RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW
NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE: PD-2017-00521
BRANCH OF SERVICE: NAVY	SEPARATION DATE: 20061030

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E4, Electrician’s Mate, medically separated for “open angle glaucoma” with a disability rating of 10%.

CI CONTENTION:  “Vision loss in right eye.”  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 Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), but determined by the PEB 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. The panel’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections when appropriate. 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 disability at the time of separation.

RATING COMPARISON:

SERVICE PEB - 20060524	VARD - 20070424	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Open Angle Glaucoma with Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy of the Right Eye	6013	10%	Glaucoma, Right Eye	6013	10%	20061226	
COMBINED RATING: 10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: 10%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Right Eye Open Angle Glaucoma. According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI was diagnosed with right eye open angle glaucoma in early 2004. Ophthalmology examinations showed elevated intraocular pressures with optic neuropathy due to glaucoma and visual field loss in the right eye. The CI’s glaucoma was managed with multiple medications. The 3 April 2006 MEB NARSUM examination, 7 months prior to separation, showed equal and round pupils reactive to light with the sclera injected bilaterally. Extraocular muscles were intact. The examiner noted the CI’s glaucoma was stable with slight visual field defects and was being managed successfully  with  medical  therapy.  An  ophthalmology  examination  on 15 May 2006 showed corrected visual acuity in the right eye of 20/25. Visual field testing showed some progression in the right eye.  Lower eye pressures were targeted.

At the 26 December 2006 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 2 months after separation, the CI denied distorted vision, enlarged images or pain. The condition did not cause incapacitation, but he was using eye drops daily. The examiner noted there was no functional impairment resulting from the condition.  Physical examination showed an enlarged optic nerve

head with cupping in the right eye. Eye pressure was 16 in the right (normal). Corrected distance vision in the right eye was 20/20-2 (missed two letters). The Goldmann perimeter test chart (in record) showed mild right eye inferior temporal visual field loss.

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB and the VA rated the right eye condition 10%, coded 6013 (open-angle glaucoma). The VA based rating on the C&P examination, citing “concentric contraction of between 60 degrees and 45 degrees.” A 10% rating was supported under code 6013 for open angle glaucoma that required continuous medication. Alternatively glaucoma is rated on visual impairment which includes visual acuity, (excluding developmental errors of refraction), visual field and muscle function. There was no evidence of ratable impairment of visual acuity or muscle function. However, IAW VASRD §4.76a (computation of average concentric contraction of visual fields) and
§4.77 (visual fields), the Goldmann perimeter chart on the VA examination showed average contraction in the right eye of 55 degrees, which supports an alternate 10% rating under code 6080 (visual field defects). After due deliberation, considering all the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the panel concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the right eye condition.

BOARD FINDINGS: In the matter of the right eye condition and IAW VASRD §4.79 the panel recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. There are no other conditions within the panel’s scope of review for consideration. Therefore, the panel recommends no modification or re- characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.

2	PD-2017-00521

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY COUNCIL OF REVIEW BOARDS 720 KENNON STREET SE STE 309
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, DC 20374-5023

IN   REPLY  REFER  TO,
1850
CORB: 003 20May20

From:

Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards 

Subj:  PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR)

Ref:	(a) DoDI 6040.44
(b) PDBR ltr dtd 28 Oct 19

1.	Pursuant to reference (a), the PDBR reviewed your case and forwarded its recommendation (reference (b)) to the Department of the Navy on 5 Mar 2020 for appropriate action.

2.	On 20 March 2020, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) accepted the recommendation of the PDBR of no change to your characterization of separation or disability rating assigned by the Department of the Navy's Physical Evaluation Board.

3.	The Secretary's decision on your PDBR application is final and is not subject to appeal or additional review by the Board for Correction of Naval Records.