Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
  
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket 
No.  2001-058 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

FINAL DECISION 

This final decision, dated February 14, 2002, is signed by three duly appointed 

 
ULMER, Chair: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    It  was  docketed  on  March  14,  2001,  upon 
receipt of the applicant's complete application for correction of her military record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The applicant, a retired health service technician first class (HS1; pay grade E-6), 
asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  by  decreasing  her  combined  30%  physical 
disability rating to 20% or by increasing it to 40% due to back disease.  She stated such a 
change in her disability rating would result in her receiving more disability income.  In 
a later submission, however, the applicant stated that she misunderstood the Veterans 
Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and clarified her request by 
asking that her record be corrected to show that she suffered from severe intervertebral 
disc syndrome (40% disability rating) at the time of her discharge.  
 
Applicant’s Contentions 
 
 
Prior  to  the  applicant’s  permanent  retirement  due  to  physical  disability,  she 
spent approximately three years on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) with a 
40% disability rating for severe intervertebral disc syndrome.  She alleged that the Coast 
Guard  committed  an  error  by  reducing  her  disability  rating  for  intervertebral  disc 
disease from 40% to 20% when it placed her on the permanent disability retirement list 
(PDRL).    At  the  time  the  applicant  was  placed  on  the  PDRL,  the  Coast  Guard 
determined  that  she  was  20%  disabled  due  to  intervertebral  disc  syndrome  and  10% 
disabled  due  to  “sciatic  nerve,  neuralgia,  secondary  to  nerve  damage  caused  by 
unnatural  walking  from  bone  spurs  prior  to  corrective  surgery.”    The  applicant’s 
combined disability rating was 30%, and therefore, she was permanently retired from 
the Coast Guard due to physical disability.  
 

 
The  applicant  claimed  that  the  FPEB  improperly  determined  that  the  sciatica 
resulted from problems with her feet/walking rather than from the intervertebral disc 
syndrome.    She  alleged  that  the  sciatica  could  not  be  rated  independently  of  the 
intervertebral disc disease because to do so would have caused the FPEB to engage in 
pyramiding.1    The  applicant  had  argued  that  if  her  disability  rating  were  lowered  to 
20% she would receive severance pay, which would improve her financial situation.  As 
stated above, the applicant clarified her request by asking this Board to find that she 
suffered from severe intervertebral disc syndrome with a 40% disability rating. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  FPEB  should  have  maintained  the  40%  disability 
rating she had while on the TDRL because her condition had not improved since her 
placement  on  that  list.    She  stated that  she  still  has  major  problems  with  standing  or 
sitting  for  long  periods  of  time,  has  to  wear  specific  shoes,  has  to  be  mindful  of  her 
sleeping habits, and has to take anti-inflammatory medication everyday.   
 
Issues 
 
The  issue  in  this  case  is  whether  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  excluding 
sciatica from its rating of the applicant’s intervertebral disc syndrome and relating it to 
her heel spurs/unnatural walking.  Another issue is whether the applicant would have 
met the requirements for a severe (40%) disability rating even if sciatica had been rated 
as part of the intervertebral disc syndrome. 
 
Discussion 
 
 
An Initial Medical Board (IMB) was held in the applicant’s case on March 2, 1995, 
to determine the applicant’s fitness for duty.  The IMB report stated that in June 1994 
the applicant reported for treatment of hip pain, previously diagnosed as back strain, 
resulting from an injury that occurred three years earlier.  The report also noted that the 
applicant  had  suffered  a  broken  foot  in  May  1994  and  had  had  a  left  heel  spur  and 
tendon excision (surgery) in December 1994. 
 
