Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No: 5990-98
21 May 1999
Dear
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 13 May 1999. Your allegations of error and injustice
were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
The Board found that on 8 December 1993, a medical board gave you a diagnosis of low
back pain with left radicular
com’ponent of unknown etiology, and referred your case to the
Physical Evaluation Board. On 14 February 1994, the Record Review Panel of the Physical
Evaluation Board made preliminary findings that you were unfit for duty because of your
back condition, which it rated at 20% under VA code 5295, as lumbosacral strain. You
accepted the findings of the Record Review Panel on 28 March 1994, and were discharged
with entitlement to disability severance pay on 6 May 1994. Following your discharge, the
Department of Veterans Affairs rated your back condition at 40% under VA code 5293 for
intervertebral disc syndrome, and later increased the rating to 60%.
The Board was not persuaded that you met the criteria for a rating under VA code 5293 at
the time of your discharge, or that you were entitled to a higher rating under code 5295 for
lumbosacral strain at the time of your discharge. It noted that your VA rating was based on
the increase in severity of your condition which occurred following your discharge from the
Navy, which may have been caused by such factors as a substantial increase in your body
~
.
weight. The Board also noted that the VA based its ratings primarily on your subjective
complaints rather than objective findings of back pathology. Accordingly, your application
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new
and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00551
In 1999, the CI was referred for MEB due to chronic back pain, and he experienced increased symptoms of depression due to worry about his ability to remain in the U.S. and care for his family since he was not yet a U.S. citizen. VA C&P examinations therefore would be expected to be performed in a manner that would report examination findings consistent with the rating guidelines, in this case a lumbar range of motion rather than the combined thoracolumbar ROM that is measured and used under...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01959
The MEB exam demonstratedno tenderness to palpation (TTP), no spasm, normal gait, normal heel/toe walk, limited extension with a pressure sensation at his low back, normal flexion, negative straight leg raise (SLR), no limb length discrepancy and normal neuromuscular findings of the lower extremities.At the VA Compensation and Pension exam,2 months prior to separation, the CI reported constant pain at the lower back which radiated to the posterior aspect of each leg. ROM was within normal...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07295-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01226
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2012-01226BRANCH OF SERVICE: NAVYBOARD DATE: 20140925 The NARSUM (performed 3 weeks later), revealed “full” ROM.Utilizing code 5295 (lumbosacral strain), Board members agreed that sufficient evidence was present to meet the 10% criteria with painful motion. After due deliberation,considering all of the evidence and mindful of theVASRD spine standards in effect at the time of separation, the Board...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00713
Listed ROM “normals” are from the VA lumbar spine exam; current VASRD normal ROMs were not in effect prior to 26 September 2003. The CI said “The pain is an 8/10. In the matter of the LBP condition, the Board, by a vote of 2:1 recommends a disability rating of 10% coded 5292 IAW VASRD §4.71a.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01515
The following day the CI presented to clinic with report of burning/sharp pain in right hip/buttocks. Treatment records recorded three entries documenting full range-of-motion (ROM), three entries recorded decreases in ROM: two of them indeterminate, the other recorded flexion of 60 degrees, both recorded 2 months prior to separation. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010575C070205
The Court found that the ABCMR never considered the applicant’s objections to the Army’s use of the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code “5293 (intervertebral disc syndrome) even though the VA used VASRD 5295 (lumbosacral strain).” (The Court reversed the codes – the Army used VASRD 5295 and the DVA used VASRD 5293.) On 26 August 1999, an informal PEB found the applicant to be unfit, under VASRD codes 5299 and 5295, due to a diagnosis of chronic low...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00708
The PEB rated the condition 10% based on pain on forward motion under the 5295 code for lumbosacral strain. The VA reported 90 degrees of lumbar forward flexion and ROMs were consistent with near-normal ROMs from the AMA guidelines in effect at the time, and the Board adjudged these as slight limitation (IAW 5292, Spine, limitation of lumbar motion). Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DAF Director Physical Disability...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00006
The VA rated CI’s back condition at 40% and also rated his Psoriasis at 10% for a combined 50% rating. the Army PEB was precluded from rating CI using VASRD code 5293. RATIONALE : The provisions of DoDI 1332.39 restricted the PEB from rating CI’s condition using VASRD code 5293.
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00489
The PEB adjudicated the lumbosacral strain and left sciatic dysfunction conditions as unfitting, rated 10% each, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: VASRD CODE 5293‐5299‐5295 5293 8620 COMBINED RATING 10% 10% 20% UNFITTING CONDITION Herniated Disc Pulposus L5/S1 with some Left Sciatica Left...