RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE:  PD-2017-02190
BRANCH OF SERVICE:  Air Force 	SEPARATION DATE:  20091127

SUMMARY OF CASE:  Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an Air National Guard E7, Recruiter, medically separated for “left knee pain due to chondromalacia patella and degenerative knee changes” with a disability rating of 10%.  

CI CONTENTION:  “Not requesting that change, requesting consideration for military retirement discharge.”  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 - 20090603	VARD - NA	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Left Knee Pain…	5099-5014	10%	No VA Examination Proximate to Separation in Evidence	
COMBINED RATING:  10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS:  NA	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:  

Left Knee Pain.  According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI had multiple surgeries on her left knee with the last in October 2007 (arthroscopic debridement of medial and lateral meniscal tears and chondroplasty of the patella cartilage).  Despite treatment, she was not able to remain worldwide qualified for deployment.  At the 19 February 2009 MEB NARSUM examination, 9 months prior to separation, the CI reported that she was able to drive and perform duties as an instructor, but could not run or jog due to knee pain.  The examiner noted a normal left knee except for medial joint line and prepatellar tenderness.  

There was no VA Compensation and Pension examination proximate to separation in evidence, but at a VA primary care appointment on 27 April 2010, 5 months after separation, the CI complained of chronic left leg pain.  Physical examination noted a steady gait, full range of motion (ROM), and 5/5 strength.  There was tenderness noted over the left medial meniscal area.  

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  The PEB rated the left knee condition 10%, analogously coded 5014 (osteomalacia).  Panel members agreed that there was no compensable limitation of flexion or extension (5260 or 5261); history or evidence of dislocated meniscus or loose body causing frequent locking with recurrent effusions (5258); or fracture, nonunion or malunion of the femur or tibia to support consideration under the respective codes for knee impairment related to long bone conditions (5255, 5262).  There was therefore no VASRD §4.71a rating higher than the 10% adjudicated by the PEB under any applicable code.  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 left knee condition.  

BOARD FINDINGS:  In the matter of the left knee condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, 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.  

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 294, dated 20170307, w/atchs
Exhibit B.  Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C.  Department of Veterans Affairs Record

SAF/MRB
3351 Celmers Lane
JBA NAF Washington, MD 20762-6435

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXX:

		Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Section 1554, 10 USC), PDBR Case Number PD-2017-02190.

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 rating modification or re-characterization 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 modification of your disability rating or characterization of your separation is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept the recommendation that your application be denied.

						Sincerely,

		

								

Attachment:
Record of Proceedings