 
According  to  the  IMB,  the  medical  examination  of  the  applicant  was  not 
remarkable, except that she was above weight standards due to her inability to exercise.  
“The  MRI  of  the  lumbar  spine  showed  degenerative  disease  with  broad  central 
herniation of a section of [the lumbar spine].”  The IMB report stated that there was no 
specific root compression and there was only minimal intrusion of the spinal canal.  The 
IMB diagnosed the applicant as having “left heel spur and left tendon resection, fourth 
metatarsal  fracture  left  foot,  central  disc  herniated  nucleus  pulposus  in  the  lumbar 
                                                 
1   Pyramiding is the term used to describe the application of more than one VASRD 
rating to any area or system of the body when the total functional impairment of that 
area or system is more appropriately reflected under a single code.  Pyramiding is not 
permitted as it results in overrating the disability 
 

region, [and] bilateral lumbar radiculopathy.” It reported that the applicant would be 
treated with physical therapy, a lumbar corset, a pain clinic, and preventive back care 
instruction.  The IMB found the applicant not fit for duty and referred her case to the 
Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (CPEB).    The  CPEB  directed  the  applicant’s 
command to hold a Disposition Medical Board (DMB) because the information before 
the  CPEB  indicated  that  the  applicant’s  case  had  not  resolved  itself  enough  for  it  to 
make definite findings about her condition.   
 
 
A  DMB  was  held  on  October  19,  1995.    As  part  of  the  evaluative  process,  a 
neurosurgical report was obtained.  It noted that on          , the applicant underwent 
surgery, a lumbar partial hemilaminectomy and diskectomy.  “The [applicant] was seen 
in followup on 31 August and indicated . . . minimal low back pain and leg pain.  The 
[applicant] had greater complaints of ankle and lower calf discomfort bilaterally when 
standing.    The  symptoms  were  not  considered  contributory  to  the  disc  herniation  or 
surgical  procedure.”  The  report  stated  that  the  physical  examination  of  the  applicant 
showed “negative straight leg rais[ing] and normal gait.  There was 5/5 motor strength.  
She  had  a  normal  sensory  examination.    She  had  a  well-healed  incision.”    It  was  the 
opinion of the doctors submitting this report that the applicant had made an excellent 
recovery  from  the  surgical  procedure  and  that  it  was  likely  she  would  make  a  full 
recovery with physical therapy.    
 

The  DMB,  itself,  stated  the  physical  examination  of  the  applicant  showed 
decreased  range  of  motion  in  the  hips,  decreased  lumbar  range  of  motion,  normal 
sensory testing of the bilateral lower extremities, and pain to palpation of the right heel.  
According to the DMB, the applicant was not fit for full duty and suffered from bilateral 
hip  pain,  degenerative  disc  disease,  bilateral  lumbar  radiculopathy,  and  a  small  right 
calcaneal spur.  It stated that the surgery on the applicant’s back for a herniated nucleus 
pulposus,  the  surgery  on  the  left  heel  spur,  and  the  healing  of  the  fourth  metatarsal 
fracture left foot, were inactive and not included in the diagnosis of the DMB.   
 
 
On  December  12,  1995,  the  applicant’s  medical  board  physician  added  an 
addendum to the DMB.  He stated that the applicant demonstrated a limited range of 
movement and decreased strength to a small degree in the lumbar region.  He wrote the 
following: 
 

[The applicant] also reports intermittent left hip pain in the anterior iliac 
region which is aggravated by prolonged standing, prolonged sitting and 
extended periods of sleep.  She also complains of hip pain if placed in [a] 
situation where she must do any heavy lifting (greater than 20 lbs).  Upon 
detailed evaluation of her medical record, I note that she has complained 
of this same hip pain since her original back injury in 1990.  At no point 
prior  to  her  first  complaints  of  back  pain  has  she  ever  reported  any 
anterior hip pain on the left side.  With this information, the consults and 
evaluations by neurosurgery and MRI results, I suspect her pain generates 
from  the  irritation of the  sciatic  nerve root at  the  L5-S1  level,  where  the 

nerve is routed anteriorly through the pelvis on the left side, at the site of 
the femoral head.  This pain has only partially improved since corrective 
surgery  for  a  herniated  disc  .  .  .    in  July  1995.    Due  to  the  prolonged 
duration  of  time  between  her  original  injury  [1991]  and  re-injury  [1994] 
before corrective surgery, this is most likely neuritis from sciatica irritation 
at the level of the degenerative disc disease.   [The applicant’s] last MRI 
(March 1995) demonstrates impingement on this nerve at the thecal sac . . .   
 
 
On February 9, 1996, the CPEB recommended that the applicant be placed on the 
TDRL with a 40% disability for severe intervertebral disc syndrome.  The applicant was 
placed on the TDRL effective April 1, 1996.   
 
