RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW
NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE: PD-2017-03987
BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY	SEPARATION DATE: 20070106

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E5, Medical Equipment Repairer, medically separated for “chronic low back pain secondary to piriformis syndrome” with a disability rating of 10%.

CI CONTENTION: Review requested of an additional condition (PTSD) 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 – 20061129	VARD - NA	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Chronic Low Back Pain…	8799-8720	10%	No VA Examination Proximate to Separation in Evidence	
COMBINED RATING: 10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: NA	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Chronic Low Back Pain (LBP). According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI’s LBP began in October 2000 during basic combat training. Two years later, while deployed, he started to have sharp pains in his back which worsened after awkwardly lifting heavy equipment. An EMG performed in January 2005 revealed an S1 radiculopathy, and an MRI in January 2006 was normal. Thoracolumbar range of motion (ROM) measurements performed by physical therapy (PT) on 10 August 2006, 5 months prior to separation, noted spinal flexion to 65 degrees (normal 90) and a combined ROM of 195 degrees (normal 240), after repetition, with all motions limited by pain. The 11 October 2006 MEB NARSUM examination, 3 months before separation, noted complaints of constant and dull LBP with pain, numbness and tingling extending into the right leg and foot. The examiner found lumbosacral spine tenderness and referred to prior examinations for other objective physical findings. 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 LBP 10%, analogously coded 8799-8720 (neuralgia; sciatic nerve), citing tenderness

and flexion of “120” degrees. Panel members first noted that the PEB most likely documented the active ROM of the CI’s hip and not the spine as noted at the August 2006 PT examination, which showed flexion to 65 degrees and a combined ROM of 195 degrees. Thus, the panel agreed that a 10% rating, but no higher, was justified for limitation of flexion (greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees) and combined ROM (greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees). There was no muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or spinal contour, thus the next higher 20% rating was not justified on this basis. There was no documentation of intervertebral disc syndrome with incapacitating episodes which would provide for a higher rating under that formula. 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 low back pain condition.

BOARD FINDINGS: In the matter of the low back pain 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	D-2017-03987

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ARMY REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY
251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE
385
ARLINGTON, VA 22202-3531

AR20200000153, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) reviewed your application and found your separation disability rating and your separation from the Army for disability with severance pay to be accurate. I have reviewed the Board’s recommendation and record of proceedings (copy enclosed), and I accept its recommendation. I regret to inform you that your application to the DoD PDBR is denied.

This decision is final. Recourse within the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army is exhausted; however, you have the option to seek relief by filing suit in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Printed on	Recycled Paper