RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW
NAME:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE:  PD-2017	-0510	9
BRANCH OF SERVICE: MARINE CORPS	SEPARATION DATE: 20040930
SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E3, Rifleman, medically separated for “heat intolerance” with a disability rating of 10%.
CI CONTENTION: The CI makes no contentions. 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 - 20040806	VARD - 20041119	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Heat Intolerance	7999-7900	10%	Status Post Heat Strokes	8999-8911	0%	20040504	
Status Post Heatstroke Times
3 with Altered Mental Status	Cat II					
COMBINED RATING: 10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: 0%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Heat Intolerance. According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI was first diagnosed with heatstroke (and pneumonia) in October 2002 after becoming dizzy and passing out with a high core temperature during a fitness test. He had an episode of heat exhaustion in September 2003, and then in November of 2003, towards the end of a 15-mile march, he experienced body aches, memory problems and passed out. He was hospitalized with evidence of kidney and liver failure that subsequently resolved. Following 8 months of light duty, he continued to have trouble with heat environments.

At the 4 May 2004 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 5 months before separation, the CI reported three heat strokes and the inability to do intense physical exercise. He was not under current treatment and the examiner found no objective residuals. The 23 June 2004 MEB NARSUM examination, 3 months before separation, noted complaints of heat intolerance with a history of three heat strokes. Physical examination was normal and neuropsychiatric evaluation indicated no abnormalities related to heatstroke episodes.

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the heat intolerance 10%, analogously coded 7999-7900 (hyperthyroidism), and listed “status post heatstroke times 3 with altered mental status” as a Category II condition (contributes to the unfitting condition but no separately ratable). Panel members agreed that this diagnosis was intrinsic to the rated condition and that a separate rating could not be supported without pyramiding (VASRD §4.14); thus, it was appropriately subsumed under the same rating. The VA rated the heat intolerance condition 0%, analogously coded 8999-8911 (epilepsy, petit mal), based on the C&P examination, citing no confirmed epilepsy diagnosis and no requirement for continuous medication. The panel found no evidence of renal/muscular symptoms or permanent residuals from the CI’s episodes of heat stroke and/or heat exhaustion on examination. Analogous rating under code 7900 warranted no greater than a 10% rating as there was no tachycardia, tremor, increased pulse pressure, increased blood pressure or continuous requirement for medication to control symptoms. Alternative analogous rating under 8911 was also no greater than 10%. 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 heat intolerance.

BOARD FINDINGS: In the matter of the heat intolerance (with heat strokes) and IAW VASRD
§4.119, 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-2017-05109

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SECRETARY OF TIIE NAVY COUNCIL OF REVIEW BOARDS
720 KENNON STREET SE STE 309
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, DC 20374-5023

IN REPL\' 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.