RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX		CASE: PD-2017-03864 BRANCH OF SERVICE: MARINE CORPS	SEPARATION DATE: 20070331

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E3, Logistics Vehicle System Operator, medically separated for “posterior cruciate ligament [PCL] deficit, left knee” with a disability rating of 10%.

CI CONTENTION: No specific contention was made. 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 - 20070201	VARD - 20070807	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	

PCL Deficit, Left Knee	
5299-5003	
10%	Left Knee Instability	5257	10%	20070228	
			Left Knee PCL Deficit	5299-5260	10%	20070228	
			Left Knee Limited Extension	5261	10%	20070228	
COMBINED RATING: 10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: 30%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Left Knee PCL Deficit. According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI suffered a twisting injury in December 2004. He was diagnosed with a PCL tear and surgery was recommended by a civilian provider, but the CI was transferred to Camp Pendleton before that could happen. An MRI in July 2006 showed a PCL tear. The 28 November 2006 MEB NARSUM examination, 4 months prior to separation, noted complaints of left knee instability and 3/10 pain, but knee pain was “not a major issue.” The CI reported wearing a PCL knee brace intermittently. Physical examination showed a slightly antalgic gait on the left and posterior drawer testing showed approximately 10 mm of drop-back, and quadriceps active test was positive. There was no effusion. Range of motion (ROM) testing showed 0-120 degrees of extension-to-flexion motion (normal 0-140) without evidence of pain.

At the 28 February 2007 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, one month before separation, the CI reported 7/10 left knee pain associated with weakness, stiffness, swelling, locking, giving way, and difficulty climbing stairs. Physical examination showed a normal gait with

evidence of PCL instability (although drawer sign was negative). Left knee ROM testing, after repetition, showed 120 degrees of flexion, with pain, and 0 degrees of extension, with pain.

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the left knee condition 10%, analogously coded 5299-5003 (degenerative arthritis). The VA triple-rated the left knee condition with 10% coded 5257 (recurrent knee instability), based on the C&P examination, citing instability; and 10% under an analogous 5299-5260 code, based on the C&P examination, citing “objective evidence of painful flexion;” and 10% under code 5261 (limitation of extension), based on the C&P examination, citing “painful left knee extension.” While the VA allows for separate ratings for limitation of extension, flexion and instability, the PEB rates only the unfitting condition. The PEB only adjudicated left knee instability as unfitting. Therefore, panel members agreed that the evidence supported a 10% rating for slight knee instability as adjudicated by the PEB. 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.

2	PD-2017-03864

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
10 Sep 20
From: Director, Secretary ofthe Navy Council ofReview Boards To:	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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 ofthe Navy on 13 Aug 2020 for appropriate action.
2.	On 27 August 2020, the Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) accepted the recommendation ofthe PDBR ofno change to your characterization ofseparation or disability rating assigned by the Department ofthe 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 ofNaval Records.