RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE:  PD-2017-02317
BRANCH OF SERVICE:  Air Force 	SEPARATION DATE:  20060127

SUMMARY OF CASE:  Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E5, Maintenance Scheduling Apprentice, medically separated for “plantar fasciitis, bilateral” with a disability rating of 20%.   

CI CONTENTION:  Review requested of the foot condition and rhinitis, as well as additional conditions not identified by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  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 PEB to be unfitting for continued military service, and when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the 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 - 20051212	VARD - 20060621	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Plantar Fasciitis, Bilateral	5399-5310	20%	Plantar Fasciitis	5299-5279	10%	20060417	
Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis	Cat II	Allergic Rhinitis with Sinusitis	6522	0%	20060417	
COMBINED RATING:  20%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS:  10%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:  

Plantar Fasciitis, Bilateral.  According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI’s bilateral plantar fasciitis began in 1999 as right heel pain, with left foot pain developing by 2000.  The condition was treated conservatively with medication, splinting and stretching exercises, and in August 2005, an orthopedic consult noted that no surgical or additional medical treatment would be of benefit.  The 2 November 2005 MEB NARSUM examination, 3 months prior to separation, recorded complaints of heel pain, and examination of the lower extremities and feet showed full range of motion (ROM) of both knees and ankles, with endpoint pain.  Tenderness was noted along the plantar aponeurosis and medial longitudinal arch of both feet, but not about the ankles; bilateral foot X-rays were unremarkable.  

At the 17 April 2006 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 3 months after separation, the CI reported plantar fascia pain in the metatarsal areas and anterior to the calcaneal areas.  The pain was aggravated by prolonged sitting and running.  Physical examination showed a normal gait, and no swelling of the feet or evidence of inflammation.  There was no documentation of pain, tenderness or abnormal ROM.

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  The PEB rated the plantar fasciitis 20%, analogously coded 5399-5310 (Group X. Function: movements of forefoot and toes).  The PEB specifically noted the right foot was rated 10% and the left foot the same.  The VA rated the plantar fasciitis 10%, analogously coded 5299-5279 (metatarsalgia, anterior (Morton’s disease)), based on the C&P examination, citing use of shoe inserts and complaints of pain.  Panel members first considered the evidence for the left foot, and agreed the 10% rating was justified for painful motion with functional loss due to pain from plantar fascia.  The NARSUM indicated normal ROM, but pain with extreme limits of motion.  The panel considered other VASRD foot and analogous codes, but all were less applicable and/or not advantageous for rating.  Panel members next considered the right foot and concluded there was no evidence to support a rating higher than the 10% adjudicated by the PEB based on the NARSUM findings.  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 bilateral plantar fasciitis.   

Contended PEB Condition:  Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis.  The panel’s main charge is to assess the fairness of the PEB determination that the contended condition was not unfitting.  The contended condition was not profiled or implicated in the commander’s statement, and did not fail retention standards.  There was no performance-based evidence from the record that the condition significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance at separation.  After due deliberation, the panel concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the contended condition, so no additional disability rating is recommended.  

BOARD FINDINGS:  In the matter of the bilateral plantar fasciitis and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the panel recommends no change in the PEB adjudication.  In the matter of the contended rhinitis, the panel recommends no change from the PEB determination as not unfitting.  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 20170409, 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 XXXXXXXXXXX:

		Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Section 1554, 10 USC), PDBR Case Number PD-2017-02317.

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