RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE:  PD-2014-01657
BRANCH OF SERVICE:  AIR FORCE	SEPARATION DATE:  20090726 

SUMMARY OF CASE:  Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was  a traditional drilling National Guard E-6, Aircraft Mechanic, medically separated for a right (dominant) shoulder injury, with a disability rating of 10%. 

CI CONTENTION:  The applicant makes no specific contention in his application.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.  

SCOPE OF REVIEW:  The Board’s scope of review is defined in DoDI 6040.44.  It is limited to those conditions determined by the Physical Evaluation Board (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 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:  

SERVICE PEB - 20090428	VARD - 20141003	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Right Shoulder Partial Thickness Rotator Cuff Tear	5299-5203	10%	Right Shoulder Impingement Syndrome	5299-5201	10%	20140925	
COMBINED RATING:  10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS:  10%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:  

Right Shoulder Partial Thickness Rotator Cuff Tear (RCT).  The record shows that the CI was activated from 1 October 2005 through 31 December 2007 and that he fell onto his right shoulder on 6 November 2007 while jogging.  A line of duty (LOD) determination dated 27 December 2007 noted that an MRI (21 December 2007, not in evidence) showed a right RCT.  The CI reported pain and limited range-of-motion (ROM) in all planes of movement.  An MRI arthrogram on 10 June 2008 noted both the RCT as well as a tear of the labrum (the cartilage lining of the shoulder joint).  Surgery was projected, but not accomplished.  The CI was issued a U4 profile on 16 October 2008 which required monthly medical evaluations on drill weekends.  It restricted the use of his right arm.  The narrative summary (NARSUM) was dated 21 January 2009 and accomplished by an orthopedic surgeon.  It was noted that the CI could not accomplish overhead work.  On examination, a test for a labral tear (O’Brien) was +/-.  Other testing was normal including evaluation for shoulder laxity.  The ROM was limited to 160 degrees flexion and 155 degrees abduction.  Following separation, the record shows that the CI again injured his shoulder at work as a corrections officer while wrestling an inmate during a struggle to handcuff him.  He subsequently had surgical repairs in February and September 2013 under Workman’s Compensation benefits.  The initial VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination was not performed until 4 years after separation and after 2 shoulder operations.  The probative value for rating the shoulder at separation is thereby diminished and it is not used.  

The Board directed its attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  The PEB rated the shoulder at 10%, coded 5299-5203 (other impairment of the clavicle or scapula).  The VA did not rate the shoulder until 3 October 2014, effective 13 December 2012, and based on an examination remote from separation and after a post-separation injury requiring 2 operations.  The Board observed that the VA also rated the shoulder at 10% though.  The Board considered the evidence and found no route to a rating higher than the 10% rating at separation which was adjudicated by the PEB.  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 right shoulder impingement condition.  

BOARD FINDINGS:  In the matter of the right shoulder condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication.  There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration.  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 20140306, w/atchs
Exhibit B.  Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C.  Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record

SAF/MR
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews, MD  20762

Dear XXXXXXXXXX:

Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Section 1554, 10 USC), PDBR Case Number PD-2014-01657.

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,

Attachment:
Record of Proceedings