RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE:  PD-2015-00979
BRANCH OF SERVICE:  Navy 	SEPARATION DATE:  20060712  

SUMMARY OF CASE:  Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E4, Construction Mechanic, medically separated for “recurrent heat injuries” with a disability rating of 10%.   

CI CONTENTION:  “Heat stroke/exhaustion x 3, left shoulder problems, knee pain and injury, lower back pain.”  The complete submission is at Exhibit A.  

SCOPE OF REVIEW:  The panel’s scope of review is defined in DoDI 6040.44.  It is limited to review of disability ratings assigned 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 or non-compensable.  Any conditions outside the panel’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 panel’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections, where appropriate.  The panel’s assessment of the PEB rating determination is based on 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(s) at the time of separation.  The panel 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 panel 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 - 20040414	VARD – N/A	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Heat Injury, Recurrent	7999-7900	10%	No VA Exam in Evidence	
COMBINED RATING:  0%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS:  N/A	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:  

Recurrent Heat Injury.  According to the service treatment record and the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI’s heat injury condition began in September 2005 after suffering three episodes of heat exhaustion during field exercises.    

At the 11 October 2005 internal medicine evaluation the CI reported he got “a little bit weak and a little bit lightheaded” with outdoor activity.  There was no loss of consciousness.  A urinalysis was normal except for amber coloration and increased specific gravity (urinalysis findings include dark discoloration of the urine with blood or protein in the urine).  The 16 February 2006 NARSUM examination, 4 months prior to separation, noted complaints of nausea, shakiness, weakness, and lightheadedness with outdoor activity in heat.  The heat intolerance symptoms were relieved by rest and increased fluid intake.  Physical examination was normal.

There was no VA examination in evidence proximate to separation. 

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  The PEB rated the heat condition 10%, analogously coded 7900 (hyperthyroidism). The panel noted that that the CI had no episodes of loss of consciousness, elevated body temper, generalized muscle pain, or elevated heart rate (tachycardia).  Panel members agreed that the evidence did not support a 30% rating for tachycardia, tremor, and increased pulse pressure or blood pressure.  After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the panel concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the heat condition. 

BOARD FINDINGS:  In the matter of the heat injury condition and IAW VASRD §4.119, the panel unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication.  There are no other conditions within the panel’s scope of review for consideration.  The panel, therefore, recommends that there be no modification or re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.  

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 294, dated 20150607, w/atchs
Exhibit B.  Service Treatment Record

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY COUNCIL OF REVIEW
               BOARDS 

Subj:  PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR) RECOMMENDATIONS
 
Ref:   (a) DoDI 6040.44
       (b) CORB ltr dtd 25 Apr 17

      In accordance with reference (a), I have reviewed the cases forwarded by reference (b), and, for the reasons provided in their forwarding memorandums, approve the recommendations of the PDBR that the following individual’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either characterization of separation or in the disability rating previously assigned by the Department of the Navy’s Physical Evaluation Board:

		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC 
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN 
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN 
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
		- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC