RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE:  PD-2017-02429
BRANCH OF SERVICE:  Air Force 	SEPARATION DATE:  20050621

SUMMARY OF CASE:  Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty, Pavements and Construction Equipment Operator, medically separated for “vertigo” with a disability rating of 10%.  

CI CONTENTION:  “It was apparent to me that my injuries were more severe than what the U.S. Air Force awarded me.  It was confirmed when I submitted a VA Service Connected claim and I was awarded 30%.”  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’s assessment of the PEB rating determination is based on review of medical records and all available evidence relevant to application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards for 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, which operates 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 disability at the time of separation.  

RATING COMPARISON:  

SERVICE PEB - 20050429	VARD - 20051202	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Vertigo	6204-6299	10%	Stapedectomies Right Ear with Dizzy Spells	6202-6204	10%	20051024	
Otosclerosis, Right Ear Status Post Stapedotomy	Cat II					
Tinnitus	Cat II	Tinnitus	6260	10%	20051012	
GERD	Cat II	GERD	7399-7346	10%	20051024	
COMBINED RATING:  10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS:  30% 	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:  

Vertigo.  According to the service treatment record (STR) and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI underwent right-sided ear surgery, but his dizziness did not begin until after revision stapedotomy in July 2004.  The 11 February 2005 MEB NARSUM examination, 4 months prior to separation, noted continued problems with hearing, more severe on the right.  In addition he developed vertigo which occurred with sudden movements or manual labor.  He was able to perform administrative duties without problems, but could not accomplish any task that required sudden movements or manual labor due to episodic vertigo.    

At the 24 October 2005 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) evaluation, 4 months after separation, the CI reported hearing loss, tinnitus and vertigo.  The dizziness occurred 3-4 times per week and lasted up to a half hour.  He reported constant ringing and occasional buzzing for 2 years.  The tinnitus became worse after his surgeries.  The examiner opined the ear surgeries and military noise exposure contributed to the hearing loss and tinnitus.  Physical examination showed ears clear of excessive wax and intact tympanic membranes.   

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  The PEB rated the vertigo condition 10%, analogously coded 6204-6299 (peripheral vestibular disorders).  The VA rated vertigo condition 10%, dual coded 6202-6204 (peripheral disturbance disorders due to otosclerosis), based on the STR and C&P examination, citing occasional dizziness.  The NARSUM examination indicated the CI was performing administrative tasks without any problem, but had trouble with tasks requiring sudden movements or manual labor during episodic bouts of vertigo.  Panel members agreed the evidence did not support the 30% rating for dizziness with occasional staggering.  After due deliberation, considering all of 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 vertigo condition.  

Contended PEB Conditions:  Right Ear Otosclerosis, Tinnitus and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD).  The panel’s main charge is to assess the fairness of the PEB determination that the contended conditions were not unfitting.  The MEB did not submit any of these conditions to the PEB, but the PEB determined they were Category II conditions.  The panel agreed the otosclerosis was the source condition that led to the tinnitus.  The vertigo was a side effect of the stapedotomy performed to correct the otosclerosis.  Members agreed the conditions were interrelated, were sequella of the otosclerosis and not separately unfitting.  GERD was also listed as a Category II condition, but none of the contended conditions were specifically profiled or implicated in the commander’s statement.  After a thorough review, the panel found no performance-based evidence from the record to show that these conditions 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 these conditions, so no additional disability ratings are recommended.  

BOARD FINDINGS:  In the matter of the vertigo condition and IAW VASRD §4.87, the panel recommends no change in the PEB adjudication.  In the matter of the contended right ear otosclerosis, tinnitus and GERD, the panel recommends no change from the PEB determinations 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 20170228, w/atchs
Exhibit B.  Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C.  Department of Veterans Affairs Record

SAF/MRB
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:

		Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Section 1554, 10 USC), PDBR Case Number PD-2017-02429.

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

						Sincerely,

								XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
								Director
								Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Record of Proceedings