 
On                       , the applicant had her first periodic examination since being 
placed  on  the  TDRL.2    The  doctor  who  performed  this  examination  noted  that  the 
applicant was employed as an accounting assistant and she reported that she had lost 
one to two days every two to three months due to her back pain.  He stated that the 
applicant complained of back stiffness with increasing pain and radiation to the left hip 
area and leg involvement with prolonged standing and sitting.  The doctor stated that 
the applicant had no new symptoms since being placed on the TDRL.  He stated that 
the applicant suffered from 
 

spasms in the left lumbar area with a tightness to direct palpation.  She 
has  limited  forward  flexion  to  beyond  ninety  degrees  and  extension  to 
beyond ten degrees.  She has a negative straight leg-raising test bilaterally 
and  her  sensation  and  motor  testing  is  intact  to  the  lower  extremities.  
Reflexes  are  at  3  and  symmetric  on  the  Achilles  and  Patellar  tendons 
bilaterally.    She  has  down  going  toes  and  there  is  no  clonus  bilaterally.  
Radiographs  of  her  back  demonstrate  a  decreased  disc  space,  increased 
sclerosis at the L5/S1 interval.  There was no evidence of osteoarthritis or 
bony  abnormalities  in  her  back.    Repeat  x-ray  of  her  pelvis  given  her 
complaint of left hip pain was performed and the left hip joint was well 
maintained with no evidence of osteophytes or decreased joint space.   
 
 
 
The doctor performing the TDRL examination stated that the applicant remained 
unfit for military service and should be retained on the TDRL or permanently retired 
from the Coast Guard.   
 
 
On  January  21,  1999,  the  CPEB  met  and  found  the  applicant  to  be  unfit  for 
military  duty.    It  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  permanently  retired  with  a 

                                                 
2   Section 8-C. of COMDTINST M1850.2C requires each individual on the TDRL to be 
periodically examined by one or more medical officers to determine whether there has 
been any significant change in the conditions that caused the temporary retirement.   
 

combined disability rating of 30%, which included 20% for moderate intervertebral disc 
syndrome and 10% for mild paralysis of the sciatic nerve.   
 
 
On  March  3,  1999,  the  applicant  rejected  the  CPEB  findings  and  demanded  a 
hearing before the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).  She submitted a rebuttal 
to the CPEB wherein she asserted that the CPEB should have had a current MRI before 
deciding her case.   She questioned how a clinician could fully and thoroughly assess 
neurological  symptoms  associated  with  the  back  without  the  benefit  of  an  MRI.    She 
complained that the Coast Guard did not diagnose her back problem earlier.  She stated 
that she has pain on a daily basis and that it will always be with her. 
 
 
On April 29, 1999, the FPEB met and determined that the applicant was unfit for 
duty with a 30% combined disability rating.  It described the applicant's disability as 
follows:    “Intervertebral  Disc  Syndrome:  Moderate.    2.    Sciatica  nerve  neuralgia, 
secondary  to  nerve  damage  caused  by  unnatural  walking  from  bone  spurs  prior  to 
corrective surgery.”  
 

The applicant rejected the findings of the FPEB and submitted a  rebuttal.  The 
applicant  challenged  the  finding  by  the  FPEB  that  her  sciatic  pain  resulted  from 
unnatural walking.  She insisted that it resulted from her back problem.  

 
The applicant submitted a June 4, 1999, MRI report of her back that contained the 
following  impression:    “There  remains  a  small  amount  of  interior  protruding  disk 
posteriorly to the left touching the left S1 nerve root and thecal sac, but not significantly 
displacing them.  These changes are superimposed upon grade 1 retrolithesis and mild 
disk osteophyte complex along the interspace.” 

