RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX		CASE: PD-2015-02485 BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY	SEPARATION DATE: 20071031

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E5, Unit Supply Specialist, medically separated for “bilateral testicular pain” with a disability rating of 0%.

CI CONTENTION: “Review all conditions.” 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 - 20070910		VARD - 20140929	
Condition	Code	Rating		Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Bilateral Testicular Pain	8799-8730	0%		Testicular Pain	7599-7525	NSC	20140821	
COMBINED RATING: 0%		COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: 70%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Bilateral Testicular Pain. According to service treatment record (STR) and the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI’s bilateral testicular pain condition began insidiously in December 2006. Clinical work-up and radiographs (testicular ultrasound, CT of the abdomen and pelvis, MRI of lumbar spine) were negative.

At the MEB examination (recorded on DD Forms 2807 and 2808) dated July 2007, 3 months prior to separation, the CI reported he has back pain related to his testicular pain, and numbness in his legs while driving or standing. Physical examination showed tenderness to palpation of the testes, and absence of scrotal mass or lesion.

The MEB NARSUM examination on 21 August 2007, 2 months prior to separation, noted complaints of chronic testicular pain. The CI reported sharp-stabbing pain localized to the testes area with radiation to the lower back region; worsened with jumping, running, and prolonged sitting. The examiner documented the urologist’s report noting a cause for the CI’s condition had not been identified. Physical examination showed a normal gait and stance. There was tenderness to palpation throughout the bilateral scrotal sack. There was no evidence of testicular swelling, or mass and the epididymis was normal. Neurological functions were all intact, upper and lower extremities had normal motor strength. There was no VA examination proximate to separation in evidence.

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the bilateral testicular pain condition 0%, analogously coded 8799-8730 (ilio-inguinal neuralgia), noting the condition was moderate. The VA did not service-connect the testicular pain, analogously coded 7599-7525 (epididymo-orchitis, chronic only), based on a VA examination 7 years after separation.

The panel agreed a higher rating of 10% under code 8530 requires “severe to complete paralysis” not supported by the evidence. The CI had normal radiographic studies, normal neurological examination to include normal motor strength, and intact sensory function. His symptoms reflected “mild to moderate” sensory nerve impairment. Code 7525 was also considered rated under urinary tract infection criterion. Panel members agreed STR evidence did not support this rating as “long-term drug therapy; 1-2 hospitalizations per year and/or requiring intermittent intensive management” were not present. 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 bilateral testicular pain condition.

BOARD FINDINGS:   In the matter of the bilateral testicular pain condition and IAW VASRD
§4.124a, the panel recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. There were 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 20151023, w/atchs Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record

AR20170013254, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:

	The Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) reviewed your application and found your separation disability rating and your separation from the Army for disability with severance pay to be accurate.  I have reviewed the Board’s recommendation and record of proceedings (copy enclosed), and I accept its recommendation.  I regret to inform you that your application to the DoD PDBR is denied.  

	This decision is final.  Recourse within the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army is exhausted; however, you have the option to seek relief by filing suit in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Sincerely,