RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW
NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE: PD-2017-04360
BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY	SEPARATION DATE: 20071114

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E5, Construction Equipment Operator, medically separated for “left genitofemoral nerve entrapment with resultant left testicular pain” with a disability rating of 10%.

CI CONTENTION:  The VA gave a higher rating.  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’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 - 20070905	VARD - 20071121	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Left Testicular Nerve Pain	8799-8730	10%	Left Genitofemoral Nerve Entrapment with Testicular Pain	8799-8730	10%	20071121	
COMBINED RATING: 10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: 10%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Left Testicular Nerve Pain. According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI’s testicular nerve pain began in March 2006 of unknown etiology. Radiographic and ultrasound evaluation were negative for testicular masses and an inguinal hernia. The CI was diagnosed with left genitofemoral nerve entrapment and treated with pain medication and steroid injections. The 23 May 2007 MEB NARSUM examination, 6 months prior to separation, noted complaints of 2-4/10 left testicular pain, worse with lifting, running, walking

and wearing tight vest. Physical examination showed tenderness at the epididymis, vas deferens, and external inguinal ring.

At the 2 October 2007 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, one month before separation, the CI reported left testicular pain. Physical examination showed “significant” left testicular tenderness.  No testicular masses were noted.

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB and the VA rated the testicular nerve pain 10%, analogously coded 8730 (neuralgia). The PEB cited inability to perform duties due to pain. The VA rated the condition based on the C&P examination, citing nerve entrapment and pain. A 10% rating is the highest rating for illio-inguinal nerve. There were no other codes applicable to this condition. 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 testicular nerve pain.

BOARD FINDINGS: In the matter of the left testicular nerve pain and IAW VASRD §4.142a, 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:

AR20190012720, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

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.