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

I!l RE PLY REFER TO :
1850
CORB: 003
10 Sep20

From: Director, Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards To:

Subj: PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR) Ref:	(a) DoDI 6040.44
1.	Pursuant to reference (a), the PDBR reviewed your case and forwarded its recommendation to the Department of the Navy on 13 Aug 2020 for appropriate action.

2.	On 27 August 2020, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) accepted the recommendation of the PDBR ofno 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.
1.	

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC

Office of the Assistant Secretary

SAF/MRBD (PDBR)
3351 Celmers Lane
JBA NAF Washington, MD 20762-6435

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, MANPOWER
AND RESERVE AFFAIRS

SUBJECT: Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation on Case Number PD-2017-02986

In accordance with Title 10 § 1554a and in compliance with DoDI 6040.44, the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) adjudicated the disability rating accompanying the medical separation of the covered individual from the United States Navy. After carefully reviewing the application and medical separation case file, the PDBR recommended no re-characterization of the separation or modification of the disability rating previously assigned. I recommend you accept this proposed decision.

The (CI) was an active duty E4, Sonar Technician (Submarine), medically separated for “right foot pain” with a disability rating of 10%. The PEB rated the right foot condition 10%, dual coded 5003- 5279 (degenerative arthritis-metatarsalgia, anterior (Morton’s disease), unilateral or bilateral). The VA did not service-connect the right foot stress fracture based on the Compensation and Pension examination, citing no record of treatment in service for the stress fracture in 2000, and no permanent residual or chronic disability subject to service-connection shown by the service treatment records or at the VA examination. Besides the use of code 5279, the only other pertinent rating option for the right foot pain, under code 5284 (other foot injuries), did not support a rating higher than 10% without evidence from imaging or clinical findings. Therefore, no additional benefit was achieved with the use of either code 5279 or code 5284. 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 foot condition.

Sincerely,