AR20200004774,

Dear

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

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.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

Printed on	Recycled Paper

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC

Office of the Assistant Secretary

SAF/MRBD (PDBR)
3351 Celmers Lane
JBA NAF Washington, MD 20762-6435

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, ARMY REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY

SUBJECT: Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation on Case Number PD-2017-05272

In accordance with Title 10 § 1554a and in compliance with DoDI 6040.44, the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) adjudicated the disability rating accompanying the medical separation of the covered individual from the United States Army. After carefully reviewing the application and medical separation case file, the PDBR recommended no re-characterization of the separation or modification of the disability rating previously assigned. I recommend you accept this proposed decision.

The covered individual was a National Guard E7, Automated Logistical Sergeant, medically separated for “low back pain” with a disability rating of 10%. The PEB coded 5237 (lumbosacral strain), citing tenderness and combined passive ROM of 222 degrees. The VA also rated the back at 10%, but coded 5243 (intervertebral disc syndrome [IVDS]), based on the Compensation and Pension examination. The panel agreed a 10% rating was justified for the presence of painful motion or tenderness on the preponderance of the examinations, and/or spasm on the narrative summary examination. Although the physical medicine examination may have supported a 20% rating based on limitation of flexion, the examination was further from separation, incomplete, was the single examination showing that degree of limitation, and therefore had lower probative value for rating at separation. 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 evidence of IVDS which resulted in incapacitating episodes requiring physician-prescribed bed rest to warrant consideration of rating under the alternate VASRD formula for that 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 back condition.

Sincerely,	

Attachments: