DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket 
No.  2002- 147 

  FINAL DECISION  

This  final  decision,  dated  April  30,  2003,  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.  The application was docketed on July 26, 2002, 
upon receipt of the applicant's complete application for correction of his military record.   
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by increasing the permanent 
disability rating he received from the Coast Guard from 20% to 30% or higher.  A 30% 
disability rating will entitle the applicant to retirement by reason of physical disability. 
 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on March 16, 198x.  He was discharged 
from the Coast Guard on November 7, 199x with a 20% disability rating due to bilateral 
knee  degenerative  arthritis,  for  which  he  received  severance  pay.    At  the  time  of  his 
discharge he had 12 years, 7 months, and 22 days of active duty.   
 

EXCERPTS FROM RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  should  have  been  discharged  with  a  disability 
rating  of  30%  or  higher.    He  asserted  that  his  request  for  a  higher  disability  rating  is 
supported  by  his  Coast  Guard  medical  records  and  by  the  60%  disability  rating 
awarded  to  him by the Department of Veterans Affairs [DVA] within one year of his 
discharge from the Coast Guard.  
 
Background 
 
A  Medical  Board  Report  (MBR)  dated  January  11,  198x,  indicates  that  the 
 
applicant suffered an injury to his left knee in 1982, prior to entering the service.  The 
MBR also states that the applicant re-injured the knee in August 198x after joining the 
Coast Guard, for which he underwent surgery in October 198x.  On October 4, 198x, a 
Disposition Medical Board determined that the applicant was fit for continued duty in 

the  Coast  Guard  based  on  a  September  198x  medical  evaluation  that  found  the 
applicant's  left  knee absent of any "effusion, crepitus, or laity, with excellent range of 
motion  (ROM)."    On  January  26,  198x,  the  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (CPEB) 
agreed with the Medical Board (MB) and found the applicant fit for duty.   
 
 
The medical record indicates that on January 19, 1994, the applicant reported to a 
Coast Guard clinic complaining about knee pain with limited ROM, after injuring his 
left  knee  playing  basketball.  He  was  treated  with  Naprosyn  and  placed  in  a  limited 
duty status, with no prolonged standing or walking for one week.   
 
 
On August 12, 199x, the applicant was evaluated for left knee pain by a hospital 
service technician.  On December 6, 199x, he reported to the clinic again complaining of 
knee  pain.    He  stated  that  he  injured  his  knee  while  playing  football.    A  doctor 
evaluated the applicant and found that the applicant's left knee was inflamed due to a 
trauma, but it tested negative for the Lachman's1 and McMurray's2 tests.  The applicant 
was  treated  with  Naprosyn  and  a  knee  support  and  he  was  placed  sick in quarters 4 
days.  He was referred to a rheumatologist for evaluation.   
 
On  December  6,  199x,  the  applicant  was  seen  by  a  rheumatologist  who  stated 
 
that x-rays revealed no evidence of rheumatoid arthritis but some narrowing of the left 
lateral joint space.  The rheumatologist stated that there was "no evidence of synovitis, 
palmar erythema, or nodules." On December 11, 1996 the applicant was examined and 
found fit for duty. 
 
 
On January 10, 199x, the applicant had a follow-up clinical visit and complained 
of left knee pain.  The doctor noted that the applicant had experienced minimal relief of 
pain with Naprosyn.  Additional tests were ordered to rule out Lupus and the applicant 
was placed on 30 days light duty.  
 

A  medical  report  dated  February  7,  199x,  indicates  that  the  rheumatologist 
treated the applicant again on January 30, 199x.  At this visit, fluid was removed from 
the  applicant's  left  knee  and  it  was  injected  with  Depo-medrol.      The  rheumatologist 
recommended that the applicant be evaluated by an orthopedist.     
 
 
On  February  2,  199x,  the  applicant  was  referred  to  an  orthopedist  for  an 
evaluation and he was continued on light duty.  The orthopedic evaluation is not in the 
record.    However,  the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  underwent  arthroscopic 
surgery  of  the  left  knee  on  April  23,  1997.    His  preoperative  diagnosis  was  "ACL 

                                                 
1  Lachman's is an "anterior drawer test for cases of severe knee injury, performed at 20 
degrees of flexion."  Doland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 29th edition, p. 1807 
 
2   McMurray's test is used to determine if the knee has a torn medial meniscus.  "The 
examiner rotates the  . . . foot fully outward and the knee is slowly extended; a painful 
"click" indicates a tear of the medial meniscus of the knee joint." Doland's at p. 1808 
 

[arterior cruciate ligament] insufficiency left knee,"  "early osteoarthritis left knee," and 
to "rule-out meniscal tear of the left knee."  The operative diagnosis for the applicant's 
left knee was "ACL insufficiency left knee,"  "Grade I and II chondromalacia patella3,"  
"Osteoarthritis  of  tibial  femoral  joint  lateral  compartment,"  "Grade  II  chondromalacia 
medial femoral condyle."  On June 10, 199x, the applicant's orthropedist recommended 
the applicant's return to full duty.   
 
 
The applicant returned to the clinic several times over the next approximately 18 
months for physical therapy and with complaints of knee pain.  On January 28, 199x, 
the applicant had x-rays taken of both knees.  The radiologic report revealed that the 
applicant's  left  knee  had  degenerative  changes  with  joint  space  narrowing.  It further 
stated that the right knee appeared normal.  A March 18, 199x MRI of the right knee 
revealed no evidence of a ligament or meniscal tear. 
 

On April 6, 199x, the applicant was the subject of a limited duty medical board.  
The limited duty medical board report stated that the applicant suffered with bilateral 
knee  pain  for  several  years  and  that  x-rays  showed  moderated  degenerative  joint 
disease of the left knee and mild degenerative joint disease of the right knee.  He was 
placed on limited duty for 8 months with no shipboard duty, no running or deep knee 
bending, no lifting more than 10 pounds, and minimal ladder climbing.   
 

On  April  29,  199x,  a  rheumatologist  evaluated  the  applicant  and  reported  the 

following: 
 

[The  applicant]  has  long-standing musculoskeletal complaints, especially 
in his knees, dating back to sports injuries over ten years ago.  He had had 
two  arthroscopic  surgeries  in  his left knee.  There is internal mechanical 
damage and evolving arthritis.  He now presents with more generalized 
aches  and  pains  including  symptoms  in  his  wrist,  feet  and  low  back.    I 
have had a chance to go over him in detail.  He does not have psoriasis, 
joint swelling, or any other associated symptom. 
 
Physical  examination  is  remarkable  for  degenerative  findings,  as  noted 
before,  involving  his  knees.    There  is  also  evidence  of  degenerative 
arthritis in his mid food regions, right greater than left.  Back examination 
is normal.  There is no synovitis4 or any sign on physical examination of 
any inflammatory form of arthritis.   

                                                 
3 Chondromalacia patella is defined by" pain and crepitus over the anterior aspect of the 
knee, particularly in flexion, with softening of the cartilage on the articular surface of 
the patella."  Doland's at p. 344. 
 
4   Synovitis is inflammation of a membrane that is painful, particularly on motion, and 
is characterized by a fluctuating swelling due to effusion within a synovial sac.  
Doland's at p. 1773. 
  

 
His  diagnosis 
is  degenerative  and  post-traumatic  knee  disease, 
degenerative  arthritis  in  several  other  joints,  and  nonspecific,  largely 
musculotendinous  low  back  pain.    Some  of  his  other  pains  are  out  of 
proportion  to  objective  physical  findings,  for  example  in  the  wrists  and 
hands.   
 
. . . There is no clinical evidence of any surgical problem in his back or in 
any other joint.  There is no evidence of rheumatoid arthritis.  

 
 
On  May  6,  199x,  a  medical  board  met  and  diagnosed  that  the  applicant  as 
suffering from bilateral knee degenerative arthritis, which rendered the applicant unfit 
for continued duty in the Coast Guard.   The Medical Board referred the applicant's case 
to the Central Physical Disability Evaluation Board (CPEB) for final adjudication, with 
the following evaluation of the applicant's condition: 
 

Physical examination is within normal limits except as noted below.  The 
patient walks with a slightly antalgic gait, favoring the left side.  His knees 
have  full  range  of  motion  bilaterally.    He  has  no  significant  joint  line 
tenderness.  He  has  negative  lachman  on  both  knees  bilaterally.    He  has 
anterior drawers of 6 millimeters with good endpoints and symmetric on 
both  knees  bilaterally.    He  had  no  quadriceps  atrophy.    He  is  stable  to 
varus  and  valgus  stress.    He  has  negative  pivot  shift  test.    Distal 
neurovascular intact. 
 

 

* 

 

* 

 

* 

 
X-ray  examination  shows  that  he  has  moderate  degenerative  arthritis  of 
the  left  knee  especially  of  the  medial  compartment  and  the  patellar 
femoral  compartment.    He  has  slightly  less  evidence  of  degenerative 
arthritis of his right knee mainly in the medial joint space.   
 
An  MRI  scan  of  his  right  knee  showed  that  he  had  no  evidence  of  an 
anterior cruciate ligament tear or meniscal tears.   
 
On  June  15,  199x,  the  applicant's  commanding  officer  (CO)  agreed  that  the 
applicant was not fit for full duty.  He stated that he did not believe that the applicant 
would  be  capable  of  completing  his  duties  which  included:    supervision  and 
management  of  the  ship's  dining  facility  as  food  services  officer,  training  of  junior 
cooks,  standing  duty  as  inport  officer  of  the  deck  or  responding  to  shipboard 
emergencies.      The  CO  further  stated  that  the  applicant  would  not  be  able  to  climb 
ladders,  access  restricted  spaces,  or  stand  for  extended  periods  of  time,  which  are  a 
necessary to sea duty.    

 
On  July  19,  199x,  the  CPEB  found  that  the  applicant  was  unfit  for  continued 
active  duty  and  recommended  that  the  Commandant  discharge  him  with  separation 

pay.    The  CPEB  determined  that  the  applicant  was  20%  disabled  due  to  "Arthritis 
Degenerative: with x-ray evidence of involvement of 2 major joints, both knees" (code 
5003 on the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VARSD)).5 

 
On  September  7,  199x,  after  consultation  with  a  lawyer, the applicant accepted 
the findings of the CPEB and waived his right to a formal hearing before the Physical 
Disability  Evaluation  Board.    On  September  16,  1999,  the  Commandant  approved  the 
findings and recommendation of the CPEB and directed the applicant's separation with 
severance pay.  The applicant was separated on November 7, 1999.   

 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (DVA) 
 

The  applicant  received  a  combined  60%  disability  rating  from  the  DVA.    The 
applicant submitted documents showing that the DVA has granted him a 10% disability 
rating  for  each  of  the  following: 
  right  knee  degenerative  arthritis,  left  knee 
degenerative  arthritis  (VASRD  code  5300),  right  knee  degenerative  arthritis  with 
instability,  left  knee  degenerative  arthritis  with  instability  (VASRD  code  5257),  right 
wrist tendonitis, and chronic lumbar strain.  The DVA examined the applicant's knees 
on July 19, 2000 and offered the following evaluation: 

 
It  .  .  .  was  indicated  that  [the  applicant]  was  wearing  a  left  knee  brace.  
[The applicant] stated that he injured his left knee playing football in 1997, 
and  had  arthroscopic  surgery  and  he  had a second arthroscopic surgery 
on his left knee at an [Air Force base] . . . [A]s far as [the applicant's] knees 
are concerned, the right knee revealed no swelling or deformity.  Range of 
motion showed flexion to 115 degrees and extension zero degrees.  There 
was very slight or mild medial instability of the right knee.  The left knee 
showed  no  swelling  or  deformity,  but  there  was  moderate  medial 
instability of the left knee.  Flexion of the left knee was 112 degrees and 
extension zero degrees.  The examiner diagnosed degenerative arthritis of 
both knees.   
 

 
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
The Coast Guard recommended that the applicant's request for relief be denied 
 
for lack of proof of error or injustice. The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant has 
failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard committed an 
error or injustice by rating his disability at 20%. He stated that absent strong evidence to 
the contrary, it is presumed that Coast Guard officials carried out their duties lawfully, 

                                                 
5  The Coast Guard uses the VASRD to make percentage determinations.  According to 
38 CFR § 4.1., "This rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability 
resulting from all types of disease and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to 
military service." 

correctly,  and  in  good  faith.    Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.  2d  1034,  1037  (D.C.  Cir. 
1990).   
  
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the findings of the DVA regarding the applicant’s 
alleged  disabilities  have  no  bearing  or  legal  effect  on  the  Coast  Guard’s  medical 
findings.    In  this  regard,  the  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  DVA,  taking  the  whole 
person  into  consideration,  determines  to  what  extent  a  veteran’s  civilian  earning 
capacity  has  been  reduced  as  a  result  of  physical  disabilities  and  provides 
compensation.  In contrast, the Coast Guard determines if a member is unfit to perform 
his  military  duties  and  then  rates  to  what  extent  the  medical  condition  prevents  the 
member from performing his duties.  He further stated as follows: 
 

The  procedures  and  presumptions  applicable  to  the  DVA  evaluation 
process  are  fundamentally  different  from,  and  more  favorable  to  the 
veteran  than,  those  applied  under  the  PDES  (Coast  Guard’s  Physical 
Disability Evaluation System).  The DVA is also not limited to the time of 
Applicant’s retirement from the Service.  If a service-connected condition 
later becomes disabling, the DVA may award compensation on that basis.  
The DVA's subsequent finding that the Applicant was 60% disabled isn't 
binding  on  the  Coast  Guard  nor  indicative  of  differing  or  conflicting 
opinions between Coast Guard and DVA medical officials.   

 
 
Last,  the  chief  counsel  stated  that  the  applicant  was  afforded  all  of  his  due 
process rights with respect to the processing of his case through the physical disability 
evaluation system. 
 
Applicant’s Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard: 
 
On  December  2,  2002,  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard  views  was  mailed  to  the 
 
applicant  with  an  invitation  for  him  to  submit  a  response.    He  did  not  submit  a 
response. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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. 
 

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

2.    The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing.    The  Chair,  under  section  52.31  of 
title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, recommended disposition on the merits without a 
hearing.  The Board concurred in that recommendation. 
  
 
3.    The  applicant  has  submitted  insufficient  evidence  to  show  that  the  Coast 
Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  when  it  determined  that  he  was  20%  disabled 

due  to  degenerative  arthritis  in  both  knees.    Nor  has  he  shown  that  he  should  have 
received a higher disability rating from the Coast Guard.   
 
 
4.    The applicant did not alleged a specific error or injustice with respect to the 
CPEB findings or the physical disability evaluation process in his case other than to note 
the difference between the CPEB's 20% disability rating and the DVA's 60% disability 
rating.   The Board has consistently held that a higher disability rating from the DVA 
does  not  alone  establish  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  by 
assigning a lower disability rating.  The Court of Federal Claims has stated "[d]isability 
ratings by the Veterans Administration [now the Department of Veterans Affairs] and 
by  the  Armed  Forces  are  made  for  different  purposes.    The  Veterans  Administration 
determines to what extent a veteran's earning capacity has been reduced as a result of 
specific  injuries  or  combination  of  injuries.  [Citation omitted.]  The Armed Forces, on 
the other hand, determine to what extent a member has been rendered unfit to perform 
the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating because of a physical disability. [Citation 
omitted.]  Accordingly, Veterans Administration ratings are not determinative of issues 
involved in military disability retirement cases."  Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749, 754 
(1983).  
 
5.    Moreover,  while  the  Coast  Guard  uses  the  Veterans  Affairs  Schedule  for 
Rating Disabilities (VASRD), 38 CFR, part 4, the Coast Guard has not adopted all of the 
DVA's policies with respect to rating disabilities.  The Coast Guard's policies on how to 
rate  disabilities  are  in  Chapter  9  of  COMDTINST  M1850.2C  (Physical  Disability  and 
Evaluation Manual).  Thus, while the DVA rated the applicant's bilateral degenerative 
arthritis and knee instability separately, the Coast Guard rated them as one disability.   
Coast Guard regulation states, "when a rating is assigned under a limitation of motion 
diagnostic  code  (5200  series),  it  will  not  be  combined  with  a  rating  under  diagnostic 
code 5003 for other joint involvement on the basis of x-ray findings."  Regardless of the 
DVA's examination of the applicant approximately eight months after his discharge on 
July 19, xxxx, the Medical Board report of May 10, 199x stated that the applicant had 
full  range  of  motion  in  both  knees  and  the  CPEB  made  the  disability  determination 
based on x-ray evidence.   Accordingly, it was appropriate for the Coast Guard to rate 
the applicant for only degenerative arthritis.  

 
6.  In addition, the DVA's higher disability rating included other disabilities that 
were  not  considered  by  the  CPEB  in  its  fitness  for  duty  determination,  even  though 
medical entries indicate the applicant has complained about his wrist and back while on 
active  duty.    The  applicant  presented  no  evidence,  however,  that  the  right  wrist 
tendonitis  or  the  lumbar  strain  contributed  to  his  unfitness  for  continued  duty  at  the 
time  of  his  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.    According  to  Chapter  2.C.3.(3)  of  the 
COMDTINST M1850.2C, the CPEB will rate only those disabilities that make a member 
unfit for military service or contribute to his or her inability to perform military duty.   

 
7.    More  importantly  than  the  above,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant,  after 
consultation with a lawyer assigned to counsel him on whether to accept or reject the 
CPEB's recommendation, signed a statement accepting the CPEB's finding that he was 

unfit  for  continued  active  duty  and  should  be  discharged  with  severance  pay  due  to 
physical  disability  rated  at  20%  disabling  for  bilateral  degenerative  arthritis  as 
evidenced by x-rays. The applicant also waived his right to a formal hearing before the 
FPEB, where his objection to the CPEB findings could have been addressed prior to his 
discharge. Absent clear evidence of error or injustice, the Board will not disturb findings 
rendered by the Coast Guard. 

 
8.    The  applicant  received  all  due  process  to  which  he  was  entitled  under  the 
Physical Disability Evaluation System.   Accordingly, the applicant's request for relief 
should be denied 
 
 
 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
record is denied. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 Gerald H. Meader 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer