RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW
NAME:XXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE: PD-2017-04417
BRANCH OF SERVICE:  NAVY	SEPARATION DATE: 20081114

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was a Reserve E5, Cryptologic Technician, medically separated for “back pain secondary to lumbar degenerative disc disease [DDD]” with a disability rating of 20%.

CI CONTENTION: “I was injured in a combat zone and my injuries continue to worsen. I am now disabled and unable to work.” 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 - 20081007	VARD - 20080219	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Back Pain due to DDD	5237	20%	Lumbosacral Strain with Disc Herniation…	5237	10%	20070925	
COMBINED RATING: 20%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: 20%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Back Pain due to DDD. According to the service treatment record (STR) and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI’s low back condition began in autumn of 2006 when he strained his back during deployment to the Persian Gulf. MRI in February 2007 showed DDD at both L4-5 and L5-S1. Surgery was not recommended. At the 25 September 2007 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 14 months before separation, the CI reported stiffness, limited motion, back pain with radiation, leg pain, and leg numbness. Physical examination found tenderness, but no guarding or spasm. There was a normal gait, and thoracolumbar range of motion (ROM) measurements showed flexion of 90 degrees (normal 90) and combined ROM of 235 degrees (normal 240) associated with painful motion.

The 29 July 2008 MEB NARSUM examination, 4 months prior to separation, noted complaints of pain in the right leg that went down the buttock and into the ham strings but stopped at the knee. Physical examination showed a normal gait, and no tenderness. Straight leg raising elicited both back pain and mild radicular leg pain bilaterally, though more so back pain. Thoracolumbar

range of motion (ROM) measurements were flexion of 45 degrees (normal 90), and ROM in lateral bending, axial rotation, and extension were normal.

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB and VA both coded the low back condition 5237 (lumbar spine strain). The PEB rated 20% and the VA rated 10%, based on the C&P examination, citing forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees. The panel agreed that a 20% rating, but no higher, was justified for limitation of flexion (greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees), as reported on the NARSUM examination. 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 condition.

BOARD FINDINGS: In the matter of the back pain due to degenerative disc disease 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.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

2	PD-2017-04417

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:

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.