i.e. a physical exam for work). There was no mention of ongoing or recurrent symptoms.

The VARD on 5 October 2005 was based on a Compensation and Pension exam performed 2 months after separation that was not in evidence. The CI reportedly was taking the beta blocker medication. There was no mention of interim symptoms. Physical examination was normal.

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB coded recurrent vasovagal syncope analogously to 8210 (paralysis of tenth cranial nerve) and rated at 10% for moderate, incomplete paralysis. The VA arrived at a 10% rating by analogously coding to 8108 code (narcolepsy, which is rated as per code 8911: epilepsy, petit mal). Vasovagal syncope is not specifically identified as such in the VASRD. The 8210 code (tenth cranial nerve – vagus) specifies that a rating is “dependent upon the extent of sensory and motor loss to organs of … heart.” In this case syncope was clearly due to dysfunction of the vagus nerve, and the consequent temporary reduction in blood flow to the brain caused by a transient low heart rate. Board members concluded therefore that the condition was precisely and accurately captured by this code, that “severe, incomplete paralysis” did not correctly depict the condition at the time of separation, and the next higher 30% rating was thus not justified. The Board discussed the 8108 rating option, which defaults to the VASRD §4.124a (General Formula For Major and Minor Seizures); and debated if the self-limited syncopal episodes which the CI suffered could be fairly compared with the disability attendant to minor or major seizures. It was agreed however that the condition at the time of separation was not adequately reflected by seizure analogy. 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 recurrent vasovagal syncope 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 recurrent vasovagal syncope condition and IAW VASRD §4.124a, 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 re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20140529, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record









XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
DoD Physical Disability Board of Review


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

          Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Title 10 U.S.C. §  1554a), PDBR Case Number PD-2014-00399.
         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,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Record of Proceedings

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02124

    Original file (PD-2014-02124.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The MEB also identified and forwarded four additional conditions, “Post-concussive headaches (controlled with medication, not unfitting for military duty); Thrombocytopenia (acute; not unfitting for military duty); Recurrent epistaxis (EPTS) and Recurrent major depression (EPTS; not unfitting for military duty).” The PEB adjudicated “neurocardiogenic syncope” as unfitting, rated 10% with likely application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01389

    Original file (PD2013 01389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pre-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Vasovagal Syncope8299-821010%Tachycardia/Vasovagal Syncope7099-701110%20040401Other X 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 520040401 Rating: 10%Combined: 30%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20040612 ( most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The PEB coded the syncopal condition analogously to 8210 for vasovagal nerve impairment. RECOMMENDATION :...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00093

    Original file (PD2011-00093.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    CI CONTENTION : “My rating from the Air Force combined two disabilities into one, where the VA found it to be two separate conditions. In the matter of the neurocardiogenic syncope associated with depressive disorder condition, the Board unanimously recommends that it be rated for two separate conditions as follows: neurocardiogenic syncope as unfitting, rated 10% by a vote of 2:1 and coded 8299-8210 IAW VASRD §4.124a; and depressive disorder unanimously as not unfitting. The pertinent...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02514

    Original file (PD-2013-02514.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although she had normal studies, the CI continued to report syncopal episodes and was referred to the heart clinic for possible electrophysiology studies. The EKG recorded normal sinus rhythm and no signs of atrial tachycardia or an accessory pathway (successful ablation).The VA Compensation and Pensionexamdated 18 November 2005, 3 months after separation, recorded the CI’s syncopal history, diagnoses, and treatment, and indicated the condition was well controlled with medication. The...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00605

    Original file (PD 2014 00605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2014-00605BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCEBOARD DATE: 20140827 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.IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. Neurocardiogenic...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02337

    Original file (PD-2013-02337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCASE: PD-2013-02337BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army BOARD DATE: 20140912 The syncope condition characterized as “recurrent syncopal episodes likely secondary to hyperventilation syndrome” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEBadjudicated syncope as unfitting rated at 20%citing criteria of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00602

    Original file (PD2011-00602.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the condition as vasodepressor syncope associated with seizure activity, and found the condition unfitting, rated 10%, IAW the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board concurs with the PEB decision to code the CI’s syncope condition as analogous to code 8210, paralysis of the tenth (vagus) cranial nerve, since several of the CI’s syncopal and presyncopal episodes had no associated seizure activity, and neurological evaluation and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00276

    Original file (PD2012-00276.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY SEPARATION DATE: 20061002 NAME: DEVERE, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE NUMBER: PD1200276 BOARD DATE: 201211O1 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an activated Army National Guard 1LT/0-2(15A, Aviation), medically separated for neurological constellation of symptoms of unknown etiology and a low back condition. The PEB adjudicated the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01395

    Original file (PD-2014-01395.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MVP with the three regurgitations and the neurocardiogenic syncope are two separate diagnoses.The neurocardiogenic syncope is treated with the pacemaker, not the MVP.” The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The CI had an exercise stress test 14 months prior to separation that documented a workload of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01536

    Original file (PD-2013-01536.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2013-01536 BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army BOARD DATE: 20150107 CI CONTENTION :“I feel I was underrated for disability by the US Army and wish the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) to review my case in order to determine if was properly rated for "Cardiogenic Syncope" (10%) and "Discogenic Disease and Fractured Disc at L5S 1" (10%). Pre-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam...