DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-020 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 

 

 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on October 26, 
2007, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and subsequently prepared the final 
decision for the Board as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c).         
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  July  24,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  increasing  his  Coast  Guard 
disability rating from 20% to at least 30% based upon a disabling knee condition that was not 
rated by the Coast Guard when it rated his disabling back condition.1    
 

BACKGROUND 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on November 10, 1997, and was discharged on 
August  4,  2006,  by  reason  of  physical  disability  with  severance  pay  due  to  a  20%  disability 
rating for a back condition.   
 
Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES)2 Processing for debilitating back condition 

In 2000, the applicant hurt his back while moving a heavy piece of furniture.  Thereafter, 
he occasionally sought treatment for back pain.   On March 21, 2005, the applicant underwent a 
physical examination for the purpose of separation as he had declined to reenlist.  He reported 
                                                 
1   A 30% disability rating is necessary to be retired from the Coast Guard due to a physical disability.    
2    The  Coast  Guard  PDES  is  composed  of  administrative  boards  and  reviewing  and  approving  authorities  that 
evaluate  a  member’s  physical  ability  to  perform  the  duties  associated  with  the  member’s  office,  rank,  grade,  or 
rating.  The components of the PDES are the medical board, Central Physical Evaluation Board, Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board, the Physical Review Council, and the Physical Disability Appeal Board. 
 

 

that  he  suffered  from  “constant  back  pain  due  to  herniated  disks.”    On  May  2,  2005,  the 
physician reported that the applicant did not have any disqualifying defects.  Therefore, he was 
found fit for separation.  The applicant objected to the finding and extended his enlistment for 
one year.  In June 2005, the applicant was transferred to a new unit in Louisiana and continued to 
complain  about  back  pain.    On  October  13,  2005,  the  applicant  underwent  an  MRI,  which 
showed that he had a small posterior central disk herniation at L3-4 and a disc bulge at L4-L5.   

 
On December 21, 2005, an Initial Medical Board (IMB)3 diagnosed the applicant with 
low  back  pain  that  caused  him  to  be  unable  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  rate,  to  which  the 
applicant  agreed.      On  January  19,  2006,  the  Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (CPEB)4 
reviewed the applicant’s records and recommended that he be discharged with a 20% disability 
rating  and  severance  pay  for  intervertebral  disc  syndrome  under  the  Department  of  Veterans 
Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 5243.  The applicant, with the advice of 
counsel,  rejected  the  CPEB  findings  and  demanded  a  hearing  before  the  Formal  Physical 
Evaluation  Board  (FPEB)5.    The  FPEB  heard  the  applicant’s  case  on  March  28,  2006,  and 
recommended that the applicant be discharged with a 20% disability rating and severance pay.  
The applicant rebutted the FPEB findings and recommendation.   On April 24, 2006, the Physical 
Review Counsel (PRC)6 reviewed the applicant’s case and agreed with the findings of the FPEB.  
The Commandant approved the findings and recommendations of the FPEB and the applicant 
was discharged with a 20% disability due to a back condition.    
 
Prior BCMR Case 
 

In  an  earlier  application,  BCMR  No.  2006-112, the  applicant  requested  that  the  Board 
increase the rating for his back disability from 20% to 40%.  The Board denied that application 
on January 31, 2007.  

 

                                                 
3   An IMB is a written report of a medical board convened by appropriate authority to evaluate a member's fitness 
for  continued  duty  due  to  physical  or  mental  impairments  and  to  make  recommendations  consistent  with  the 
findings.  Chapter 2.A.24 of the PDES Manual.  A medical board is normally composed of two medical officers, but 
may be composed on one medical officer under exceptional circumstances.  Chapter 3.C.1. of the PDES Manual.   
 
4   The  CPEB  is  a  permanently  established  administrative  body  convened  to  evaluate,  on  a  record  basis,  whether 
active duty, reservists, or temporarily disabled retired members are fit for duty.  Chapter 4.A.1. of the PDES Manual.  
If the CPEB finds the member unfit for continued duty, it shall make such a finding and propose ratings for those 
disabilities  which  are  unfitting  or  which  contribute  to  the  condition  that  causes  the  member  to  be  unfit.    Article 
2.C.3.a.(3) of the PDES Manual.     
 
5      The  FPEB  is  a  superior  body  to  the  CPEB.    It  is  a  fact-finding  body  that  holds  an  administrative  hearing  to 
evaluate a member's fitness for duty and to make recommendations consistent with the findings.  The member is 
assigned  counsel  or  may  be  represented  by  civilian  counsel  at  his  or  her  expense.    The  FPEB  makes  the  same 
findings as those required of the CPEB.  Chapter 5.A.1. of the PDES Manual. 
 
6   The PRC is a review body.  It reviews every CPEB or FPEB case in which the member rebuts the findings and 
recommended disposition.  In conducting the review, the PRC checks for completeness and accuracy, and ensure 
consistency and equitable application of policy and regulation.  See Chapter 6 of the PDES Manual.   
 

CURRENT CASE: BCMR DOCKET NO. 2008-020 

 

Allegations 

 
As stated earlier, in his current application, the applicant is requesting an increase in his 
disability rating to at last 30% due to an alleged knee disability that was incurred on active duty, 
but was not rated by the Coast Guard.   He argued that although he incurred the knee condition 
while  on  active  duty,  it  was  not  considered  by  the  medical  board  or  the  CPEB  when  they 
evaluated and rated his disabling back condition.  He stated that he complained about pain in his 
knees  while  on  active  duty,  but  the  condition  was  never  treated.    He  stated  that  within  four 
months of his discharge from the Coast Guard, the Department of Veterans Affairs rated each of 
his knees as being 10% disabling for a combined disability rating of 20%. 

 
In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  the  decision  from  the 
DVA granting him a 10%  disability rating for each  knee.  With respect to the right knee, the 
DVA doctor diagnosed the applicant as having osteoarthritis and granted him a 10% disability 
rating due to pain in the knee when in motion.  The DVA noted that there was no evidence that 
the applicant’s right knee condition manifested itself while he was in the service, but it granted 
the 10% disability  rating  for the  right knee on  the presumption that it  was incurred while the 
applicant  was  on  active  duty  because  the  condition  manifested  itself  within  one  year  of  his 
separation from the Service.  

 
With respect to the left knee, the DVA stated that the applicant’s Coast Guard medical 
record noted that the applicant complained of left anterior knee pain on one occasion while in the 
Service, but that that examination was unremarkable.  The DVA decision further stated: 

 
The examination results from the Tampa VA Medical Center note you reported 
that  you  hurt  your  knees  numerous  times  while  on  a  boat  in  service.    The 
examiner  noted  that  range  of  motion  testing  of  your  left  knee  showed  full 
extension to 0 degrees, and flexion limited to 95 degrees.   Upon repetitive motion 
testing an additional 5 degrees of flexion was lost bringing the range of motion to 
90 degrees.  The report notes painful motion.  Lachman’s and McMurray’s tests 
were negative and there was no evidence of instability.  An x-ray report showed 
minor degenerative changes.  The examiner diagnosed osteoarthritis.   

You  complained  of  left  knee  pain  in  service  and  were  diagnosed  with  arthritis 
within one year of separation.  Service connection for left knee osteoarthritis is 
granted  as  the  evidence  shows  the  disability  is  directly  related  to  service.    An 
evaluation  of  10  percent  is  assigned  from  August  5,  2006,  for  painful  motion.  
The effective date is the day following your separation from service as your claim 
was received within one year of that date and service connection is granted on a 
direct basis.  A higher evaluation of 20 percent is not warranted unless extension 
of the leg is limited to 15 degrees or evidence demonstrates leg flexion which is 
limited to 30 degrees.   

 

 

Coast Guard Medical Record Entries Related to the Applicant’s Knees 
 
 
The  applicant’s  Coast  Guard  medical  records  shows  that  on  December  5,  2005,  the 
applicant complained to medical personnel about his left knee, back pain, and sore throat.  The 
medical note states that the applicant “has been having a left anterior knee pain lately when he 
puts a lot of pressure on his left leg.  Left knee exam is unremarkable with full range of motion, 
no effusion present [and] no ligamentous instability demonstrated.  Left knee x-ray is normal.”7    
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 12, 2008, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Office of the Judge 
Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard.  He recommended that the applicant's request for 
relief be denied in accordance with the memorandum provided by the Commander, Coast Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC).   
 
 
CGPC stated that there was no evidence that the Coast Guard’s decision in the applicant’s 
case was in error or unjust.  CGPC noted that the applicant did not mention any knee problems 
during the PDES processing for his back condition.    Moreover, CGPC noted that the applicant 
was  afforded  his  full  due  process  rights  within  the  PDES  process.    CGPC  further  stated  the 
following: 
 

The applicant contends that the issues of knee pain (Osteoarthritis) should have 
been  considered  as  part  of  his  PDES  processing.    There  is  no  indication  in  the 
applicant’s record that these conditions were unfitting or that they contributed to 
the condition which caused his unfitness for duty  . . .  Additionally at no time did 
the applicant rebut the findings of the PDES with these additional conditions.  His 
record indicates one notation of evaluation for knee pain on December 5, 2005, 
ancillary to complaint of a sore throat and treatment for chronic back pain.  The 
evaluation was unremarkable with regards to knee pain or related impairment  . . . 
There is no indication that the applicant’s knee pain was unfitting at the time of 
his discharge.   
 
The applicant indicates that the DVA awarded him a disability rating of 20% for 
osteoarthritis of both knees (10% disability rating for each knee).  The subsequent 
DVA  disability  does  not  reflect  an  incorrect  rating  or  omission  when  he  was 
processed through the PDES.  The military disability system determines unfitness 
for  duty  and  then  rates  only  the  extent  that  the  unfitting  medical  condition  or 
conditions  prevent  the  member  from  performing  their  duties  at  the  time.    The 
DVA  ratings  are  based  on  an  evaluation  of  the  whole  person,  including  the 
evaluation  of 
the  evaluee’s  employability  status  and  earning  capacity.  
Accordingly,  DVA  ratings  are  not  determinative  of  issues  involved  in  military 
disability  ratings  determinations.    Fluctuation  in  ratings  over  time  is  not 
unexpected  and  the  applicant’s  current  physical  disabilities  are  being  addressed 
through  the  appropriate  venue.    The  evaluation  of  the  applicant  at  the  time  of 
discharge is not effected by subsequent DVA or private provider disability rating.   

                                                 
7   There are no further entries in the applicant’s medical record with respect to his knees. 

 

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  March  13,  2008,  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard  views  was  sent  to  the  applicant  for  a 

 
 
response.   The BCMR did not receive a response. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Disability Statutes 
 
 
Title 10 U.S.C. § 1201 provides that a member who is found to be “unfit to perform the 
duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical disability incurred while 
entitled to basic pay” may be retired if the disability is (1) permanent and stable, (2) not a result 
of misconduct, and (3) for members with less than 20 years of service, “at least 30 percent under 
the standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the 
time of the determination.”  Title 10 U.S.C. § 1203 provides that such a member whose disability 
is rated at only 10 or 20 percent under the VASRD shall be discharged with severance pay.  Title 
10 U.S.C. § 1214 states that “[n]o member of the armed forces may be retired or separated for 
physical disability without a full and fair hearing if he demands it.” 
 
Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual (COMDTINST M1850.2C) 
 
 
Article 2.A.50. of the PDES Manual defines unfit for continued duty as the status of a 
member who is physically and/or mentally unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank 
or rating because of a physical disability.   
 
 
Article  2.C.2.a.  of  the  PDES  Manual  states  that  the  sole  standard  in  making 
determinations of physical disability as a basis for retirement or separation shall be unfitness to 
perform  the  duties  of  office,  grade,  rank  or  rating  because  of  disease  or  injury  incurred  or 
aggravated through military service.  Each case is to be considered by relating the nature and 
degree  of  physical  disability  of  the  evaluee  concerned  to  the  requirements  and  duties  that  a 
member may reasonably be expected to perform in his or her office, grade, rank or rating.   
 
 
Article  2.C.2.i  of  the  PDES  Manual  states  in  pertinent  part  that  "a  member  may  have 
physical impairments ratable in accordance with the VASRD, [however] such impairments do 
not necessarily render him or her unfit for military duty." 
 
 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
States Code.  The application was timely.  
 

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

 
2.    The  applicant  alleged,  but  failed  to  prove,  that  the  medical  board  failed  in  its 
responsibility to diagnosis his alleged knee condition on its medical evaluation and report.  Nor 
has he shown that the CPEB erred in not rating his knee condition.  There is insufficient evidence 
in the record to establish that the applicant suffered a disabling knee condition while in the Coast 
Guard.    The fact is that during the applicant’s nine years of active duty service, there was only 
one entry in his medical record in which he complained about pain in his left knee.  That entry is 
dated  December  5,  2005.    The  Coast  Guard  medical  note  indicated  that  that  left  knee 
examination was unremarkable and that the knee had a full range of motion, no effusion, and no 
ligament instability.  Moreover, the x-ray of the knee indicated that it was normal.  There were 
no Coast Guard medical entries about his right knee.  Therefore, no basis existed in the medical 
record  that  would  have  caused  the  medical  board  to  diagnose  the  applicant  as  having  a  knee 
condition in the right knee and no persuasive medical evidence in the record that the applicant 
suffered  a  disabling  knee  condition  in  his  left  knee.    Further,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
applicant brought his concern about a possible debilitating knee condition to the attention of the 
medical  board,  CPEB,  FPEB,  or  PRC  during  the  PDES  processing  for  his  unrelated  back 
condition.  Certainly, he or his counsel should have raised the matter with one of the various 
PEB  boards  if  there  was  a  concern  that  he  suffered  from  a  debilitating  knee  condition.    The 
DVA’s decision to grant the applicant a 10% disability rating in each knee for painful motion 
after his discharge from the Coast Guard based upon their doctor’s examination and to describe 
their  disability  rating  for  the  left  knee  as  being  service-connected  based  upon  a  single  Coast 
Guard medical entry that revealed a healthy knee, does not persuade this Board that the Coast 
Guard erred in not diagnosing or rating the applicant’s alleged knee condition during his PDES 
processing for his back disability.  
 
 
3.    Even  if  the  applicant  could  prove  that  the  medical  board  or  CPEB  should  have 
diagnosed  his  knee  condition  in  their  evaluation  and  reports,  it  is  improbable  that  the  CPEB 
would have found the knee condition to be physically disabling because the applicant has pointed 
to no evidence, medical or otherwise, that the alleged knee condition contributed to or caused 
him  to  be  unfit  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  rank,  rate,  or  rating.    In  making  this  finding,  the 
Board  notes  that  Article  2.C.2.a.  of  the PDES Manual  states  that  the  sole  standard  in  making 
determinations of physical disability as a basis for retirement or separation shall be unfitness to 
perform  the  duties  of  one's  office,  grade,  rank,  rate,  or  rating.    Article  2.A.50.  of  the  PDES 
defines unfit for continued duty as the status of a member who is unable to perform the duties of 
office, grade, rank, or rating because of a physical disability.  Article 2.C.2.f.i. makes it clear that 
a  member  may  have  physical  impairments  ratable  in  accordance  with  the  VASRD,  but  such 
impairments  may  not  necessarily  render  the  member  unfit  for  military  duty.    Taking  into 
consideration  the  three  provisions  just  discussed,  it  is  the  applicant's  burden  to  prove  that  he 
incurred a knee injury while on active duty and that said knee injury was unfitting for military 
duty, i.e. caused him to be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.   The 
applicant  has  pointed  to  no  medical  evidence  that  he  had  disabling  knee  condition  while  on 
active duty and certainly he has offered no evidence (medical or otherwise) that a knee disability 
caused him to be unable to perform the duties of his rate, grade or rating.  The DVA’s decision to 
grant the applicant a 10% disability rating for painful motion in each knee contains no evidence 
that the applicant was unfit to perform his military yeoman duties.     
 

4.  Moreover, the DVA rating, as in the applicant’s case, does not establish error by the 
Coast Guard.  This Board has consistently held that a disability rating from the DVA does not 
per se establish that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by not assigning a disability 
rating.  In Lord v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 749, 754 (1983), the Court of Federal Claims 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."    
 

5.  The applicant received all due process to which he was entitled under the PDES. The 
Board notes that the applicant failed to raise any issue with respect to his alleged knee condition 
during  that  process  and  has  not  presented  medical  evidence  that  he  suffered  a  knee  disability 
while on active duty that caused him to be unfit to perform his yeoman duties.     
 

6.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to prove an error or injustice in this case and his 

request for relief should be denied.  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER  

 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXX USCG, for correction of his military 

 
 

record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 
 David A. Trissell