RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXX	CASE:  PD-2017-04319
BRANCH OF SERVICE:  Army 	SEPARATION DATE:  20041014

SUMMARY OF CASE:  Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E3, Military Policewoman, medically separated for “periodic alternating nystagmus” (PAN) with a disability rating of 10%.  

CI CONTENTION:  In addition to the eye condition, the CI requested review of additional conditions 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’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 - 20040914	VARD - 20050404	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Periodic Alternating Nystagmus	6016	10%	Periodic Alternating Nystagmus	6016	10%	20050308	
COMBINED RATING:  10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS:  30%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:  

Periodic Alternating Nystagmus (PAN).  According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI’s eye condition manifested in January 2003 with oscillopsia (objects appear to jiggle) after being struck with a pugil stick a month earlier.  It was not determined if this was related or not.  She subsequently underwent evaluations by ophthalmology, neurology and cardiology as well as MRIs without an etiology being determined.    
	
During the 22 July 2004 MEB examination (recorded on DD Forms 2807-1 and 2808), 3 months prior to separation, the CI was noted to have nystagmus (an involuntary movement of the eyes).  The 18 August 2004 MEB NARSUM examination, 2 months prior to separation, was completed by the treating ophthalmologist who noted the PAN had not improved with treatment and there was impaired driving and weapons use.  Her vision and eye evaluation was otherwise unremarkable.  The corrected visual acuity was 20/20 bilaterally.  

At the 8 March 2005 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 5 months after separation, the CI reported persistent PAN.  The CI denied blurry vision, double vision or loss of vision.  On examination, nystagmus was present.  No comment was made on the visual acuity.  

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  The PEB rated the nystagmus 10%, coded 6016 (nystagmus).  The VA also rated the nystagmus 10%, coded 6016, based on the C&P examination, citing minimum evaluation for this disability.  The panel agreed that code 6016 was specific for this condition and that 10% was the maximum rating under this code.  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 nystagmus.  

BOARD FINDINGS:  In the matter of the nystagmus and IAW VASRD §4.75, 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.  

The following documentary evidence was considered:

[AR Number], XXXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXXXXX:

	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.