 

 
The  applicant  also  submitted  an  EMG  report  dated  May  5,  1999,  in  which  she 
sought  confirmation  of  the  20%  disability  rating  for  her  back.    The  doctor  who 
performed this evaluation stated that she did not have a problem with the 20% partial 
permanent  impairment  rating  for  moderate  intervertebral  disc  disease.    This  doctor’s 
impression  of  the  applicant’s  condition  with  respect  to  her  back  was  “[d]egenerative 
disc disease of the lumbosacral spine . . . associated with sciatica which certainly could 
be referred pain.”  The doctor reported the following findings:   
 

PHYSICAL  EXAMINATION:    Alert,  cooperative  female  in  no  acute 
distress.    Mental  status,  speech,  and  affect  are  normal.    Cranial  nerves, 
motor sensory analysis, sensory, and cerebellar testing are normal.  Gait, 
stance, and Remberg testing are normal.  She is able to tandem, toe and 
heel  walk  without  difficulty. 
  Deep  tendon  reflexes  2+  bilaterally 
including the ankles and plantar response flexor.  

The FPEB informed the applicant on June 28, 1999, that it would not act on her 
rebuttal  because  it  did  not  satisfy  the  requirements  of  COMDTINST  M1850.2C.    The 

applicant was told that the FPEB findings would be reviewed by the Physical Review 
Counsel (PRC).  (It appears that the review by the PRC never occurred).  
 
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
 
On  October  2,  2001,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  form  the  Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard recommending that the applicant's request be denied for 
lack of proof of error or injustice. 
 
 
With  respect  to  the  applicant’s  contention  that  the  sciatica  is  secondary  to  the 
back injury and not the foot, the Chief Counsel stated the applicant’s record supports 
the FPEB’s finding that the sciatica is related to the foot problem.  He stated that the 
medical entry dated June 6, 1999 supports the FPEB.  The Chief Counsel stated that this 
entry noted that the applicant suffered from pain in her left heel for 18 months.  The 
source of the pain was diagnosed to be heel spurs. The Chief Counsel stated that the 
applicant’s  mere  disagreement  with  the  FPEB’s  analysis  and  conclusion  in  not  clear 
evidence of error or injustice. 
 

The Chief of the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), in a memorandum 
attached to the advisory opinion, stated that highly qualified and experienced medical 
officers  thoroughly  reviewed  and  rated  the  applicant’s  disability.    He  stated  that  the 
applicant’s  medical  examination  of  November  9,  1998  supported  the  finding  that  her 
sciatica  was  related  to  heel  spurs.    In  this  regard  CGPC  stated  the  following:    “[The 
medical report] noted that applicant suffered from ‘back stiffness with increasing back 
pain with radiation to the left hip area and leg involvement with prolonged standing 
greater  than  one  hour.’  This  evidence  suggests  that  her  sciatica  was  related  to  bone 
spurs and or standing/walking.”   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that rating the applicant’s sciatica as not belonging to 
the same system of the body as the back problem was not pyramiding.  He stated that 
both the CPEB and FPEB concluded that the sciatica was not a part of the “same area or 
system of the body” as the intervertebral disc syndrome.  The Chief Counsel stated that 
the  applicant  “has  not  presented  clear  evidence  showing  that  the  Coast  Guard 
committed error or injustice” in this regard.   
 
Applicant's Response to the Coast Guard Views 
 
 
of the Coast Guard.  She disagreed with them. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  she  believes  she  has  severe  intervertebral  disc 
syndrome, because she has very little relief of pain.  She restated her position that the 
sciatica is related to her back condition.  In support of this contention she relied on the 
results of an MRI taken on June 4, 1999, which are discussed above.  A medical report 
dated  February  10,  1998,  noted  that  the  applicant  has  persistent  low-back  pain  after 

On September 24, 2001, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views 

surgery.  It noted that the applicant’s back pain radiates into the left thigh and anterior 
thigh,  occasionally  on  the  front  right  side.    It  also  noted  that  applicant  has  had  heel 
surgery for spurs with good relief of the pain.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1.    The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of  the  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10, 

The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 

 
 
applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
2.  There is some medical evidence in the record that the applicant’s sciatica is 
related to her back problem rather than the heel spur/unnatural walking.  However, the 
Board will not disturb the finding of the FPEB, unless the applicant demonstrates by a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  suffered  from  severe  intervertebral  disc 
syndrome, which equates to a 40% disability rating, at the time of her discharge from 
the Coast Guard.   
 
