RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX		CASE: PD-2017-03963 BRANCH OF SERVICE: MARINE CORPS	SEPARATION DATE: 20060901

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E4, Mortarman, medically separated for “left ankle pain” with a disability rating of 10%.

CI   CONTENTION:	“Continued pain and discomfort--progressively getting worse; last examination/x-ray showed arthritis.” 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 RECON PEB - 20060502	VARD - NA	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Left Ankle Pain	8799-8725	10%	No VA Examination Proximate to Separation in Evidence	
Status Post Ankle Fracture and Arthroscopy	Cat II		
COMBINED RATING: 10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: NA	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Left Ankle Pain. According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI sustained a left ankle fracture in 2001 and underwent an arthroscopic synovectomy and debridement of scar tissue. Post-operatively, he was treated with bracing and physical therapy (PT), but the pain continued, and he suffered several minor sprains thereafter. He continued to have left ankle pain with prolonged activity, but an MRI in May 2005 was unremarkable and showed no evidence of osteochondritis dissecans. An orthopedic surgeon noted no instability, based on examination and X-rays in January 2006, which showed a talar tilt of 5 degrees on the right and 9 degrees on the left. A diagnosis of persistent ankle synovitis and possible early post-traumatic arthritis was rendered, and the CI was treated with a steroid/anesthetic injection to the left ankle and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

The 28 February 2006 MEB NARSUM examination, 7 months prior to separation, noted complaints of left ankle pain. Physical examination showed a normal gait, no ankle effusion, and

symmetric subtalar motion. Pain was noted over both mediolateral and anterior aspects of the left ankle, but there was no crepitus, and measured range of motion (ROM) revealed dorsiflexion to 10 degrees (normal 20) and plantar flexion to 30 degrees (normal 45). Ankle motor strength was normal, and the foot was neurovascularly intact with no sensory deficits noted. There was no VA examination proximate to separation in evidence.

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the left ankle condition 10%, analogously coded 8799-8725 (neuralgia, posterior tibial nerve), and listed “status post ankle fracture and arthroscopy” as a Category II condition contributing to the disability in this case. Panel members agreed that this related diagnosis was not a condition which could be reasonably justified as separately unfitting; nor would a separate rating be achievable without violation of VASRD §4.14 (avoidance of pyramiding). The panel adjudged that a 10%, but no higher, was warranted under code 8725 for mild or moderate neuralgia. Using code 5271, panel members noted that although ankle limitation was not compensable, there was pain supporting a 10% rating for functional loss IAW VASRD §§4.40 and
4.59. 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 ankle condition.

BOARD FINDINGS: In the matter of the left ankle 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-2017-03963

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 of the Navy Council of Review Boards To:	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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.