 
3.    The  applicant  has  failed  to  submit  sufficient  evidence  establishing  that  the 
Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  finding  that  she  suffered  from  moderate 
intervertebral  disc  syndrome  with  a  20%  disability  rating.  The  disability  ratings  for 
active duty personnel are judgments made by Coast Guard medical professionals based 
on guidance provided by the VASRD.   According to the VASRD, a 20% disability for 
intervertebral disc syndrome is characterized by “recurring attacks [of pain].” The next 
higher rating for the applicant’s condition would be a 40% disability rating.  There is no 
30% rating for this condition. 
 
 
4.  There is sufficient evidence in the record supporting the finding of the FPEB 
with respect to the applicant’s back.  The November 1998 periodic examination stated 
that  the  applicant  had  no  new  symptoms  since  being  placed  on  the  TDRL  in  1996, 
although the doctor noted that she complained about back stiffness with increasing pain 
that  radiated  to  the  left  hip  and  leg.    The  report  also  noted  that  the  applicant  was 
employed  as  an  accounting  assistant  and  had  lost  approximately  one  to  two  days  of 
work  every  two  to  three  months  because  of  the  back  pain.    This  description  of  the 
applicant’s situation indicates that the applicant’s back pain was of the moderate level.  
It does not support her claim that her pain occurred with such frequency that it could 
be described as “recurring attacks with intermittent relief [Severe].”  According to the 
VASRD  a  40%  disability  rating  for  intervertebral  disc  syndrome  should  include 
“recurring attacks [of pain and muscle spasms] with intermittent relief.”    
 
5.  Moreover, in rebutting the FPEB, the applicant submitted a report of an EMG 
 
evaluation  that  she  obtained,  wherein  she  sought  confirmation  of  the  20%  disability 
rating  given  to  her  by  the  FPEB.    The  doctor  who  performed  the  EMG  evaluation 
diagnosed the applicant as suffering from “degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral 

spine . . . associated with sciatica.” The doctor stated that she did not have a problem 
with  the  20%  disability  rating  assigned  by  the  FPEB.    The  EMG  doctor  reported  the 
applicant’s  physical  examination  as  showing  an  alert,  cooperative  female  in  no  acute 
distress.    It  further  reported  “[c]ranial  nerves,  motor  sensory  analysis,  sensory,  and 
cerebellar testing are normal.  Gait, stance, and Remberg testing are normal.  She is able 
to  tandem,  toe  and  heel  walk  without  difficulty.    Deep  tendon  reflexes  2+  bilaterally 
including  the  ankles  and  plantar  response  flexor.”  The  EMG  did  not  state  that  the 
applicant suffered from severe intervertebral disc syndrome. 
 
 
6.  The EMG report, as well as the TDRL examination, noted the applicant’s pain 
in  the  back  and  hip,  but  this  information  did  not  cause  any  change  in  the  FPEB’s 
determination of the applicant’s disability rating related to her back.  The Board does 
not find sufficient evidence in the record to show by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the FPEB’s determination was in error or unjust.   
 
 
7.    Even  if  the  FPEB  erred  by  finding  that the  sciatica  resulted  from  unnatural 
walking rather than from the intervertebral disc syndrome, the applicant has failed to 
demonstrate that she would have received a higher rating for her back had sciatic been 
considered  in  that  rating.    Her  back  and  hip  pain  was  considered  by  the  FPEB  in 
reaching the 20% given to the applicant for the back disease.  The FPEB’s finding that 
the sciatica resulted from unnatural walking permitted it to grant a separate disability 
rating for this condition, which gave the applicant a combined rating of 30%, enabling 
her  to  retire  from  the  Coast  Guard.    If  the  FPEB  had  found  that  the  sciatica  resulted 
from the applicant’s back condition, it would have been necessary to include it as part 
of the 20% disability rating for the back condition.  The applicant would not have been 
retired with a 20% disability rating.  
 
 
8.  The Coast Guard pointed out that the applicant’s case was not referred to the 
PRC, as the FPEB indicated.  However, the applicant did not raise this as an issue and 
the Board will not address it in this decision. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

9.  Accordingly, the applicant's application should be denied 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

The application of                                     for correction of his military record is 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs 

 

 

 

 
 
Jacqueline L. Sullivan 

 

 

 
Nilza F. Velázquez